# Brown Case Shows Need for Street Cameras



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Here's what happens thousands of times every day in America.  A crime is committed out in broad daylight, but nobody was there to see it. Or if/whenever somebody says they were, nobody knows if that's true.  Result ?  No charges placed becasue of insufficient evidence.

  At the same time, an innocent person could get caught up in something when in the aftermath, it appears like he might have done a crime.  He gets arrested wrongly.

  All this could be avoided by having street cameras, hooked into recorders.  

I am a big fan of the TV show _"Forensic Files"_.  It is amazing how many criminals would have gone scott free had it not been for the forensic science investigation.  But many criminals ARE going free right now, only because of the lack of street cameras which could catch criminals in the act, before the cops even arrive at the scene.

  The Brown case is a perfect example.  Had a street camera been on in the street where the shooting occured we could simple play back the video and know exactly what happened.  There was no camera, so we can't.  Contrast that with the camera/recorder of the convenience store which WAS operating, and DID catch thug boy Brown right in his tracks.  And without that video, we would be seeing this Brown case quite differently right now.

Another example is the Carlie Brucia murder case.  Killer Joseph Smith was convicted killing 11 year old Carlie.  But would he have been even arrested, if not for a video which showed him and little Carlie Brucia walking together through a car wash, where Smith picked her up ?  Probably not.


----------



## Pennywise (Aug 18, 2014)

Mod Edit XXXXXXX. There are too many cameras everywhere already.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

No, I'm an ordinary law-abiding citizen, who wants to see little girls like Carlie Brucia not be abducted, raped, and killed.  So now that I've answered your question, which came second, *you may now answer MY question* which came first.   Except that I'll I'll add one more part to it.  Are you a moron ?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 18, 2014)

Cameras on Private Property: Great
Cops recording Traffic Stops: Great!
The People recording Cops recording Traffic Stops: Even Better!


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


A camera will stop them from being abducted?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> Cameras on Private Property: Great
> Cops recording Traffic Stops: Great!
> The People recording Cops recording Traffic Stops: Even Better!



Why not just have cameras recording everything out in PUBLIC places ? (except inside restrooms)  When you're out in PUBLIC, everyone is already seeing you anyway.  There's no such thing as privacy when you are out in public places.


----------



## Pennywise (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras on Private Property: Great
> ...



We need protection from people like you a lot more than we do from illegal immigrants.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras on Private Property: Great
> ...


The NSA said it's using all that data they collect to keep tabs on America's Enemies.

Turns out they were Spying for Corporations and Spying on us!

Why do you trust government so much? They Lie ALL THE TIME! I don't trust my neighbor to do the right thing, why would I trust the Government to do so? Because our flag is red, white and blue?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



In some cases it could that.  And the primary way it would, would be by catching abductor killers like Joseph Smith, so they don't get way with their crime, and then go out and do it AGAIN, & AGAIN, & AGAIN.

*How many more little girls* would have been sexually battered and killed by Joseph Smith over the past 10 years (since his arrest), if he had not been nabbed by the car wash security camera, and then the police ?


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


False premise.  I would have no more girls ever abducted and abused.  That does not mean I think that a camera on every street corner will prevent that. In fact, all it will do is provide proof if the abductor is captured, it won't prevent the abduction at all.

A person who is willing to take little girls and sexually assault them and/or kill them is not going to be deterred by a camera that could easily be defeated before the abduction.

Sorry, but this just opens up far more potential for abuse than any problem it would solve.

There is already too much surveillance for My taste.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



NO.  CRIMINALS are who need protection from people like me, and you still haven't answered my question, if you're one of them. Are you ?  Ever been convicted of a crime ?  Got a rap sheet ?  Let's hear it.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



So you don't trust the police ?  Why not ?  Did they ever do anything against you ?
Actually, I once had the police charge me with a crime that I was innocent of. I went to court and acted as my own lawyer, and won.  But it would have been easier for me, if a camera had recorded the whole thing.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



I really don't mean to be impetuous here, but try reading the post you quoted over again, and pay special attention to the last sentence (you know, where it says AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN)  Get it, now ?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Here's what happens thousands of times every day in America.  A crime is committed out in broad daylight, but nobody was there to see it. Or if/whenever somebody says they were, nobody knows if that's true.  Result ?  No charges placed becasue of insufficient evidence.
> 
> At the same time, an innocent person could get caught up in something when in the aftermath, it appears like he might have done a crime.  He gets arrested wrongly.
> 
> ...



^ Progressives are Modern Nazis

Orwell is laughing himself sick that he so underestimated how truly fucked we are


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what happens thousands of times every day in America.  A crime is committed out in broad daylight, but nobody was there to see it. Or if/whenever somebody says they were, nobody knows if that's true.  Result ?  No charges placed becasue of insufficient evidence.
> ...



This has nothing to do with Progressives or Nazis.  I'm a staunch conservative, and believer in LAW & ORDER.   ANd whtat's the big deal about a street camera ?  You're in PUBLIC when you're outside.  PUBLIC.  Get it ?  Everyone is ALREADY seeing you.

So what's the problem ? (unless you're trying to commit crimes)


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> This has nothing to do with Progressives or Nazis.  I'm a staunch conservative, and believer in LAW & ORDER.   ANd whtat's the big deal about a street camera ?  You're in PUBLIC when you're outside.  PUBLIC.  Get it ?  Everyone is ALREADY seeing you.
> 
> So what's the problem ? (unless you're trying to commit crimes)


Did you know some states have laws that you *must* inform the other person that you are recording them? 

1 Party Notification
2 Party Notification

I live in a 2 Party Notification State meaning BOTH Parties must understand that they are being recorded otherwise, all that info gets thrown out in Court. Is the NSA informing anyone? No.

What State do you live in Mr "Law and Order Conservative"?

State by State Compliance


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 18, 2014)

Grab a tape recorder and go up to ANYONE on the street and say that you're gonna' record their conversations and see what happens. They'll tell ya' to f*ck off and rightly so.

I suppose you would think they're planning something criminal right?


----------



## DriftingSand (Aug 18, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> There are too many cameras everywhere already.



I agree. Big Brother already has its intrusive tentacles in our lives.  It could be that the cops could have more cameras in their cars though.  I'm not fond of the "1984" mentality.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


I am stating to you quite plainly that simply because I do not agree with your solution does not mean that I want children abducted and molested or killed.

Do not presume to think that YOURS is the only correct answer to the problem.

Do I have to be clearer than that?


----------



## Missourian (Aug 18, 2014)

Anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Here's what happens thousands of times every day in America.  A crime is committed out in broad daylight, but nobody was there to see it. Or if/whenever somebody says they were, nobody knows if that's true.  Result ?  No charges placed becasue of insufficient evidence.
> 
> At the same time, an innocent person could get caught up in something when in the aftermath, it appears like he might have done a crime.  He gets arrested wrongly.
> 
> ...



Given what's happened in legal cases with traffic crimes being the sole 'witness' I don't think more street cameras are the solution. But absolutely every patrol vehicle should have a dashcam. And officer-worn 'badge cams' are a great idea as well. Coulda skipped this whole Ferguson mess if the officer'd had one or both to document what happened.

Some police resist cameras, others embrace it. I'm all for it. It'll prove when officers do right, while also proving when the few bad apples do wrong helping us get rid of them so they don't tarnish the whole force.


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 18, 2014)

Read Orwell,

Then retire to your basement bedroom and silently weep for America.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> Did you know some states have laws that you *must* inform the other person that you are recording them?
> 
> 1 Party Notification
> 2 Party Notification
> ...


I live in Florida. So ? 

BTW - doesn't that 2 party stuff pertain to AUDIO recording ?  I'm only talking about video.  Your link is about telephone conversations, not video.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> Grab a tape recorder and go up to ANYONE on the street and say that you're gonna' record their conversations and see what happens. They'll tell ya' to f*ck off and rightly so.
> 
> I suppose you would think they're planning something criminal right?



Nobody's talking about recording conversations, except you.  You're oof topic.  You want to talk about that, you could start your own thread.  Go for it.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> I agree. Big Brother already has its intrusive tentacles in our lives.  It could be that the cops could have more cameras in their cars though.  I'm not fond of the "1984" mentality.



