Government Surveillance Cameras on Every Street Corner?

Lieberman calls for wider use of surveillance cameras

My artificial privacy they may have, but my real privacy, I don't want touched. Go Joe

 

Who watches the watchers? In this day and age of government and police corruption, why should I or anyone else believe that having cameras on every street corner wil help "fight" crime or terrorism? Seems to me the biggest criminals will be the ones in charge of the cameras. Ever hear of Photo Shop, Video and Audio morphing? 30 seconds of your image and 10 seconds of your voice can be turned into anything big brother wants today. Big brother's employee does a crime and needs a fall guy, you could be him. Fighting crime is another euphemism for gaing control over the population, if not by outright force or coercion then by intimidation and the chilling effect of being watched every minute from every angle. Living in fear of your government or police is not freedom.

We're moving closer to Poindexter's "Total Information Awareness" society everyday. Where does it stop? The corner your front door your bedroom your mind? Once eveyone is conditioned to being video taped non stop eveywhere, what then? What happens when the cameras promised crime and terrorism fighting abilities are "proven" to be inadequate? Will we accept more restrictive "crime fighting" tools like implantable RFID chips?

 

Establishments are private. Street corners are not. Furthermore, you don't have to have a warrant to use your own video.

How so? What freedom is taken away by this? I know I am asking the same question over and over ... There's a reason. No one is answering.

So the potential to see your child being carried off by a kidnapper does not overcome the possibility that you may be seen walking on a public street? What if someone is shot and the murder is on camera?

 

Why would you fear your government? Everything you mention here is already possible. I am not sure of the freedom issue involved.

 

I shouldn't have to fear the government, neither should anyone else. I wonder if the 40,000+ folks who had their doors mistakenly broke down by SWAT teams "serving warrants" feared their government? Bet they do now.

 

Then don't.

I don't know of any of these cases that are actually verified. I hear rumors from time to time, mostly from rumormongers and fearmongers. I don't doubt that it happens, but I doubt it is routine. There is no doubt that people in government make mistakes, so who knows. How much did these people get paid after this happened? I know of situations where people want to get beat up by the police because it is an easy way to make money.

 

SOURCE

Back to the OP. With cameras on every street corner, at least the playing field is even. Everyone is equal in the eyes (cameras) of the law. Why should everyone be treated like common criminals and watched 24/7 in the USA the "land of the free"?

 

The fourth amendment of the constitution prevents unreasonable search and seizure...basically, and I'm stretching a bit, your right to privacy.

This amendment was added because, at the time, it was standard practice for governmental forces to take over your home, kick you out, and possibly never let you have your home or possessions back again.

In our day and age, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy that prevents police from pulling you over and simply opening the trunk of your car.

Everything about these cameras violates that reasonable expectation against unreasonable search and seizure, and a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Finally, Pastor Larry, the argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, it shouldn't bother you" is a weak fallacy. Consider the underlying premise: We need a camera on every street corner because we expect people to violate laws. This means that you may not be doing anything wrong, but the government expects you and/or someone else to be doing something wrong, and they're just waiting to catch you doing it; in other words, negative reinforcement.

How about, instead, we start rewarding the law-abiding people? Give those people with no traffic tickets, etc. an additional tax break? People who help the police and the government identify and catch criminals receive some form of recognition or compensation?

Instead of constantly looking for the bad in people, start rewarding the good, and thereby encourage further good behavior?

 

I am not sure exactly what you mean by negative re-inforcement. Are you suggesting that the use of cameras basically tells society "we expect you to commit crime" and this somehow prompts people to fulfill that expectation? That does not sound plausible to me, but maybe that is not your point.

I certainly agree with your "positive re-inforcement" suggestions.

However, I think there is indeed some sense in the "if you're not doing anything wrong, it shouldn't bother you" argument.

Obviously there is potential for abuse. Obviously there is a possible downside to cameras on every corner. Such issues should not, in my view, be decided by appeals to vague ideals such as freedom. Instead, they should probably be decided by more nuts and bolts considerations - the nature of the threat, the expected consequences of 'missing' an event that might otherwise be detected, cost, certification of the people who "monitor" the cameras, and a host of others.

My inclination is to believe that, on balance, the advantages of surveillance outweigh the effects of intruding on "privacy". The nature of our world is such that a single act of terror can kill thousands and inflict ruinous economic damage. The world is not perfect and I would be willing to be taped in public places if that can reduce the terror threat.

 

They're not. The cameras would only be on public streets and you would only be watched when you are there, when you are being watched anyway.

I ask you what I have already asked: So the potential to see your child being carried off by a kidnapper does not overcome the possibility that you may be seen walking on a public street? What if someone is shot and the murder is on camera?

I am uncommitted on this issue. I can see the benefits and dangers, though I don't think the danger is that it takes away freedom. After all, with cameras on the street corners of public streets, I am free to do anything that is legal anyway.

 

Let't take your stretch (and it is a stretch) and ask how that applies here? You are not being searched and are not having anything seized, are you? The fourth amendment does not stop a police officer from watching you in a public place.

Neither of which is being talked about here, is it?

How so? How is a camera on a public street a search and seizure of any type, much less unreasonable? And if you are on a public street, what kind of expectation of privacy do you have?

Paul is the one who made it first, and I don't think the Holy Spirit considered it weak when he inspired it.

Not at all. The cameras would be there because people already violate laws, not because we expect them to.

How is this different than a cop who sits at the side of the road or stands in the mall as security? How is this different than a cop driving his route through a city? Aren't they out there because we expect that people will do wrong and we want to stop them?

This is unmanageable and unwise. When we abide by the law, we are only doing what we should be doing. That's not worthy of a reward.

This already happens.

You have to do both.

So I don't think you have made a cogent argument about privacy.

 

I don't recall you giving any links that I looked at. So I don't know. Given my distrust for politicians and news sources, I don't know how trustworthy they would be. And that would not really be verification. As I say, I don't doubt that this has happened, but is it widespread and frequent? No, probably not. Once is too often, but mistakes happen, and my bet is that these people get handsomely rewarded. (That's not justification for it in anyway.)

 

Yeah! And I'm thinkin that this may be the guy who may replace Tony Snow as the next Press Secretary.

 

Well yeah, why not. I think he could do a heck of a better job at Press Secretary than Tony Snow. You just gotta think poor old Tony is just not putting his heart into it these days, it's like he wants to be fired from his job.

 

Growing up, I always wanted to be the presidential press secretary!
Now I am a press secretary for the King of Kings!

 

I think that proves me right. I said these things happen and they are mistakes. People make them. No actual harm was done, apparently. So thanks Ken, for proving me right.

Sounds like a guy in need of some judgment training. Claiming that he will end up dead on a mistaken house search does not seem like the statement of the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

I haven't seen Tony lately, but I would not be a good one because I won't carry the water for these bozos. I have too much of a conscience about lying and making stuff up.