I am all for civil liberties, but have no issue with cameras everywhere!

[Logical]

They solve so many crimes. And help catch abusive cops. And can also prove people are innocent.
So the more cameras the better. This bomber could be tracked from their car to the bomb location.
I think NYC is right on this one.
I will take 100000 cameras for one more damn addition to the Patriot act or more warrant-less wiretapping.

[Rex]

1. I do.

No cameras in the bedroom...sorry GOP.

[Logical]

5. LOL, sorry. It is true that I need to remember those idiots. n-t

[Rex]

10. Yes they are the only ones that would

want to make sure we are 'doing it in the correct fashion'.

Otherwise, I am like you and have NP with them. I already see them almost at every bridge on the Interstate when I travel. I believe TDOT must have thousands and thousands of them. If they can catch just ONE crime, cop abuse or a carjacking I don't care, then I believe they are good to have around.

[Logical]

23. I agree! n-t

[geek tragedy]

2. I've never understood the vehemence of objections to cameras in PUBLIC

places. By definition there's no right to privacy there.

[Logical]

6. So true! A stranger could video you, nothing you can do about it. n-t

[JVS]

108. Wouldn't you consider a stranger filming you in all public places to be stalking?

[Logical]

110. If they followed you, but randomly taping anyone is legal. N-t

[JVS]

111. If they had enough cameras, they wouldn't need to follow you.

[WinkyDink]

41. So all land not actually owned by someone is open for surveillance? Thank you, Big Brother.

[geek tragedy]

44. All land not owned by someone is owned by the government.

And, please tell me how someone has an expectation of privacy in Times Square.

[WinkyDink]

64. I do know the rest of the equation. I'm old enough to remember anonymity.

[geek tragedy]

81. You have much less anonymity online than you do on the

most heavily camera-monitored street on earth.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

112. Actually land visible from public areas is also allowed to be filmed

[krispos42]

75. Because it's government tracking you.

It's not just a cop watching a bank of video screens. It's all being recorded. Permanently. And with facial recognition, the government will be able to, if they aren't already, have a complete record of all of your places you visit, who you interact with and for how long.


Forever.

there is a huge difference in being outside in a crowd and being tracked. I don't expect privacy in public, but I do expect anonymity.

Seemless, noninvasive "papers please" is what it is. Might as well wear a license plate around your neck.

[bluestate10]

96. Do you buy into that paranoid view? The government is not tracking you or me.

The film will be looked only a crime or alleged crime took place in view of the camera. New York City has cameras on streets and sidewalks, those cameras don't bother me because I don't do anything of interest to people that will view the feed from the camera.

[krispos42]

115. *snort*

Do you really think that warrantless wiretaps were only used to track terrorists?

Do you really think that emails and text messages aren't routinely filtered by the NSA for keywords and such?

It doesn't matter if they're doing it NOW. It is being recorded. It will be done, and when facial-tracking software is sophisticated enough, they can go call up video taken years ago and start retroactively tracking people.

Hell, where I live they cop cars have cameras mounted on both sides of the trunk. The police computer inside automatically runs every license plate it sees for expiration of registration or insurance. How much longer before those cameras are looking at people?

The technology WILL be developed. Imagine this... Targets gets facial recognition software for all their cameras. Pretty soon, every shoplifter's face is put into a master database, so once a person is suspected of shoplifting, that person cannot enter any Target, ever. As soon as they do, Loss Prevention intercepts them and makes them leave. On the spot.

You think that's not marketable? My sister-in-law is a manager at Victoria's Secret, a store manager. Her tales of shoplifting theft are pretty impressive. It would be worth a lot of money to VS, because as soon as a theft is discovered, the cameras would backtrack and find the shoplifter, then that person would not be allowed in VS again.

There is huge money in this, and it will trickle down to the police.

People will get caught up in this. A guy robs a liquor store, and the police computers back-track his last weeks activities. And, oh, look, turns out you talked with him for a few minutes in line at Starbucks. Now the cops are pounding on your door.