If you can't be seen by a camera, while you're out in the street (or in a *public *facility), then you can't go outside at all.  Because every time you go out, you are with dozens(or hundreds or thousands) of people who are seeing you.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> I am stating to you quite plainly that simply because I do not agree with your solution does not mean that I want children abducted and molested or killed.
> 
> Do not presume to think that YOURS is the only correct answer to the problem.
> 
> Do I have to be clearer than that?


Yes you do.  Because by not agreeing with installing street camera/recorders, you are allowing many abductions and molestations to occur, by allowing those criminals to remain on the street.  If not for the car wash camera/recorder, Joseph Smith probably would not have been caught (prosecutors said), and would have kept on abducting, molesting, raping, killing.  Now just multiply him by some number in the thousands.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.



Street cameras don't make you _"trade liberty"    
_
You have no less liberty with a street camera than without it.  You're ALREADY being seen as you openly walk in the street, or WalMart, or whereever.  In fact, you'd have *more* liberty.  Many people who would otherwise have become a crime victim, now won't be.  
    Got any kids ?  Worry about them getting harmed y some creep ?  With the camera/recorders, there's less chance of that happening.  Less chance of your car being stolen.  Less chance of your house being burglarized, etc.
You get LIBERTY from criminal victimization.


----------



## dblack (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> What are you ? A criminal ?  Joseph Smith, by any chance ?



If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Given what's happened in legal cases with traffic crimes being the sole 'witness' I don't think more street cameras are the solution. But absolutely every patrol vehicle should have a dashcam. And officer-worn 'badge cams' are a great idea as well. Coulda skipped this whole Ferguson mess if the officer'd had one or both to document what happened.
> 
> Some police resist cameras, others embrace it. I'm all for it. It'll prove when officers do right, while also proving when the few bad apples do wrong helping us get rid of them so they don't tarnish the whole force.


BINGO!!


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

dblack said:


> If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!


BINGO!!  Only folks who should be in the opposition to street cameras category, would be CRIMINALS.  Nobody else has any reason to oppose them, and plenty of reason to support them.  They help PROTECT us.
They also can help to reduce criminal LITIGATION, which is enormously expensive, and can thereby reduce govt spending, and keep taxes down.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Read Orwell,
> 
> Then retire to your basement bedroom and silently weep for America.


I read Orwell many years ago.  Street cameras are not anything connected to Orwell's depictions. (except for criminals, maybe) LOL.


----------



## Peach (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> No, I'm an ordinary law-abiding citizen, who wants to see little girls like Carlie Brucia not be abducted, raped, and killed.  So now that I've answered your question, which came second, *you may now answer MY question* which came first.   Except that I'll I'll add one more part to it.  Are you a moron ?



Ferguson got a Federal grant for dash cams.........but only bought & installed two...........


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Peach said:


> Ferguson got a Federal grant for dash cams.........but only bought & installed two...........



They need a lot more than that + hundreds of* street cameras *all over the town.  Could have prevented all the trouble they're having now + hundreds of other street crimes.


----------



## dblack (Aug 18, 2014)

Implants are the only way to be completely secure.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

dblack said:


> Implants are the only way to be completely secure.



Huh ???


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Yes you do.  Because by not agreeing with installing street camera/recorders, you are allowing many abductions and molestations to occur, by allowing those criminals to remain on the street.  If not for the car wash camera/recorder, Joseph Smith probably would not have been caught (prosecutors said), and would have kept on abducting, molesting, raping, killing.  Now just multiply him by some number in the thousands.



I absolutely detest arguments built on the "it's for the children" rationale. This is the road to hell.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 18, 2014)

Remember that this thread is in the Clean Debate Zone.  I have gone through and cleaned up the insults and attacks.  Thanks


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Huh ???



He's taking your totalitarian vision to the next logical step. Every person has a camera implanted in their forehead and the images are beamed to the NSA. 

If you're not a criminal, what do you have to hide, right?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 18, 2014)

The places where cop cars have cameras don't have a problem with police brutality. 

When police arrest people, they are read their miranda rights. But in the city of Rialto, California, they hear something else added to their interactions with police officers.

You are being videotaped


The police chief of Rialto, California, William Farrar, helped oversee the outfitting of all 66 police officers with cameras for use while they are on duty.


When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better.

This may sound strange, but in reality, it is scientific. The act of observation changes the observed, as first demonstrated on the quantum level by Werner Heisenberg. As reported in Scientific American, even the illusion of observation causes people, on a subconcious level, to behave better. Called the Observer Effect, it has dramatically changed life in Rialto.

With an 88% reduction in complaints filed against the police department, and a 60% reduction in police use of force, the city of Rialto has seen a savings in court costs, legal paperwork, and lawsuits. In addition, the video recorded evidence has improved conviction rates. As William Bratton, a former leader within both the New York and Los Angeles police departments, as said,

So much of what goes on in the field is ‘he-said-she-said,’ and the camera offers an objective perspective. Officers not familiar with the technology may see it as something harmful. But the irony is, officers actually tend to benefit. Very often, the officer’s version of events is the accurate version.​
I don't see how to quote that link so what appears between " - " is from the link.
==========================================================
"
When police arrest people, they are read their miranda rights. But in the city of Rialto, California, they hear something else added to their interactions with police officers.

You are being videotaped


The police chief of Rialto, California, William Farrar, helped oversee the outfitting of all 66 police officers with cameras for use while they are on duty.


When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better.

This may sound strange, but in reality, it is scientific. The act of observation changes the observed, as first demonstrated on the quantum level by Werner Heisenberg. As reported in Scientific American, even the illusion of observation causes people, on a subconcious level, to behave better. Called the Observer Effect, it has dramatically changed life in Rialto.

With an 88% reduction in complaints filed against the police department, and a 60% reduction in police use of force, the city of Rialto has seen a savings in court costs, legal paperwork, and lawsuits. In addition, the video recorded evidence has improved conviction rates. As William Bratton, a former leader within both the New York and Los Angeles police departments, as said,

So much of what goes on in the field is ‘he-said-she-said,’ and the camera offers an objective perspective. Officers not familiar with the technology may see it as something harmful. But the irony is, officers actually tend to benefit. Very often, the officer’s version of events is the accurate version."

====================================================

How about the police departments stop buying riot gear and invest in cameras instead. ​


----------



## Smilebong (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Here's what happens thousands of times every day in America.  A crime is committed out in broad daylight, but nobody was there to see it. Or if/whenever somebody says they were, nobody knows if that's true.  Result ?  No charges placed becasue of insufficient evidence.
> 
> At the same time, an innocent person could get caught up in something when in the aftermath, it appears like he might have done a crime.  He gets arrested wrongly.
> 
> ...


 Yeah, just what we need, more government intervention in our lives. Sheesh!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 18, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> I absolutely detest arguments built on the "it's for the children" rationale. This is the road to hell.


I detest those who say that if I have nothing to hide and if I'm not a criminal, I should be ready to give up my rights.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 18, 2014)

Smilebong said:


> Yeah, just what we need, more government intervention in our lives. Sheesh!


We already do have cameras on every (yes, every) street corner.


----------



## Smilebong (Aug 18, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> We already do have cameras on every (yes, every) street corner.


 Not in my city. We have none.  And I like it that way.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> I absolutely detest arguments built on the "it's for the children" rationale. This is the road to hell.



OK.  If it makes you feel any better, the street cameras prevent some dirtbag from pouncing on YOU, kicking YOUR teeth in, stealing YOUR car, YOUR wallet, and YOUR wife.  

Better now ?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> He's taking your totalitarian vision to the next logical step. Every person has a camera implanted in their forehead and the images are beamed to the NSA.
> 
> If you're not a criminal, what do you have to hide, right?



Maybe he should start his own thread.  If you're not a criminal, you have nothing to hide.  RIGHT!


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> The places where cop cars have cameras don't have a problem with police brutality.
> 
> When police arrest people, they are read their miranda rights. But in the city of Rialto, California, they hear something else added to their interactions with police officers.
> 
> ...


Good post!  And just as cops are caught when acting criminal, so are private citizens caught the same way by street cameras.

And just as cops are exonerated (or protected), so are law-abiding private citizens protected by the street cameras showing that they were law abiding (despite some liar claiming they did something wrong)


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Smilebong said:


> Yeah, just what we need, more government intervention in our lives. Sheesh!



