Given the huge investigative resource provided by surveillance cameras in public places, what do you think of the idea of placing more of them if they only have views of public areas? More and more people are putting them on their houses (me included). So what do you think of the idea of the government placing them and maintaining the recordings for a period of time, say a month or two or three? As far as I'm concerned, anything you expose to public view (outside of your house) is fair game for anybody's camera: government or otherwise.

England does it. They have audio on a lot of them. Doesn't seem to help. Baseball caps and hoodies coupled with response times lets England have a violent crime rate 4 times the U.S. rate. But I live in a small town. You sneeze, the mayor calls to see if you're okay.

Keep following the Boston marathon case, and you may find out just how valuable more cameras would be.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

As long as they aren't directed to my property I am fine with them. If you are out in public, you have no (zero) expectation of privacy. I understand there are a lot more cameras in Europe than in the USA. Perhaps it'll make some people think if their pictures show up doing something they shouldn't be doing.

Actually there have been cameras pionted at my property and yours also. You would be amazed at what you can see on Google Earth. Also, your local tax collector probably has areal photos of your property.

__________________
Luke 22:36

“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”

I agree with old Alex Hamilton above. Cameras are not the answer, just a means to an ends of removing liberty and freedom. Does the term "1984" mean anything to you?

A vigilantly free society knows that cameras will not deter criminal or terrorist behavior. It might help a bit after the fact, but there are societal problems as to why these things happen anyway.

__________________
Lost it all in a boat accident

With certain limits I suppose them okay. One end of the scale is cameras in stores and casinos to protect their merchandise but I hate them used to raise revenue at stoplights.
We had a radio program lately that had a spot for bad "pickup" lines. I liked the one where the guy said, "Hey baby, how about a date? You can only learn so much with binoculars!"

Cameras have not ever and will not ever prevent crime or keep us safe from danger. They may be useful for catching the perpetrator after the crime has already been committed but that is the fullest extent of them. The rest of the time, the cameras are used to watch the innocent public in their every day lives.

I would prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

Next thing you know they will have them at traffic lights!!!

How are you any "less free" if the government can see, with a camera, what any pedestrian or cop or other government agent could see with his eyes? The 4th amendment against unreasonable search as never covered what you choose to put out in the public view. The cameras aren't looking into your pockets or closed containers. I'm talking about regular digital cameras, not heat-sensing cameras. Also, I'm not talking about cameras to deter crime, I'm talking about cameras to solve crimes.

As I predicted in the initial bombing thread, this case is going to be solved thanks to cameras, videotaping what is in public view, and I would also guess, cell phone records. Hence the reason I started this thread. Again, not a deterrent, but an investigative resource.

I have no problem with them as long (as stated above) as they're not directed at my property.

Somebody ran a Dodge truck through the front of a LGS the other night. They had several surveillance cameras and didn't do a bit of good as the bad guys were wearing hoodies and the truck was stolen. They were in and out in 1:40 and the police arrived at 1:50. Had a getaway car in back of the store and the police approached from the front. Apparently these three or four guys are out of Houston have been doing this all over the south. They hit only pharmacies for drugs and gun stores for handguns. Places that usually have lots of surveillance cameras. Oh yeah, my LGS locks everything in their safes at night. Nothing but empty boxes in the counter.

Oh the other hand, the guy who was picked out of a lineup by three people as the shooter who injured five people is probably glad for the surveillance camera at Wally World which caught him on time stamp video at the same time as the shooting.

There's an upside and a downside to it but like someone said, you really don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're out in public. In fact, I was at the Delta Credit Union the other day and while signing in to see a Member Services Rep, the lady at the desk asked me to tilt my hat back so the camera behind her could get a good look at me.

CW

__________________
μολὼν λαβέ

As long as we can keep debating these things and have a say in what happens,we will remain relatively free.The threat comes from those who demand absolute safety,which is impossible.

Cameras are fine with me. Like Winston Smith, I have grown to love Big Brother.

Let's NOT talk about those right now.

CW

__________________
μολὼν λαβέ

Are those cameras going to reattach the victim's legs or remove the ball bearing shrapnel from limbs? I know that you already know that answer to that question. The cameras are not going to fix anything that happened. They might help us put someone in federal prison to the tune of 35+K a year at tax payer expense. Success, I guess.

Regarding Boston, I am absolutely sure that the persons responsable were seen by many people, but the ability to put the video together is a valuable resource for LE. The camera never forgets and never remembers incorrectly. I do see a proliferation of cameras as somewhat intrusive.

I am afraid we're debating locking the barn door after the horse has already escaped.

__________________
Luke 22:36

I have mixed emotions about these cameras but I believe its very sad that we live in a world where things like this seem needed. I don't believe they will ever completely deter crime but, in a case like Boston, I hope they will help put someone on death row.

I guess I'll have to say it a third time: Investigative resource, NOT deterrent. Yes, it IS important to arrest and deal with the people and organizations who do these sorts of things.

I had a camera on my house that provided photos that were the only lead the cops had on a huge burglary ring. I never got any of my stuff back but it sure feels good to know the cops were able to follow the guy and watch him do another burglary and put him away for a few years and get a bunch of other leads on the rest of his crew. I would have no problem with a "government" camera that recorded a view of the street that could provide lead like vehicle or suspect photo when the criminals are active...

They way I look at it, the police have always "needed" the kinds of leads that cameras can provide. Even back to the Robert Peel days. The difference is that now we have efficient and effective film-less cameras that can be used to monitor public areas without being constitutionally obtrusive.

Plenty of debate still rages on. My town was considering using some grant money for installing cameras to monitor the borders of the ghetto city next door. Although perfectly constitutional, the politicians thought it would get the voters too exited and nixed the idea.

This discussion is YEARS too late, folks. Privacy is an almost extinct species. When you fired up your first computer and set up an Internet account you lost most of it. When you got your first cell phone you lost some more, and the smart phones combine the two. That's not conspiracy theorizing, which I generally find laughable, it's simple fact. When you use your courtesy card at the supermarket or stop-and-rob your purchase goes into a database. Marketers everywhere can tap into all kinds of data about you, your buying habits, where you live, and on and on.

Cameras in public places are the least of my worries. No, they didn't prevent the Boston bombing. They may bring the twisted animals who did it to justice, and that's damned important. I'm not talking about the speed-trap kind, but the ones that observe public behavior that is on view anyway. If they bust one thug who mugs an old lady or someone handicapped, I think that's great even if they didn't prevent the crime.

Rather than worrying about loss of privacy in out-in-the-open actions in public space, think about how much all kinds of crooked marketers already know about what you do in your home.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

My personal option of surveillance cameras, another mile down the road to an even larger Big Brother.

With that said after this I suspect there will be a lot more cameras and related equipment going into use around the country. Perhaps the companies making this equipment would be a good pick if you play the stock market. Any of our people familiar with this kind of equipment, care to name the companies making this product.

__________________
14 S&W Revs none with locks!

I'm in the process of shopping for one for the car,In congested NJ we are not only susceptible to incidents of road rage with soaring insurance but because of our convoluted gun ordinances, LEO's are frequently not always well versed in what is legal or not, so to protect myself when transporting firearms to and from the range I think it wise to have a video/audio record of potential stops.

From what I've heard, supposedly anyone that has a smart TV has a surveillance camera built in. The Govn. financed the research and development of these to be able to monitor you inside your home using video and audio. All falls under the homeland security act. Same thing goes with computer, mobile phones and tablets. They can now track you through the GPS even if the phone is turned off. Our tv model was offered with or without the camera. We bought our tv without the camera just in case there's some truth to it all. Just a matter of time and we will all have implanted data chips. No more privacy for anyone, Surveillance this!

I think that cameras are an invasion of privacy and a loss of rights and freedom. I am sure they will use them in crime fighting and I'll bet they will also be used for things they are not telling us about as well. It's too easy not to. BIG BROTHER is here to stay.

To me the BEST thing about being an American is being free. Giving up freedom by agreeing to be watched everywhere we go is NOT worth the price IMHO.

Check out L3 Communications. They're either a division of Dyncorps or Dyncorps is a division of L3. They do everything from video stuff to armed contractors in war zones to intelligence analysis.

As a privacy issue, zagged is absolutely right. Cameras in public places are the least of our worries. For a fee, you would be amazed and pissed about what kind of info. is readily available about you from various database services. They even list a bunch of your friends and relatives and THEIR friends and relatives. Which is why I often give fake information on various forms. There are so many phone number and addresses floating around for me out there it would take the solicitors a week to figure it out.

I suppose they do have a place for investigation purposes, but, it seems we are willing to trade more freedom for safety. There are so many now it's probably a moot point. The Bill of Rights and Constitution only guarantee freedom, not safety. I think more and more people seem to confuse this idea and will trade one for the concept of the other and get neither in the long run. A master is still a master, even if you think he is a good one.

Foodfuzz, you've got it right on.

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

Really.....

And there's a big room full of thousands of government spies sitting and watching the millions of TV cameras of the public watching TV?

Hmmmm sounds reasonable.

Did you know the government has brain thought readers installed in all the ceiling fans sold in the US.

The hum of the fan hides the hum that brain scanners naturally emit. Turning the fan off doesn't stop the brain scan either because they have a special circuit that can power the brain scanner for several days if it is powered off....

That's why I wear a tin foil hat! You have to get the heavy duty foil, and use a triple layer. It also helps if you scribble inside the first layer with black magic marker to mask any readings they may get if the larger and more powerful helicopter-mounted brain scanner flies over your house.

I usually hide in my big chest freezer when a helicopter flies over.

__________________
Kirk / Spock 2020

They are on traffic lights in my town. We even get tickets in the mail. Going on 10 years now.

I knew it....I just knew it.

Again, how are you any less "free" with cameras present that are focused on a public area?

Meh; except for repositioning my junk, flicking a booger, or lifting my leg to pass gas, I don't do much of interest. "They" are welcome to film it. Joe

__________________
Wisdom chases me; I'm faster

I have no problem with them, I don't do anything that would interest anyone. (boring life huh?) Might have been bothered 40 years ago but not now. I got a traffic ticket once from a stoplight camera and I was sure that I always came to a complete stop so I went to court, they played the video, and sure enough, I rolled right through it, I was embarrassed and paid the fine. (the judge did cut it in half, maybe the look on my face when I realized that I was wrong did it.)

__________________
Minimize the variables

I think the idea of cameras around our home is a must and as soon as I can afford to hire a professional they're being installed. We live in a neighborhood where car break-ins and house break-ins are a little too common. My vehicle and trailer broken into three times in two yrs. Neighbors have talked about putting up cameras too. Together we can cover the entire front of both homes.

"Look" at it this way...A picture is worth a 1000 words...

Cameras...Cameras are used to take Mug shots....After the person has been apprehended, yes, to document who's who.

The mug shot book can be used by a victim to identify a perp.

Cameras are used to document the crime scene, Those can be used for evidence.

Even though we don't like it, cameras are used as evidence for the red light runners. (Don't do the crime..you won't have to pay the fine)

As mentioned in dept stores, yes they do deter crime..(Not always, there's always some dumb **** that wants to be in the movies!!!)

Where would Alan Funt have been without his Candid Camera?

Don't like cameras? I just read within the past 5 days about a city that has those "Shot Locators" posted about in the high crime area...Guess what...The location was right to the door step, and the dummy was still standing outside with his gun in hand.

I am leery about having the "Black Box" in all new vehicles. That's my vehicle. It does not belong to the mfg'r or the insurance co. (I know, I know, they can get a subpoena to get it from you)

There's a lot of things our founding fathers never realized, when the Constitution and amendments were drafted....

And I suppose the nay sayers don't have a Facebook account. (I don't, for that very reason)

If it hadn't been for Mathew Brady, I wouldn't have known who won the Civil War.


WuzzFuzz

There was a guy that got a ticket in the mail with a picture of him running a red light.

He sent in a picture of the money to pay the fine.

The cops sent him a picture of handcuffs.

He paid the fine.

__________________
Kirk / Spock 2020

I suppose people arent as prone to break in cars in a parking lot if there are warning signs you are being filmed etc. We had em on my job where I was a guard 40 years ago. Our camera was on top of our highest building and I could move and zero in on some of our parking lots and a lot of areas. Actualy I cant remember ever actualy stoping a thief with it. I suppose some of my co workers may have, just cant remember any big incidents useing it.

There is both good and bad with cameras, but in the end will the bad outweigh the good? How much Big Brother watching you do you want? Remember, today's citizen can be tomorrow's criminal simply by an edict or a new law. Take every thing the government is in favor of with a grain of salt.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

What exactly is "public view?"

To some in the .gov, it is anything that can be seen. If they have a drone/plane/satellite or camera on a pole or tall building that can see into my backyard over my fence and into my window, most would consider that "public view." Team that with recognition software, HD extreme cameras, and you can track anyone without lifting a finger. I am not a criminal, but the system has just turned society from free to a "guilty until proven innocent."

The UK is a prime example of the camera ideal run amok!

__________________
Lost it all in a boat accident

What is 'public view'??

I heard a judge once rule that gals in public can be photographed from any angle.

That led to the up-skirt websites and down-blouse websites. Nowadays most of those are posed I bet, but some guys made a killing with shoe cameras and cameras hidden in bags.

I know if someone took advantage of one of my ladies like that he'd get a lesson in manners....


.

__________________
Kirk / Spock 2020

I can't believe the nonchalant additude and comments that have been posted.
Haven't we heard almost the same arguments used to promote the reasons for gun registration, etc.?
I'm sure that everyone has read or heard the quote, "He who gives up freedom for safety, deserves neither" or "if it only saves one child, it's worth it", or, "I'm from the Government and here to help you", or "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't object, etc".
I understand the LEO's desire for the help a video might give to solve or help solve a crime that has "already" occurred, but if we let that become the overriding reason, then why not require that everyone wear a name sign on their chest and back when out in public. It just seems to me, freedom is more then just a catch phase, or at least it was.
By the way, why do many LEO's dislike the public to video their actions, afterall, the LEO's aren't breaking any laws are they??
IF, the Government were to install camera's that WOULDN'T be active EXCEPT when an emergency is declared, I might agree, of course they "could even abuse that".

If anyone wants to install or place a camera on "THEIR" property, more power to them, just not the Government and all over the public area's. Just my 2 cents worth.
baldeagle8888

This could get messy.

Yes you would expect to maintain your privacy in a public rest room.

No you could not expect privacy just walking down the public street.

Yes you could expect to maintain privacy while sun bathing in the nude in your back yard.

No you cannot expect privacy at the nude beach.

Yes you can expect privacy of your phone calls.

No you cannot expect privacy in conversation with another on a street corner.

The difference is the Expectancy of privacy....

One cannot walk down the street in public view and expect all of your actions be private in nature. There are places for one's privacy, and then there are those for all the world to see.

You cannot expect privacy at the ball park...The TV camera roves around and sees you kissing someone other than your sweetheart. One cannot expect privacy in a public ball park.

It's the ole squabble of the movie stars, expecting their lives in public to be private, when they have held themselves out to be a public figure. Kind of tough to have it both ways.

I understand what you are saying baldeagle, the fear of giving an inch and taking a mile. But how about crossing that bridge when we get there? Or are you already preparing for the next gun confiscation go around, and this one is hardly cold in it's grave?


WuzzFuzz

I don't mind cameras. Don't think it would prevent terrorist attacks-might even place a higher value on that particular target. Never really felt that my privacy was violated by a camera when out in public. When in public I just assume that I am on camera-don't care.

What I do know is that the local mall did not go along with my camera placement suggestions and I was asked to stay off their property. Guess ya have to be special and follow guidelines and stuff to place cameras around. Who knew?

I have 8 cameras around my property. They weren't all that expensive , but if anyone comes around my house or garage , they're on candid camera.

I worked for a company that made very powerful and expensive cameras for forgien and domestic alphabet soup Gov't and LE agencies. They can take a drivers license quality photo from a L-O-N-G ways away.

Sounds like the same crowd that hit an lgs here, or at least copycats. As far as video surveillance goes I don't mind it since it has at least led to apprehension of perps. There was a guy here who fell asleep in his car in a parking lot when someone came up to the car and shot him. They got the perp and two of his cohorts because of the cameras.

I'm a realist about the privacy we've already lost. Don't like it worth a damn, and definitely am not "lackadaisical" or nonchalant about it, but it's here. The genie has escaped the jug, the toothpaste is out of the tube.

On the other hand, I see absolutely no point in participating in Facebook, MySpace, or any of the so-called "social media platforms". How many times has Facebook issued a statement that began with "Oops! We seem to have let some of your personal data get loose somehow, but we're fixing it right now"?

My much-younger sister (she's 63) thinks I'm a hopeless Luddite and throwback because I won't get with the program, but I'm not interested in it, and nobody needs to be told of my mundane, dull activities. It's been used to ruthlessly bully teenagers, defame and libel adults, wreck marriages and business partnerships, and on and on. I say to hell with it. I feel no need to risk what few shreds of privacy I have left.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

George Zimmerman probably wouldn't mind a little video to back up his story. How many times have you seen criminals use the system to turn the story around and claim themselves to be the victim. Cameras would settle that. The only thing I don't like about cameras is being an old fart I sometimes gotta stop the truck and pee (like right now) in some out of the way place.

__________________
SOS USA

Facial recognition software...

No, don't like em at all. We need more cops on the street.

The cost of putting up so many cameras could be a years wage to a good cop. Maybe more.

And with cameras people get lazy. The rely on them too much.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

+ lots to all this, especially the part I highlighted. When a surveillance camera climbs down off a pole and slaps cuffs on a perp I might be persuaded to accept generalised surveillance. I'm sorry, but I do not feel that this practice has any place in a free society.

To say that they would only be used for investigative purposes after a crime rather than general snooping is naive, to put it politely. The phrase "thin end of the wedge" applies here.

That's my opinion, too. If the police can use the footage from an ATM or the 7-Eleven to catch a crook, go for it. If the camera owner doesn't want to turn over the footage, the police can get a warrant, just like they have to do to get a lot of their other evidence. We don't need the government a) spending money they don't have, and b) acting any more like Big Brother than they already do.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

__________________
Insert short witty words here