Will you say "it's okay for the police to have my fingerprints and DNA because I don't do anything interesting?"

[cali]

3. right because having the gov't watch you whenever you are in public is

just so.... big brother.

thankfully I live in the boondocks. anyway, they'll go for the cameras and additions to the patriot act and more encroachments of every imaginable kind.

[Common Sense Party]

8. I, too, am blessed to be in the boonies.

But when I go into the big cities, I just take it for granted that I'm almost always on camera.

Sometimes I do a little dance number, just to entertain whoever is watching.

[alcibiades_mystery]

114. You're on camera, but nobody's watching (There's no Big Brother Behind the Curtain)

That's the modern state of privacy. It's a mix of 1984 and the Wizard of Oz: there are cameras, and they're recording, but nobody watches that shit - there is no Big Brother Behind the Curtain. Unless they need to.

[geek tragedy]

17. Those of us in densely populated cities pretty much

assume we're being watched when in public, because we're surrounded by people.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

4. $$$$$$$

[MrSlayer]

7. One nation under surveillance.

No thanks. I don't wish for my every move to be tracked and monitored. Fuck this big brother shit.

[cthulu2016]

9. Missing a Sarcasm Tag?

[Logical]

18. LOL, I assume you realize I mean public? Not your house. And you have no privacy in public anyway!

[WinkyDink]

42. That is patently untrue. We USED to have---what WAS that word?---ANONYMITY.

[Gormy Cuss]

57. The right to be let alone, as Justice Brandeis put it.

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/harvard__law_review.htm

[WinkyDink]

65. We don't have a Brandeis, either, alas.

[wryter2000]

11. IMHO, I have no right to privacy on a public street

I don't have a problem with cameras in public places.

[Occulus]

13. You deserve neither security nor freedom

[geek tragedy]

16. What right to privacy on a public street is there? nt

[Logical]

19. I think you are confused. n-t

[Occulus]

24. Not at all. If you support this shit you give terrorism a complete win.

The point of terrorism is to alter our own behavior toward a reduction of actual American freedom. By supporting this shit you hand every terrorist that ever was the victory they seek through their own acts.

You, and everyone who supports increased surveillance and such things, ARE the enemies of freedom. End of discussion.

[randome]

28. Screw the terrorists. Our worst enemy has always been ourselves.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. Absolutely!

[Logical]

37. No camera would alter my behavior. Shit, you have no idea when you are recorded.....

day to day anyway.

Public surveillance is legal. And should be.

You sound like the cops whining about citizens taping them. Jesus. Go to the 'Photography is not a crime' website.

You are in black helicopter mode. LOL.

[Occulus]

47. It doesn't NEED to alter your behavior at all.

All that's needed is for you to look like someone else who did something on camera for your life to be turned upside down and inside out.

Of course, police always question the right people and prosecutors always try the correct suspects so this isn't a real problem.

Right?

See the issue now?

[Logical]

49. I trust videos more than cops words. Or eye-witnesses. n-t

[Occulus]

50. It's your car, but were you driving?

And if not, do you deserve to get a ticket for something another driver did?

That's where it begAN. As in, already started.

Unintended consequences are a righteous bitch, and once this shit starts gaining support, it's full speed ahead, and damn the consequences.

Even for the actually innocent.

[randome]

21. A 'security' camera is not some Big Brotherish play on words, you know.

They provide security, especially in big cities. And with some small measure of security, people feel they have the freedom to go out in public.

It's not that difficult to see. And it's not a way to trick anyone.

[wryter2000]

22. It's the same as having a police officer there

I believe police are allowed on the street to observe what's going on.

There's nothing to keep individuals from video-ing me on their cell phones. It's public. Anyone there can see anything I'm doing.

If you're talking in my home, that's an entirely different story. Same thing for my telephone or what's in my computer. There's a difference between what I do in private and what I do in public.

[Occulus]

26. No it is not.

Police can be confronted in court. Cameras cannot.

Cameras everywhere is the antithesis of actual freedom. The OP and those like him treat Orwell's 1984 as an instruction manual instead of the warning it actually was.

Fuck that. Right in the ear.

[wryter2000]

30. Yeah, and police can lie

And people using their cell phones can verify what really happens on the street. Are you going to pass a law against people using cell phones to video what goes on on the public streets?

[Occulus]

32. Private citizens are not law enforcement.

Nice try though.

[randome]

31. You sound like someone who lost against a red light camera.

Cameras are evidence, nothing more.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. You beat me to it ...

I was going to say, cameras are "confronted" every day that traffic court is in session. And I was going to ask what he/she thought he/she was doing when he/she said to the court, "That isn't my car" or, "Yeah, that's was my car; but I wasn't driving it ... see I got drunk and loaned my car to a friend ... No, I don't remember which friend; I was drunk."?

[Bay Boy]

35. Not sure what you mean...

..."Police can be confronted in court. Cameras cannot"
Can you give an example?

[Occulus]

46. The first one that leaps to mind is intersection cameras

Laws are being proposed right now that would convict OWNERS of vehicles of moving violations based solely on camera video regardless of who is actually driving (I forget which state).

So, if you happened to be dressed the same as someone who did something that was caught on camera, and were caught by other cameras in the area, even though you were totally innocent.... well.

Don't need no proof, son- the camera saw YOU there! Prove this other person WASN'T you.

Defend against that. We're into the territory of "proving innocence" on your part, and it's NOT supposed to work that way. In fact, it's the exact reverse of how the "justice" system is supposed to determine guilt.

[Bay Boy]

58. OK...

..that was a good example.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. Not true n/t

[Occulus]

113. What part?

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. This ...

Laws are being proposed right now that would convict OWNERS of vehicles of moving violations based solely on camera video regardless of who is actually driving (I forget which state).

[Occulus]

122. Now that you've had all night to provide proof (and failed), here's proof you're wrong

about it not being true:

http://news.msn.com/us/devils-bill-would-make-red-light-camera-tickets-not-open-for-debate

Next time you give a declarative like that one, you may find it wise to Google a little, first.

[WinkyDink]

43. How about searches and seizures?

[wryter2000]

62. Are you searching me if you're standing next to me waiting for a bus?

I'm not going to allow anyone to undress me or search me without due process. Same thing with having my property seized.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

93. Privacy, probably not. Anonimity, yes we do.

And as has been mentioned, with cameras comes soon facial recognition.

[bluestate10]

99. I wonder why anyone would have a problem with cameras in public spaces. There seems to be

inherent paranoia in some people and it doesn't seem to matter that the Paranoid in left-wing or right-wing.

[randome]

12. Agreed.

Public spaces are different from private spaces.

[Hoyt]

14. I agree. I think surveillance cameras are one reason crime is down recently.

It would be nice if authorities did not use them to go after people for minor crimes. Therefore, I think some new laws would be necessary to protect citizen rights -- but in the case of this bombing, or murders, etc., I don't see a problem with cameras.

[defacto7]

15. Another sign of the times...

A few years ago I'd be totally against it. Now I see no problem. It's too bad it's come to this though.

[Logical]

20. I agree. n-t

[davidn3600]

25. All hail, Big Brother!

[Occulus]

29. And they defend it as virtue.

They and those like them are part of the core of everything wrong with America.

[jazzimov]

107. Did you even read the book?

The issue was that they had NO privacy anywhere, even in their own home. If you are in Public, your actions are open to scrutiny by everyone. Big difference.