Yeah, Sheesh is right. The only intervention in your life is MORE PROTECTION FOR YOU.   And less chance of you being crime victimized.  What other "intervention" is there ?


----------



## Smilebong (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Yeah, Sheesh is right. The only intervention in your life is MORE PROTECTION FOR YOU.   And less chance of you being crime victimized.  What other "intervention" is there ?


 I don't need your protection.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> We already do have cameras on every (yes, every) street corner.



Wow!  Where is that ?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Smilebong said:


> I don't need your protection.



It's not MY protection, it's OUR protection.  And take a guess how little Carlie Brucia would answer you, if she could come down from Heaven and post in this forum.  Go ahead.  Take one guess.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> I detest those who say that if I have nothing to hide and if I'm not a criminal, I should be ready to give up my rights.



What _"rights"_ could you be giving up by having street cameras ?  I don't see any loss of "rights"/


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> OK.  If it makes you feel any better, the street cameras prevent some dirtbag from pouncing on YOU, kicking YOUR teeth in, stealing YOUR car, YOUR wallet, and YOUR wife.
> 
> Better now ?



They don't prevent any of that. London has cameras up the wazoo and they're still dealing with crime and terrorists blowing up buses.


----------



## Smilebong (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> It's not MY protection, it's OUR protection.  And take a guess how little Carlie Brucia would answer you, if she could come down from Heaven and post in this forum.  Go ahead.  Take one guess.


 
You can try and bait me, but it diesn't work.

I want none of your control freak intervention.


----------



## dblack (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Maybe he should start his own thread.  If you're not a criminal, you have nothing to hide.  RIGHT!



This one is going pretty well. What do you think about the implants idea? We could have full health tracking that way too. You're doctor will know your sick and send help before you even know you need it. Think of cost savings to the health care system.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> They don't prevent any of that. London has cameras up the wazoo and they're still dealing with crime and terrorists blowing up buses.



That doesn't mean they aren't preventing crime.  Of course they're preventing crime.  Every criminal who is convicted from a video recording and imprisoned, is then STOPPED from committing further street crime (in some cases for his/her entire life)  Question isn't what crimes are OCCURING.  Question is how many crimes are NOT OCCURING, due to criminals caught by cameras being taken off the streets (for years, for decades)  And the answer is very many.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Smilebong said:


> You can try and bait me, but it diesn't work.
> 
> I want none of your control freak intervention.



I notice you wouldn't take a guess about what Carlie Brucia would say.  I also notice that you punked out from my other question >  _"What other "intervention" is there ?"
_
And now here's another question for you.  How are street cameras _"control freak"_ ?  That doesn't make any sense.  Where's the "control" you speak of ??????


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

dblack said:


> This one is going pretty well. What do you think about the implants idea? We could have full health tracking that way too. You're doctor will know your sick and send help before you even know you need it. Think of cost savings to the health care system.



I think it belongs in another thread.  And is OFF TOPIC in this one.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 18, 2014)

dblack said:


> This one is going pretty well. What do you think about the implants idea? We could have full health tracking that way too. You're doctor will know your sick and send help before you even know you need it. Think of cost savings to the health care system.


You know what else would work to stop crime - mandatory genetic screening. Everyone is directed to give up a DNA sample and then we're all in the national database. Anytime a criminal leaves DNA then they'd be found by the search.

Big Brother luvs you and wants to hug you in his warm, protective embrace.


----------



## dblack (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> I think it belongs in another thread.  And is OFF TOPIC in this one.



How so? We're talking about ideas for increasing security, right? Can we really only talk about YOUR idea?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.



Irrelevant. Street cameras don't make you trade away liberty. In fact, you GAIN liberty, by being liberated from criminals who would/could criminalize you.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

dblack said:


> How so? We're talking about ideas for increasing security, right? Can we really only talk about YOUR idea?



According to the forum, you can only talk about the TOPIC. The topic is STREET CAMERAS.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> You know what else would work to stop crime - mandatory genetic screening. Everyone is directed to give up a DNA sample and then we're all in the national database. Anytime a criminal leaves DNA then they'd be found by the search.
> 
> Big Brother luvs you and wants to hug you in his warm, protective embrace.





Rikurzhen said:


> You know what else would work to stop crime - mandatory genetic screening. Everyone is directed to give up a DNA sample and then we're all in the national database. Anytime a criminal leaves DNA then they'd be found by the search.
> 
> Big Brother luvs you and wants to hug you in his warm, protective embrace.



I'd say the DNA national database is another excellent idea. One that CRIMINALS hate.  You're not one of them are you ?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> OK.  If it makes you feel any better, the street cameras prevent some dirtbag from pouncing on YOU, kicking YOUR teeth in, stealing YOUR car, YOUR wallet, andif you are not a cYOUR wife.
> 
> Better now ?


Not at all.  All those things will STILL transpire.  Cameras will just document the crime for prosecution purposes.  You are tilting towards overselling the bebfits side.  As far as not worrying about your liberties if you are not a criminal -- do you have pipe, batteries and or fertilizer in your garage?  Then you are a priori "in possession of bomb making materials"  Just being NOTICED by the govt
Is a risk these days.  And statist loving conservatives like you will learn too late about the Orwellian consequences of having govt agencies take notice of you.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> What _"rights"_ could you be giving up by having street cameras ?  I don't see any loss of "rights"/


Please don't do that. Don't change the meaning of the post you are quoting by leaving out the post being replied to.

@dblack wrote _"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"_

If that were true, we would not need Miranda and in prison would be guilty.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 18, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Please don't do that. Don't change the meaning of the post you are quoting by leaving out the post being replied to.
> 
> @dblack wrote _"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"_
> 
> If that were true, we would not need Miranda and in prison would be guilty.





protectionist said:


> What _"rights"_ could you be giving up by having street cameras ?  I don't see any loss of "rights"/



As for cameras leading to a loss of rights, I don't think they do. The opposite is probably true. 

Eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate. Cameras are almost always accurate.


----------



## dblack (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> I'd say the DNA national database is another excellent idea. One that CRIMINALS hate.  You're not one of them are you ?



But what about implants,  that's even better, right?


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 18, 2014)

dblack said:


> But what about implants,  that's even better, right?



Recall the police reaction after the Boston Bombing - mandatory house searches. If you objected to having the police search your house you were considered a suspect.

Think of how much crime could be prevented if police could conduct surprise inspections of your home.

If you're not a criminal then you have nothing to hide, right?


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Here's what happens thousands of times every day in America.  A crime is committed out in broad daylight, but nobody was there to see it. Or if/whenever somebody says they were, nobody knows if that's true.  Result ?  No charges placed becasue of insufficient evidence.
> 
> At the same time, an innocent person could get caught up in something when in the aftermath, it appears like he might have done a crime.  He gets arrested wrongly.
> 
> ...



Instead of street cameras, how about we make the cops wear cameras?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 18, 2014)

I think we all have a right to privacy and humans need that.  They have such a thing as police cameras police officers can wear.  It records video and audio.  That seems a more private and less costly way to do things.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Not at all.  All those things will STILL transpire.  Cameras will just document the crime for prosecution purposes.  You are tilting towards overselling the bebfits side.  As far as not worrying about your liberties if you are not a criminal -- do you have pipe, batteries and or fertilizer in your garage?  Then you are a priori "in possession of bomb making materials"  Just being NOTICED by the govt
> Is a risk these days.  And statist loving conservatives like you will learn too late about the Orwellian consequences of having govt agencies take notice of you.



You don't get it.  The cameras get the criminals OFF THE STREET so these they aren't there to DO these things.  They also tell the crooks that when they walk out carrying you TV set, they're going to be recorded.  Some crooks might be idiots like Michael Brown and do their crimes right in front of the camera, but most will no better, and pass on the idea.  

I don't t this bomb amking materials  thing. So what ?  What doe sthat hav eto do with street cameras ?  Nothing that I can see.

As for your being noticed theory, perhaps petting a cat, hot baths, and if necessary a chill pill n=might help with that paranoia.  I'm a lot more paranoid about criminals than the govt.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Please don't do that. Don't change the meaning of the post you are quoting by leaving out the post being replied to.
> 
> @dblack wrote _"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"_
> 
> If that were true, we would not need Miranda and in prison would be guilty.



I have no clue what this is talking about.  Could as well have been in Chinese.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> As for cameras leading to a loss of rights, I don't think they do. The opposite is probably true.
> 
> Eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate. Cameras are almost always accurate.



Correct. And the videos erase the problem of FALSE testimonies which sometimes send innocent people to prison.  How's that for dealing with your rights ?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

dblack said:


> But what about implants,  that's even better, right?


Unecessary if you have a DNA national database.  Your body fluids are your already built-in "implant".   Why add more ?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 18, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> I think we all have a right to privacy and humans need that.  They have such a thing as police cameras police officers can wear.  It records video and audio.  That seems a more private and less costly way to do things.



If they have audio they are LESS private .  Street cameras are only video.  Also there is no such thing as privacy when we're out in PUBLIC.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 18, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Given what's happened in legal cases with traffic crimes being the sole 'witness' I don't think more street cameras are the solution. But absolutely every patrol vehicle should have a dashcam. And officer-worn 'badge cams' are a great idea as well. Coulda skipped this whole Ferguson mess if the officer'd had one or both to document what happened.
> 
> Some police resist cameras, others embrace it. I'm all for it. It'll prove when officers do right, while also proving when the few bad apples do wrong helping us get rid of them so they don't tarnish the whole force.



I think you have the right idea here.  Dashcams and badgecams are the way to go.  That way our officers are protected (or given incentive to behave).


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Maybe he should start his own thread.  If you're not a criminal, you have nothing to hide.  RIGHT!



The idea that we should submit to constant surveillance because "if you aren't a criminal you have nothing to hide" is a terrible slippery slope.   Why would cops need a warrant to search our car?  If you haven't done anything wrong, why wouldn't you let them search it?   Why would you need a lawyer?  If you haven't done anything wrong, you should be fine talking with the police.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 18, 2014)

What's Wrong With Public Video Surveillance? | American Civil Liberties Union

Interesting article about the problems with public video cameras.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> You don't get it.  The cameras get the criminals OFF THE STREET so these they aren't there to DO these things.  They also tell the crooks that when they walk out carrying you TV set, they're going to be recorded.  Some crooks might be idiots like Michael Brown and do their crimes right in front of the camera, but most will no better, and pass on the idea.
> 
> I don't t this bomb amking materials  thing. So what ?  What doe sthat hav eto do with street cameras ?  Nothing that I can see.
> 
> As for your being noticed theory, perhaps petting a cat, hot baths, and if necessary a chill pill n=might help with that paranoia.  I'm a lot more paranoid about criminals than the govt.



You are STILL overselling the benefits. We've had cameras in banks for ages and the number of bank robberies is NOT going down. It only means that when the guy is loading your TV out of your home, he's gonna look like a good approximation to Cher.. I've been close to theatre in my life and at 50 feet -- I can make an 18 yr old boy look like Hillary Clinton. And I've also been on the cutting edge of facial recognition which is nowhere NEAR being effective at those distances and lighting conditions. 

And there is no cure for your love of govt surveillance. Once you have the attention of the authorities, they can make an innocent person's life a living hell. Just being in the proximity of a crime and showing up on those videos (if they are ever reviewed by a human) will get someone to your door. Which is the ONLY excuse they need to compel you to testify or make a statement whether you care to or not. And if those "bomb-making materials" are in your garage and the crime involves a bomb --- you --- Mr Law and Order will have some "splaining to do" AFTER they subpoena all of your computer, phone, and financial records if you don't WANT to cooperate..It will be LEAgents carrying that stuff out of your abode.. AFTER they shoot your dog..  

You have no idea the type of out of control surveillance and justice state we are dealing with today..


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 18, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> You are STILL overselling the benefits. We've had cameras in banks for ages and the number of bank robberies is NOT going down. It only means that when the guy is loading your TV out of your home, he's gonna look like a good approximation to Cher.. I've been close to theatre in my life and at 50 feet -- I can make an 18 yr old boy look like Hillary Clinton. And I've also been on the cutting edge of facial recognition which is nowhere NEAR being effective at those distances and lighting conditions.
> 
> And there is no cure for your love of govt surveillance. Once you have the attention of the authorities, they can make an innocent person's life a living hell. Just being in the proximity of a crime and showing up on those videos (if they are ever reviewed by a human) will get someone to your door. Which is the ONLY excuse they need to compel you to testify or make a statement whether you care to or not. And if those "bomb-making materials" are in your garage and the crime involves a bomb --- you --- Mr Law and Order will have some "splaining to do" AFTER they subpoena all of your computer, phone, and financial records if you don't WANT to cooperate..It will be LEAgents carrying that stuff out of your abode.. AFTER they shoot your dog..
> 
> You have no idea the type of out of control surveillance and justice state we are dealing with today..



Exactly. Look at what constitutes bomb making materials from an actual arrest but without an actual bomb or any explosion caused by a bomb.

According to investigators, Leone then brought the officer to the garage where items used to produce explosive devices were seen. Among the items the officer saw were roadside flares, sulfuric acid, Clorox, PVC pipes, matches, Draino, PVC, Play-Doh and BBs.​
Every single item there has a legitimate use. Welcome to Federal Lock-up Mr. Terrorist - how dare you have Drano and Clorox in your house.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Exactly. Look at what constitutes bomb making materials from an actual arrest but without an actual bomb or any explosion caused by a bomb.
> 
> According to investigators, Leone then brought the officer to the garage where items used to produce explosive devices were seen. Among the items the officer saw were roadside flares, sulfuric acid, Clorox, PVC pipes, matches, Draino, PVC, Play-Doh and BBs.​
> Every single item there has a legitimate use. Welcome to Federal Lock-up Mr. Terrorist - how dare you have Drano and Clorox in your house.



Exactly !! There was just a Federal  Case where they charged a lady for violations of the* Intl. Chem. Weapons treaty* for using caustic kitchen materials to burn a neighbor's hand.. It gets escalated rather quickly these days.. All they need is an EXCUSE to pressure you into cooperating or testifying in some case because you were coming home from Dunkin Doughnuts when something evil was caught on camera..


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 18, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Exactly !! There was just a Federal  Case where they charged a lady for violations of the* Intl. Chem. Weapons treaty* for using caustic kitchen materials to burn a neighbor's hand.. It gets escalated rather quickly these days.. All they need is an EXCUSE to pressure you into cooperating or testifying in some case because you were coming home from Dunkin Doughnuts when something evil was caught on camera..



How about the Times Square Bomber - a car bomb is now the equivalent of a nuclear bomb or a chemical bomb or a biologic weapon. He was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. A car bomb is no more a weapon of mass destruction that Adam Lanza's rifle was a weapon of mass destruction. Killing a lot of people is not the proper criteria. Nuclear, chemical and biologic weapons are in a class unto themselves, that's why we passed special laws to deal with these Weapons of Mass Destruction. A car bomb, give me a break.


----------



## Politico (Aug 19, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> I agree. Big Brother already has its intrusive tentacles in our lives.  It could be that the cops could have more cameras in their cars though.  I'm not fond of the "1984" mentality.


That..


----------



## dblack (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Unecessary if you have a DNA national database.  Your body fluids are your already built-in "implant".   Why add more ?



There's no opportunity for live monitoring with the DNA database.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 19, 2014)

It's not feasible to have a camera covering every square foot of every street in every city. The cost would be huge. You are talking vandal resistant cameras with sufficient capabilities to handle dramatic changes in lighting and obstacles. You are talking secure storage sufficient for potentially thousands of cameras. You are talking thousands of man hours to calibrate and aim all the cameras. You are talking infrastructure to transport the video to a central repository or significant investment in equipment for "edge storage" which is to say storage at the camera (battery backup to keep the storage and camera running when power is out, heating and cooling to keep the electronics functioning in the winter and summer, weather tight and vandal resistant containers, etc. etc.)

The "cop cams" idea is a lot more feasible and desireable in my opinion. It serves the dual purpose of protecting the cop and protecting citizens from the cop.

Say, how about we do one better and come up with a "pol cam" and make all politicians wear one 24/7. Get a little more honesty on the hill maybe. Lol.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2014)

Liberals need to be implanted with a combination GPS Chip and behavior modification devise


----------



## Esmeralda (Aug 19, 2014)

There are street cameras all over the UK.  I think it is a good idea.  In a situation like the Brown shooting, we would have a much better chance of knowing what happened.  If you are not doing anything wrong, a street camera should not bother you at all.


----------



## dblack (Aug 19, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> There are street cameras all over the UK.  I think it is a good idea.  In a situation like the Brown shooting, we would have a much better chance of knowing what happened.  If you are not doing anything wrong, a street camera should not bother you at all.



Indeed. Anyone who does object to this is clearly up to no good!


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 19, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> It's not feasible to have a camera covering every square foot of every street in every city. The cost would be huge. You are talking vandal resistant cameras with sufficient capabilities to handle dramatic changes in lighting and obstacles. You are talking secure storage sufficient for potentially thousands of cameras. You are talking thousands of man hours to calibrate and aim all the cameras. You are talking infrastructure to transport the video to a central repository or significant investment in equipment for "edge storage" which is to say storage at the camera (battery backup to keep the storage and camera running when power is out, heating and cooling to keep the electronics functioning in the winter and summer, weather tight and vandal resistant containers, etc. etc.)
> 
> The "cop cams" idea is a lot more feasible and desireable in my opinion. It serves the dual purpose of protecting the cop and protecting citizens from the cop.
> 
> Say, how about we do one better and come up with a "pol cam" and make all politicians wear one 24/7. Get a little more honesty on the hill maybe. Lol.




I like it. Cams  and recordings of politicians, absent any public funded only electioneering.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> The idea that we should submit to constant surveillance because "if you aren't a criminal you have nothing to hide" is a terrible slippery slope.   Why would cops need a warrant to search our car?  If you haven't done anything wrong, why wouldn't you let them search it?   Why would you need a lawyer?  If you haven't done anything wrong, you should be fine talking with the police.



Might even lead to cams in houses, like 1984.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

dblack said:


> Indeed. Anyone who does object to this is clearly up to no good!



I disagree.   I think that having cams all over our streets leads to abuses, as was discussed in the link I posted.


----------



## dblack (Aug 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liberals need to be implanted with a combination GPS Chip and behavior modification devise



It's the only way to ensure truly civil society. Only miscreants would object.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

The only way to insure a truly civil society and to make sure that everyone is truly safe is to remove all freedoms.

A free society is never a safe place to live.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 19, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> There are street cameras all over the UK.  I think it is a good idea.  In a situation like the Brown shooting, we would have a much better chance of knowing what happened.  If you are not doing anything wrong, a street camera should not bother you at all.



Until YOU show up in a video that's under investigation. Then when the questioning starts to get difficult and you're thinking you might need a lawyer, we can repost your comments to you in the detention facility.. You would be COMPELLED to give statements, access to personal  information, and then ALL bets are off how much of your life this will consume. We are ALL guilty of something even if it's keeping bomb making materials in your garage. Or records of searches on your computer. And just being NOTICED carries a risk of being probed by a State that can easily disrupt your life -- even if you ARE innocent.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 19, 2014)

Street cameras? Why stop there? Let's skip that crap and go straight to subdermal tracking implants...


----------



## Peach (Aug 19, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> I think we all have a right to privacy and humans need that.  They have such a thing as police cameras police officers can wear.  It records video and audio.  That seems a more private and less costly way to do things.


And many public buildings have cameras, but everywhere? No, the right to privacy is breached, I may live on a street, want to leave my windows open, do not want scratching my leg recorded, if you get my drift. 

"Those who give up liberty for temporary security....."


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 19, 2014)

Peach said:


> And many public buildings have cameras, but everywhere? No, the right to privacy is breached, I may live on a street, want to leave my windows open, do not want scratching my leg recorded, if you get my drift.
> 
> "Those who give up liberty for temporary security....."



Not exactly, but I am certain pictures would help.   

What is that buzzing sound?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> The idea that we should submit to constant surveillance because "if you aren't a criminal you have nothing to hide" is a terrible slippery slope.   Why would cops need a warrant to search our car?  If you haven't done anything wrong, why wouldn't you let them search it?   Why would you need a lawyer?  If you haven't done anything wrong, you should be fine talking with the police.


There is quite a difference between searching a car or home, and just having a camera see and record you out in PUBLIC places.  Cars and homes are not PUBLIC.  They are private.  By the same token, places that street cameras monitor are PUBLIC, not private.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> What's Wrong With Public Video Surveillance? | American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> Interesting article about the problems with public video cameras.


 Without us having to read it all, what's the jist of it ?


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 19, 2014)

The problem people have with your love of the surveillance state is that the records of surveillance are permanent and this gives government the ability to track everyone.

Already police cars are using automatic license plate scanners tied in with GPS coordinates and every single car on the road within sight of that police plate scanner is having it's location entered into a database.

You're arguing that the cop can see you on the road and the cop can't be asked to close his eyes and not see you in public. Well, a cop can't remember everyone he sees and he can't form a searchable public record which can reconstruct your every move in public. There's a difference in what it means to be in public when one is simply meeting strangers and when government keeps a freaking record of everything you do and everywhere you go and can reconstruct your movements, both by car and by facial recognition technology.

I can't stop a cop from seeing my drive on the road, but it's none of the cop's business to know that every Thursday morning I drive to see my mother and that every Monday at lunch I go to a particular restaurant and that every Wednesday evening I give a female coworker a ride home, etc.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Without us having to read it all, what's the jist of it ?



It lists some reasons why cameras all over are not a good idea and that they do not have the effect you think they will.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> You are STILL overselling the benefits. We've had cameras in banks for ages and the number of bank robberies is NOT going down. It only means that when the guy is loading your TV out of your home, he's gonna look like a good approximation to Cher.. I've been close to theatre in my life and at 50 feet -- I can make an 18 yr old boy look like Hillary Clinton. And I've also been on the cutting edge of facial recognition which is nowhere NEAR being effective at those distances and lighting conditions.
> 
> And there is no cure for your love of govt surveillance. Once you have the attention of the authorities, they can make an innocent person's life a living hell. Just being in the proximity of a crime and showing up on those videos (if they are ever reviewed by a human) will get someone to your door. Which is the ONLY excuse they need to compel you to testify or make a statement whether you care to or not. And if those "bomb-making materials" are in your garage and the crime involves a bomb --- you --- Mr Law and Order will have some "splaining to do" AFTER they subpoena all of your computer, phone, and financial records if you don't WANT to cooperate..It will be LEAgents carrying that stuff out of your abode.. AFTER they shoot your dog..
> 
> You have no idea the type of out of control surveillance and justice state we are dealing with today..


I have PLENTY of IDEA about it, and HERE is where that idea comes from >>

In Chicago, the use of street cameras has proven to be very successful in fighting crime. This technology used remote-controlled and viewable cameras called Police Observation Devices - commonly referred to as PODs - positioned to view and record potential crime in high-risk areas.  Given the success of the pilot program, in September 2003, Mayor Daley announced that a new phase of PODs would be deployed throughout the City. Subsequently, the number of PODs increased from 30 to 80 by December 2003.

Statistics showed the use of POD technology had been a very effective tool in the fight against gangs, guns and drugs. The Department looked at crime incidents and calls for service in the areas immediately adjacent to the PODs. While narcotic-related calls declined by 76%, serious index crimes declined by 17%, while non-index, quality-of-life crimes declined by 46%. Focusing on just narcotic-related crime revealed a decrease of 76%.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About CPD/POD Program

NOTE:  I tried to post a post 6 times the size of this and the site wouldn't let me.  The Chicago case I show here is just a small fraction of what I meant to post, and even that (with examples of significant crime reduction in many cities) is just the tip of the iceberg.  If you wish, I can post the rest of this post in other postings.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> I have PLENTY of IDEA about it, and HERE is where that idea comes from >>
> 
> In Chicago, the use of street cameras has proven to be very successful in fighting crime. This technology used remote-controlled and viewable cameras called Police Observation Devices - commonly referred to as PODs - positioned to view and record potential crime in high-risk areas.  Given the success of the pilot program, in September 2003, Mayor Daley announced that a new phase of PODs would be deployed throughout the City. Subsequently, the number of PODs increased from 30 to 80 by December 2003.
> 
> ...



Most crime rates are dropping across the country.   Any comparison between the drop in the crime rates in areas without cameras?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Exactly. Look at what constitutes bomb making materials from an actual arrest but without an actual bomb or any explosion caused by a bomb.
> 
> According to investigators, Leone then brought the officer to the garage where items used to produce explosive devices were seen. Among the items the officer saw were roadside flares, sulfuric acid, Clorox, PVC pipes, matches, Draino, PVC, Play-Doh and BBs.​
> Every single item there has a legitimate use. Welcome to Federal Lock-up Mr. Terrorist - how dare you have Drano and Clorox in your house.



Sounds like a policing problem among a particular cop, or few cops in a particular dept,  of a particular police dept.  The thread is talking about the successful record of  hundreds of thousands of street cameras, used by dozens of police depts, all across America.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Exactly !! There was just a Federal  Case where they charged a lady for violations of the* Intl. Chem. Weapons treaty* for using caustic kitchen materials to burn a neighbor's hand.. It gets escalated rather quickly these days.. All they need is an EXCUSE to pressure you into cooperating or testifying in some case because you were coming home from Dunkin Doughnuts when something evil was caught on camera..



Another hysterical overreaction, and not particularly connected to the topic of street cameras.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Sounds like a policing problem among a particular cop, or few cops in a particular dept,  of a particular police dept.  The thread is talking about the successful record of  hundreds of thousands of street cameras, used by dozens of police depts, all across America.



Records that could be used to stalk women, harass people, play voyeur, and other things.  London doesn't seem to have had the drop in crime you expect.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Another hysterical overreaction, and not particularly connected to the topic of street cameras.





Peach said:


> And many public buildings have cameras, but everywhere? No, the right to privacy is breached, I may live on a street, want to leave my windows open, do not want scratching my leg recorded, if you get my drift.
> 
> "Those who give up liberty for temporary security....."



Street cameras only monitor/record PUBLIC places.  They don't see anything more than the man on the street sees and records in his memory bank.  If you leave your windows open, and that man on the street can see you inside, that is YOU making yourself PUBLIC.  Neither the street camera or the man on the street is responsible for that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

A hoodie and some shades would make most people unrecognizable on a camera, unless it was very close and low to the ground.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> The problem people have with your love of the surveillance state is that the records of surveillance are permanent and this gives government the ability to track everyone.
> 
> Already police cars are using automatic license plate scanners tied in with GPS coordinates and every single car on the road within sight of that police plate scanner is having it's location entered into a database.
> 
> ...



I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "records of surveillance".  I have worked with CCTV camera/recorders and they simply make videos which are held for anywhere between 3 days and 2 weeks.  2 weeks is fairly common, but most crime reports come in the same day as the crime or the next day.  Many users say that 3 days is long enough.
Here's an example:  Lt. Jim Seebock of the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center talks about the street cameras along a 4-mile stretch of Las Vegas Boulevard.  The surveillance cameras along Las Vegas Boulevard will pan, tilt, zoom and record *14 days* of footage, Seebock said. *After each two-week period, the cameras will do an “automatic purge” and start recording anew.*Their debut comes in the wake of surveillance footage from Boston businesses proving crucial in identifying the sus_That really broke the ca_pects in the April 15 marathon bombing that killed three people and injured 260.
_“That was just a great example of how important having video evidence can be,”_ Seebock said. _“That really broke the case wide open.”_

As for the rest of your post, I have to confess that I don't think i know what you're talking about.  The cameras see no more or less than people on the street do, and they keep the video in  their memory for a lot shorter time than the people on the street can, in their memory banks.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> It lists some reasons why cameras all over are not a good idea and that they do not have the effect you think they will.



1.  In a nutshell, what's their beef ?

2.  The effect that I think they _"will" _have, is the effect they have BEEN HAVING for well over 10 year now, in dozens of cities all across America.  I can state a list of examples with links, if you'd like.  You can see Post # 101, for one example.  I was going to list a long list more, but the site wouldn't allow it (too many characters maybe)


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> 1.  In a nutshell, what's their beef ?
> 
> 2.  The effect that I think they _"will" _have, is the effect they have BEEN HAVING for well over 10 year now, in dozens of cities all across America.  I can state a list of examples with links, if you'd like.  You can see Post # 101, for one example.  I was going to list a long list more, but the site wouldn't allow it (too many characters maybe)



Read the link.  It isn't that long.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> As for the rest of your post, I have to confess that I don't think i know what you're talking about.  The cameras see no more or less than people on the street do, and they keep the video in  their memory for a lot shorter time than the people on the street can, in their memory banks.



You're seriously arguing that a police officer driving in his patrol car has a better recollection of every single car he passed on the road than does his automatic license plate scanner? Is that really what you're trying to push?

A little noticed surveillance technology, designed to track the movements of every passing driver, is fast proliferating on America’s streets. *Automatic license plate readers*, mounted on police cars or on objects like road signs and bridges, use small, high-speed cameras to photograph thousands of plates per minute.

The information captured by the readers – including the license plate number, and the date, time, and location of every scan – is being collected and sometimes pooled into regional sharing systems. As a result, enormous databases of innocent motorists’ location information are growing rapidly. This information is often retained for years or even indefinitely, with few or no restrictions to protect privacy rights.

The documents paint a startling picture of a technology deployed with too few rules that is becoming a tool for mass routine location tracking and surveillance. License plate readers can serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose when they alert police to the location of a car associated with a criminal investigation. But such instances account for a tiny fraction of license plate scans, and too many police departments are storing millions of records about innocent drivers. Moreover, private companies are also using license plate readers and sharing the information they collect with police with little or no oversight or privacy protections. A lack of regulation means that policies governing how long our location data is kept vary widely.







Automatic license plate readers have the potential to create* permanent records of virtually everywhere any of us has driven, radically transforming the consequences of leaving home to pursue private life, and opening up many opportunities for abuse*. The tracking of people’s location constitutes a significant invasion of privacy, which can reveal many things about their lives, such as what friends, doctors, protests, political events, or churches a person may visit.

In our society*, it is a core principle that the government does not invade people’s privacy and collect information about citizens’ innocent activities just in case they do something wrong.* Clear regulations must be put in place to keep the government from tracking our movements on a massive scale.​


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Most crime rates are dropping across the country.   Any comparison between the drop in the crime rates in areas without cameras?


The comparisons I have are between crime rates in cites after installing the cameras, and those same cites previously, when they WERE areas "without cameras."  That is a more valid study, because then you have the same city & everything else being approximately equal.  If you compare to other cities, than you're going into a bit of an apples and oranges thing, because those other cities will likely have various other variables affecting the rates.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Read the link.  It isn't that long.


It is for me.  Maybe I will later.   You can't describe the crux of their position ?..in a few words?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> You're seriously arguing that a police officer driving in his patrol car has a better recollection of every single car he passed on the road than does his automatic license plate scanner? Is that really what you're trying to push?
> 
> A little noticed surveillance technology, designed to track the movements of every passing driver, is fast proliferating on America’s streets. *Automatic license plate readers*, mounted on police cars or on objects like road signs and bridges, use small, high-speed cameras to photograph thousands of plates per minute.
> 
> ...


Wow.  I don't know where or how you're coming up with this stuff.  I did not say anything about a cop's recollection, or any of this license plate stuff YOU are talking about.  You also veering off topic.  The thread is only about street video cameras which typically record activities out in the PUBLIC areas, and retain those videos for a few days.

  Maybe you could start your own thread if you really are very interested in this license plate stuff.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Records that could be used to stalk women, harass people, play voyeur, and other things.  London doesn't seem to have had the drop in crime you expect.


Hundreds of CCTV schemes received a huge cash injection today as the Government approved the biggest-ever single investment in crime-fighting cameras.
The £79 million plan will set up or expand nearly 250 CCTV schemes across England and Wales.
One unusual scheme which got the go-ahead today will see cameras installed at a rural beauty spot.
The £975,000 scheme in the New Forest will bring cameras to Lymington, Totton and Ringwood town centres as well as in the car parks which are used by a million tourists a year, but have been blighted by car crime.
A Home Office spokesman said today's boost will lead to thousands of cameras being installed to target residential crime hotspots and keep a watchful eye on shopping centres, public transport, car parks and hospitals.
Home Office minister John Denham said: _"CCTV has repeatedly proved its effectiveness in the fight against crime and the fear of crime.
"Knowing that there is an extra set of eyes watching over their communities helps to reassure people that they will be safe.
"It also acts as an important set of eyes for the police, providing valuable evidence where incidents occur.
"Today's announcement of the largest single allocation of CCTV money ever made will make a real contribution to continuing the national trend in falling crime figures."_

_More CCTV cameras to help fight crime | Mail Online_

As for your stalk, harass, etc. comment.  Just about anything can be used positively and negatively.  Cars can be used as simple transportation or to run someone over.  Ballpoint pens can be used to write or as a weapon to stick in someone's eye.  Bleach an be used as a laundry additive or as a weapon.  In the dozens of cities where street cameras are used, they have reduced crime significantly, and without the excesses you cite, so why worry ?  When I take my car out on the street, do I worry that someone is going to run me off the road ?  NO.  I don't.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> It is for me.  Maybe I will later.   You can't describe the crux of their position ?..in a few words?


I already did that.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> A hoodie and some shades would make most people unrecognizable on a camera, unless it was very close and low to the ground.


True, but the camera could still pick up other distinctions.  Such as a particular type of boots or shoes, pants, shirt, jacket, gait, slight limp, peculiar habit (ex. rubbing one's ear), scars on arms, legs, or hands, tattoos, particular type of drink, food, candy, or cigarette, etc.
Nobody said the camera could do everything, but it is catching thousands of criminals all across America (who are NOT wearing hoodies)


----------



## boedicca (Aug 19, 2014)

Instead of street cams, which are expensive and privacy violating devices, cops should have dashboard and personal cams.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I already did that.


I meant *WHY* do they think the cameras are not a good idea.  Upon what do they base that "judgement" ?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> I meant *WHY* do they think the cameras are not a good idea.  Upon what do they base that "judgement" ?



It is a magazine article.  It is a few pages.  Read the link.   In the time you have taken to ask me 3 times to give you a Readers Digest version, you could have read it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> True, but the camera could still pick up other distinctions.  Such as a particular type of boots or shoes, pants, shirt, jacket, gait, slight limp, peculiar habit (ex. rubbing one's ear), scars on arms, legs, or hands, tattoos, particular type of drink, food, candy, or cigarette, etc.
> Nobody said the camera could do everything, but it is catching thousands of criminals all across America (who are NOT wearing hoodies)



Unless the camera can pick out the details of something specific to that one individual, and that cannot be on anyone else, it would be worthless in court.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Instead of street cams, which are expensive and privacy violating devices, cops should have dashboard and personal cams.



I think this would be far better.  It would certainly have solved the mystery in Ferguson.


----------



## Noomi (Aug 19, 2014)

Security cameras are needed only to prevent white cops from shooting dead unarmed black kids.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Instead of street cams, which are expensive and privacy violating devices, cops should have dashboard and personal cams.



1.  The word "expensive" is a relative one.  When I owned a business, I spent a fortune on advertising.  It was "expensive", yes.  But it was ECONOMICAL, because it brought in much MORE MONEY in sales.  With the cameras, there is a similar scenario.  Just as advertising was my biggest expense in my business, cities carry a heaven financial burden of LITIGATION.  The cameras are a huge cost reducer by eliminating a lot of litgation, wherin they change cases fron trial cases to ones that never go to trial.
   Neighborhoods where video surveillance was deployed, have seen crime drop as much as 40 percent, and recent studies show that every dollar spent on video surveillance in high-crime areas, results in more than four dollars of savings to the community.

Homeland Security Today: A Powerful Combination for Intelligent Crime Fighting – Video Surveillance, Analytics and Broadband Communications

2.  NO.  Street cameras are NOT_ "privacy violating devices"_.   They only monitor in PUBLIC places, and out in the PUBLIC, you DON'T HAVE privacy.  Hundreds of people see you outside, and the cameras see no more than that.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I think this would be far better.  It would certainly have solved the mystery in Ferguson.


I'm in favor of police dashcams too.  It isn't an either/or situation.  BOTH are good.  BOTH have PROVEN to be successful in stopping crime, while not infringing on anyone's rights or privacy.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> 1.  The word "expensive" is a relative one.  When I owned a business, I spent a fortune on advertising.  It was "expensive", yes.  But it was ECONOMICAL, because it brought in much MORE MONEY in sales.  With the cameras, there is a similar scenario.  Just as advertising was my biggest expense in my business, cities carry a heaven financial burden of LITIGATION.  The cameras are a huge cost reducer by eliminating a lot of litgation, wherin they change cases fron trial cases to ones that never go to trial.
> Neighborhoods where video surveillance was deployed, have seen crime drop as much as 40 percent, and recent studies show that every dollar spent on video surveillance in high-crime areas, results in more than four dollars of savings to the community.
> 
> Homeland Security Today: A Powerful Combination for Intelligent Crime Fighting – Video Surveillance, Analytics and Broadband Communications
> ...



Okay, I'll bite.   How many cameras and what kind of network and server set up would it take to make sure that all of Ferguson could be under surveillance?


----------



## boedicca (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> I'm in favor of police dashcams too.  It isn't an either/or situation.  BOTH are good.  BOTH have PROVEN to be successful in stopping crime, while not infringing on anyone's rights or privacy.



Both are not good.   One is specific to interactions with police, the other is surveillance apparatus through which law abiding citizens can be monitored going about their private business.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

Noomi said:


> Security cameras are needed only to prevent white cops from shooting dead unarmed black kids.


Picture is better than the post.


Noomi said:


> Security cameras are needed only to prevent white cops from shooting dead unarmed black kids.



Picture is better than the post.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Okay, I'll bite.   How many cameras and what kind of network and server set up would it take to make sure that all of Ferguson could be under surveillance?


How the hell would I know ?


----------



## boedicca (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> How the hell would I know ?



You claimed is was a good thing to do without considering the cost-benefit?  Well, that's pretty lame.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Okay, I'll bite.   How many cameras and what kind of network and server set up would it take to make sure that all of Ferguson could be under surveillance?



Also, if the cameras are going to be monitored, how much will that cost?  Will it be cops or just workers hired to stare at screens all day.  The cops would be expensive.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Both are not good.   One is specific to interactions with police, the other is surveillance apparatus through which law abiding citizens can be monitored going about their private business.


First of all, NO, the law abiding citizens are NOT being monitored going about their* private *business.  That is because the camera only records those_ "law abiding citizens"_ when they are going about their *PUBLIC *business, because those are the only places where street cameras monitor.  And it also monitors law-BREAKING citizens (and non-citizens), breaking the law helping police to protect you.

And the law abiding citizens are  no more "monitored" (ie. seen) by a camera and some security/police personnel, than they are by people in the street, who see them also.  Go to a football game. 90,000 people in the stadium you're in, can see you.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> First of all, NO, the law abiding citizens are NOT being monitored going about their* private *business.  That is because the camera only records those_ "law abiding citizens"_ when they are going about their *PUBLIC *business, because those are the only places where street cameras monitor.  And it also monitors law-BREAKING citizens (and non-citizens), breaking the law helping police to protect you.
> 
> And the law abiding citizens are  no more "monitored" (ie. seen) by a camera and some security/police personnel, than they are by people in the street, who see them also.  Go to a football game. 90,000 people in the stadium you're in, can see you.




Thank you very much, but I don't think being Recorded and Monitored by the government while I go to the market, put gas in my car, etc. is consistent with a Free Society.

And if you don't think such surveillance capabilities won't be abused by those in power, then you are incredibly naive.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

boedicca said:


> You claimed is was a good thing to do without considering the cost-benefit?  Well, that's pretty lame.


Are you here to be verbally abusive ?  Troll ?  I could excuse you except that the cost-benefit was explained to YOU directly, in Post # 126.  Now you're bringing up Ferguson, specifically. I've made no comment on that.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Also, if the cameras are going to be monitored, how much will that cost?  Will it be cops or just workers hired to stare at screens all day.  The cops would be expensive.


Already explained to you in Post # 126. Are you guys reading my posts?  Or just here to argue ?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Thank you very much, but I don't think being Recorded and Monitored by the government while I go to the market, put gas in my car, etc. is consistent with a Free Society.
> 
> And if you don't think such surveillance capabilities won't be abused by those in power, then you are incredibly naive.


Well, then you just happen to be very WRONG.  It is perfectly well consistent with a Free Society.  And if being seen and recorded is unacceptable to you, you should perhaps do one of two things >>

1.  Never leave your home and go outside, where people could see you and record you in their memory banks.  Or >>

2.  Wear a burka.  

As for surveillance capabilities being abused by those in power, I have already listed links to sources that say that has not been happening.  I could list many more.  In the meantime, I haven't seen one shred of evidence from you that this has been happening with street cameras.  So if you think you have some, let's hear it. (in link form please)


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Already explained to you in Post # 126. Are you guys reading my posts?  Or just here to argue ?



Post #126 was made by Boedicca.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

From the link I posted previously:

"The real reason cameras are usually deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes. But it has not even been demonstrated that they can do that. In Britain, where cameras have been extensively deployed in public places, sociologists studying the issue have found that they have not reduced crime. "Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences," criminologists found in one study, "reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre." A 2005 study for the British Home Office also found that cameras did not cut crime or the fear of crime (as had a 2002 study, also for the British government).

In addition, U.S. government experts on security technology, noting that "monitoring video screens is both boring and mesmerizing," have found in experiments that "after only 20 minutes of watching and evaluating monitor screens, the attention of most individuals has degenerated to well below acceptable levels.""


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Also, if the cameras are going to be monitored, how much will that cost?  Will it be cops or just workers hired to stare at screens all day.  The cops would be expensive.



For those who have a trauma about govt and "big brother", and thinking street cameras might be too expensive, there is a crime prevention (and law enforcement) movement taking place in the US called *"webcams"*. With this, instead of police monitoring cameras,* citizens do it themselves through their computers.* It's a type of computerized neighborhood watch program that citizens use to hep keep their communities safe by preventing crime, and catching criminals when they are active.

One of the traditional objections to police remote monitoring has been “the government” watching. With this approach, neighbors can watch over one another and only involve government in cases where there is an actual need. In June 2006, the State of Texas authorized the installation of hundreds of night vision-enabled webcams along its Mexican border. Now concerned citizens can monitor the streaming video footage for illegal crossers and even call a toll-free number to report them to local law enforcement. “It’s no different from a regular neighborhood watch program,” said Rachael Novier, a spokeswoman for Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Several large cities have installed webcams to reduce crime, including Baltimore, Denver, Boston and San Francisco. In San Francisco, researchers found that thefts were reduced by 22% in the area where cameras were installed. Although webcams cost money, they are less expensive than funding police officers. A one-position camera system can be purchased and installed for less than $5,000. The cost of a fully-equipped police officer, including salary and benefits, is more than $75,000. Webcams cannot be used in lieu of police officers, but they can be used as “force multipliers.”

Having a number of citizens monitoring cameras in several Neighbor-hood Watch blocks throughout a community with just a few hours of training would be extremely beneficial. It would help reduce the need for high levels of random patrol in each beat or Neighborhood Watch area. . Newark, NJ, installed 109 cameras in a seven-square-mile, high-crime area, resulting in a 40% reduction in murder and a double-digit reduction in shootings. When crimes do take place, police have a strong investigative tool to help solve those crimes.

Neighborhood Watch Webcams | Hendon Publishing


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

Furthermore 


WinterBorn said:


> From the link I posted previously:
> 
> "The real reason cameras are usually deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes. But it has not even been demonstrated that they can do that. In Britain, where cameras have been extensively deployed in public places, sociologists studying the issue have found that they have not reduced crime. "Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences," criminologists found in one study, "reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre." A 2005 study for the British Home Office also found that cameras did not cut crime or the fear of crime (as had a 2002 study, also for the British government).
> 
> In addition, U.S. government experts on security technology, noting that "monitoring video screens is both boring and mesmerizing," have found in experiments that "after only 20 minutes of watching and evaluating monitor screens, the attention of most individuals has degenerated to well below acceptable levels.""



I have already posted links showing just the opposite (and I have many more but this format won't allow large posts to go in)   Would you like to see MORE ? I can try,


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

I'm having trouble posting.  Got LOTS of stuff to post. Site won't let it post. I'm outta here.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

The Philadelphia Police have an interesting program which bring residents and businesses together with the police. They call it *Safecam*. Lt. John Stanford touts the effectiveness of the city’s SafeCam program. Over the last two years, some 600 businesses and residents have registered their surveillance cameras with police, allowing them to amass a database of videos that have helped to solve many crimes.
“Right now we have posted a little over 300 videos. But since we’ve done this, *well over 200 people have been arrested and taken off the street as a result*,” Lt. Stanford said.
There is example after example of suspects being arrested after video surfaces of a crime.
Surveillance video is proving to be more and more crucial when it comes to solving crimes. That’s why Philadelphia Police are urging more businesses, even residences, to register with the SafeCam program.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

I have a link for Post # 142.  Site won't accept it.  Lot of bugs in this new format


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Furthermore
> 
> 
> I have already posted links showing just the opposite (and I have many more but this format won't allow large posts to go in)   Would you like to see MORE ? I can try,



I am sure I could find more links backing up what the study in London found.  But since you won't read the link I provided already, I see no point.

I think cameras in police cars is a great step.  I do not see blanket surveillance of all public areas as an improvement.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Post #126 was made by Boedicca.



Sorry.  Post # 124, I meant.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> The Philadelphia Police have an interesting program which bring residents and businesses together with the police. They call it *Safecam*. Lt. John Stanford touts the effectiveness of the city’s SafeCam program. Over the last two years, some 600 businesses and residents have registered their surveillance cameras with police, allowing them to amass a database of videos that have helped to solve many crimes.
> “Right now we have posted a little over 300 videos. But since we’ve done this, *well over 200 people have been arrested and taken off the street as a result*,” Lt. Stanford said.
> There is example after example of suspects being arrested after video surfaces of a crime.
> Surveillance video is proving to be more and more crucial when it comes to solving crimes. That’s why Philadelphia Police are urging more businesses, even residences, to register with the SafeCam program.



Most of the crimes I have read it having a big effect on were petty crimes, like theft.

I think our focus should be on more serious crimes.  But that is just my opinion.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I am sure I could find more links backing up what the study in London found.  But since you won't read the link I provided already, I see no point.
> 
> I think cameras in police cars is a great step.  I do not see blanket surveillance of all public areas as an improvement.


You don't.   Dozens of police departments across America, using street cameras and having crime reduced, DO. And I agree with THEM.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Most of the crimes I have read it having a big effect on were petty crimes, like theft.
> 
> I think our focus should be on more serious crimes.  But that is just my opinion.


"Read" it  >  Where ?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> "Read" it  >  Where ?



Have you read my link yet?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> You don't.   Dozens of police departments across America, using street cameras and having crime reduced, DO. And I agree with THEM.



Dozens of police depts across the country also see having tanks and other military gear as an improvement, and I disagree.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Well, then you just happen to be very WRONG.  It is perfectly well consistent with a Free Society.  And if being seen and recorded is unacceptable to you, you should perhaps do one of two things >>
> 
> 1.  Never leave your home and go outside, where people could see you and record you in their memory banks.  Or >>
> 
> ...



Thanks for blowing the conservative image. I was always pretty safe in calling Liberals Totalitarians for their love of Big Government and then you come along pushing for a surveillance state where government tracks you and you have the gall to call that Freedom. Why don't you just complete your transformation and join your totalitarian friends on the left and declare yourself a liberal.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Thanks for blowing the conservative image. I was always pretty safe in calling Liberals Totalitarians for their love of Big Government and then you come along pushing for a surveillance state where government tracks you and you have the gall to call that Freedom. Why don't you just complete your transformation and join your totalitarian friends on the left and declare yourself a liberal.



I do not trust this "If only the gov't could see more" idea anymore than I buy into the idea "If you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry" nonsense.

Some folks just want Big Brother to fix everything.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Dozens of police depts across the country also see having tanks and other military gear as an improvement, and I disagree.


You can disagree with that and have opinion which you are entitled to.  What you are not entitled to do is change facts, which say that crime has been reduced, significantly all over the US (as I posted , and provided links for  >>

1.  Post # 101  -  Chicago

2.  # 108   -    Las Vegas

3.  # 115  -  250 cameras across England & Wales

4.  # 124  -  generic

5.  #  139  -  Texas, Baltimore, Denver, