What Do You Think Of Surveillance Cameras?

[MaximumLawman]

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.

 

[dougb1946]

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.

 

[H Richard]

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

 

[jaykellogg]

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.

 

[Andy Griffith]

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?

"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.

 

[feralmerril]

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!"

 

[Redline911]

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.

 

[gdnagle]

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

 

[MaximumLawman]

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?

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.

If cameras "deter" crime, then the bombing at the Boston Marathon didn't occur.

But it did, so they don't...duh...

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.

 

[kudzu3]

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

 

[Straightshooter2]

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

 

[arjay]

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.

 

[mjr]

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

 

[Straightshooter2]

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

Let's NOT talk about those right now.

CW

 

[Redline911]

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.

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.

 

[jaykellogg]

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.

 

[PA Reb]

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.

 

[MaximumLawman]

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[shouldazagged]

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.

 

[NYlakesider]

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.