[JVS]

109. Don't exaggerate. Winston had his little corner.

[Earth_First]

27. Unfortunately today it's CCTV, tomorrow it's DHS road patrols, next week it's roving TSA agents...

It's a slippery slope which leads to further government enslavement.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. x2

[Logical]

40. Well, camera might help stop roving patrols. n-t

[Blue_Tires]

72. What more disturbing is how comfortable we as a people are in

a 'surveillance society' where nothing is private (or even expected to be)...Especially the younger generation -- Flame away, but this disturbing trend of "gangrape-a-drugged-girl-then-post-the-pics-and-video-online" is a shining example of this...The mere fact that perpetrators would willingly record their own evidence of committing a crime, share it online, and have the nerve to be shocked when the law comes knocking speaks to something deeper and uglier than we'd care to confront...

There is something very, very wrong when some fight-assault-incident-disaster-etc. happens, bystanders are more likely to pull out their phones and start recording instead of dialing 911 or intervening to help...How many thousands of youtube/meme superstars were recorded or photographed without their knowledge? We don't need the FBI, DHS, NYPD, etc. to record us; we willingly and enthusiastically do it to ourselves...

[hack89]

36. Combined with face recognition software and license plate scanners

the government could have awareness of you every move. Why is this a good thing? Have you forgotten that historically the biggest violators of our civil rights have been the police, FBI and intelligence agencies?

[derby378]

38. You know, certain Communist nations were big into cameras, too

They made a very effective intimidation tool. And for those who dared oppose tyranny, cameras made it easier for party officials to track the troublemakers down.

The cult of surveillance must be curtailed before our rights are bartered away.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. And Hitler was a vegetarian.

(actually he wasn't, but I hope the point is clear?)

[derby378]

56. I don't think Hitler ever beat a Jew with a carrot

I do see what you're getting at, but I still disagree.

[bluestate10]

100. London is full of street cameras. When was England a communist state? I seem to have missed that. nt

[derby378]

121. I have a big problem with their cameras, too (n/t)

[WinkyDink]

39. "They solve so many crimes." Is there any evidence for your adjective, let alone adverb?

[Logical]

45. Really, you want a list of crimes solved by recorded video? n-t

[WinkyDink]

66. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

[randome]

70. So convenience store robberies in which the robber is identified via camera should be thrown out?

A parking garage camera that captures someone stealing a car should be thrown out?

Shoplifters can go about their business confident that only cameras might catch them in the act?

[alarimer]

48. There is no evidence that they do anything of the sort.

In any case, someone has to be on those cameras all the time in order to stop something in progress. At best, they might provide evidence after the fact.

And who watches the watchers?

[Logical]

51. Recorded video solves crimes all the time. n-t

[patrice]

52. I don't understand why the rights of the collective wouldn't exceed my individual rights when I

am "in the collective's house", public, especially if I have an intent to do something that affects the collective and/or one or more of the collective's members.

Isn't a claim for secrecy/anonymity IN A PUBLIC PLACE a privilege to treat that which is public as if it were one's own PRIVATE property?

These are the sorts of things I think when I see pictures of KKK in ritual garb in public places.

[cthulu2016]

53. The Borg are applauding. ALL of them.

[patrice]

86. You may think those people in the streets of Boston are machines, but the rest of us don't. nt

[patrice]

87. More PROPAGANDA, btw. But then I have grown not to expect free thinking from you. nt

[patrice]

88. And Ayn Rand is applauding you for your exploitation of that which belongs to OTHERS. nt

[patrice]

90. You know exploitation is stealing, don't you? I have heard, through various channels, that stealing

is blessed by emo progs. Too bad that cost a certain young man I knew a night of gang-rape.

[WinkyDink]

67. Big Brother thanks you.

[patrice]

82. You're welcome to you whatever brand of propaganda YOU are pedalling, perhaps, for Ayn Rand.

Which ONE person OWNS everything else that most of the rest of us share. You're implying that any ONE person has a right to do whatever they want, including doing things that can affect anyone and everyone else, and they may do so with resources that ALL of us provide, and they may do so without requesting permission to do so.

Are you a terrorist?

[randome]

83. Are you really foolish enough to think that all cameras throughout the country are connected?

And that there is a 'central processing agency' or something that reviews the MILLIONS of hours of footage?

[davidn3600]

116. There is one in Utah for your emails that Obama is spending billions to build

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

[woo me with science]

55. The propaganda gets creepier and creepier. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

79. Most common response from those agreeing with this insanity; "I don't understand".

Pretty much says it all...

[Occulus]

98. Second most common response: "I don't have anything to hide."

Says a lot, too.

[Egalitarian Thug]

119. Yep. It says that they have not yet had any close encounters with those that want this.

Everybody's got something to hide. Lack of imagination is a terrible handicap.

[patrice]

84. Do you think ONLY those who disagree with you are capable of propaganda? If you do, isn't YOUR

assumption about that your own propaganda?

Please tell us, who died and made you God?

[Egalitarian Thug]

117. And just how would this proposed surveillance society have prevented this?

Catching the bad guys is all well and good, but the act is done. Putting them in prison, or killing them won't help any of the victims and there's a legion of new bad guys waiting in the wings to carry on the mission.

Can't you see that this is a terrifying road that leads to a dead end?

[patrice]

85. Speaking of propaganda, How many dead innocents are the price for what woo "thinks"?

The difference between you and PO is that he at least admits the truth about what he is doing: drones kill.

Please tell us how many dead innocent people are too high a price to pay for what you think is right.

[Bennyboy]

59. I agree

.Nobody can possibly be watching them in real time. Do you think that there is a paid employee watching every camera ? that' is one hell of a lot of Gov't jobs right there.

they solve crimes, disputes, and prevent theft.

[The2ndWheel]

60. I don't even know that there's a for or against position on this at this point

At least one that matters anyway. It just is. Basically every person has a camera. Basically every building has one.

I would think the long term goal is a global panopticon of some sort.

[WinkyDink]

68. People and private enterprise are not, FYI, the same as the government, which can arrest and

imprison WITHOUT TRIAL.

[Bonhomme Richard]

61. It amazes me the things that fear will cause you to accept or..

give up.
Just because they are watching doesn't mean I have to accept it.
It sounds like that"if you aren't doing anything wrong" meme.
We have become a nation of weenies.

[eallen]

63. If an American in 1900 had an issue with automobiles...

Perhaps that would be prescience. Perhaps foolishness. Depending on the issue in mind. It wouldn't much matter to the automobile's ascendance. Whether Canute hated the tide or welcomed it or did some of both, it nonetheless came.

All notions of privacy are under a similar technological onslaught. We didn't lose our privacy to a police state, but to the cellphone and Facebook.

[LittleBlue]

69. No way. The Brits let this happen and now

they're having second thoughts. The whole country is under surveillance. We don't need a police state.

A YouGov poll published on December 4, 2006, indicated that 79% of those interviewed agreed that Britain has become a 'surveillance society’ (51% were unhappy with this).[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#United_Kingdom

[WinkyDink]

71. Maybe everybody should raise their middle finger of one hand and pick their nose with the other, to

disgust those running-dogs who watch the government surveillance tapes.

[randome]

73. I would hazard a guess that most cameras are privately owned by businesses.

If you want to pick your nose in public, go for it.

[Libertas1776]

74. i don't think we need...

i don't think we need to jump to that necessity at this point nor in the foreseeable future. In a case like London, which is both famous and infamous for its extensive CCTV network, one just need look at its history. Primarily in the 1970s, early 80s, and a few occasions in the 90s, London suffered events similar to if not exceeding the damage and death done by the tragedy in Boston, usually perpetrated by the Provisional IRA and like groups, though a few times perpetrators were not related to the Anglo-Irish conflict. Multiple deaths, scores of grievous injuries, lost limbs and the obvious ensuing chaos were common results of various planted bombs, car bombings, etc. in public places, government buildings, public gatherings etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London


So while an extensive CCTV network may be odious on a civil liberties level/ privacy rights etc., in a case like London, after so many terrorist incidents, in seems only an eventuality that cameras would become commonplace. Fortunately, I don't believe we have reached such a regrettably necessary point, nor will we ever, in any major American city on par with London's CCTV. So we keep our fingers crossed.

[sylvi]

76. LOL

"I will take 100000 cameras for one more damn addition to the Patriot act or more warrant-less wiretapping."

Do you think acquiescence to having such an increase in the surveillance state encourages or discourages people like the authors of the Patriot Act? Do you think it would lead to less or more of the same?

Not all loss of freedom comes directly from violation of a right. There is absolutely no right that prevents a citizen on the street from being approached and questioned by cops, as long as they don't try to detain you. But if you had cops approaching you and asking questions every block, would you really be as free as without? Freedom is a state of mind as well as a physical state.

It's just mind-boggling to me how quick some people are willing to give more tools to the police state and MIC to surveil and enforce their will on the populace, a police and MIC that has proven time and again who they serve at the expense of the common citizen, and the horrendous abuses they're willing to perpetrate in order to serve those masters. It surprises me even more that it comes from some people who would stand in front of a mirror and call themselves Liberals, and for basically the same reason that conservatives were willing to give over the country's freedoms post 9/11.

[JI7]

77. i agree, everyone has cameras these days anyways

i think cameras are better than things like weapons when it comes to stopping crime also.

the big brother stuff is so exaggerated. many areas in big cities already have them. there aren't people who are going to go through everything every single day to check what every person on there is up to. people usually check if there was some incident that happened. but just having them helps to prevent certain bad things from happening.

when i think of that zimmerman and neighborhood watch crap i always wonder why don't they just put some cameras out and let people know . i would rather do that than some thug like zimmerman be armed going after people.

[rucky]

78. As long as they're placed in public places

where there are no expectations of privacy, it's no different than having an eyewitness at the scene - except cameras are more reliable.

[DCBob]

80. Me too. They have become law enforcements best tool.

Criminals cannot hide anymore.

[kentuck]

89. You're OK with cameras?

How do you feel about profiling? Is that over the line?

[patrice]

92. Profiling is bad. Would cameras necessarily need profiling in order to be useful?

Couldn't cameras be useful in picking up on things like abandoned bags and backpacks?

I know what the valid critique is of what I have just suggested. What shall we do? What else is there?

Just let all of this continue? Is that REALLY okay?

What are the steps toward an effective change?

[woo me with science]

95. Or microphones.

They're on the way, too.

Public Buses Across Country Quietly Adding Microphones to Record Passenger Conversations
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/public-bus-audio-surveillance/

[Generic Other]

91. The Survellance Camera Players

They perform in front of the cameras. They deserve Oscars.

[egduj]

94. I can't imagine living in such fear...

That I would desire someone watching over me wherever i go.

[patrice]

97. Deal! More public cameras, less of certain of laws. If I intend to have a physically harmful effect

on others, they have a right to know who I am.

[Apophis]

101. Your OP is not logical, yet your screen name is.

[Logical]

104. LOL, you realize in public it doesn't matter if you want to be recorded or not? 100% legal! n-t

[jazzimov]

105. In my bedroom? NO. In a public street,

well, the word "public" pretty much says it all. I feel no right to privacy in a public place. I can't understand anyone who tries to justify the words "privacy" and "public".

Surveillance cameras in public places have done a lot of good. The problem with Orwellian surveillance was that there was no right to privacy even in private places.

[JVS]

106. Individuals owning cameras and government agencies owning are two different things

Unless you're ok with being followed at all times, then there has to be a limit to how comprehensive a camera network you support. So tell us, are you ok with having a minder tail you?

[Brooklyns_Finest]

118. Ridiculous

Why are you so scared!

[Brooklyns_Finest]

120. Drones

HOw about we have surveillance drones fly over every major city, suburb, and rural town 24/7. Theses drones would be able to capture anything that the cameras miss. Would that be square with you?

[Bonhomme Richard]

123. +1 n/t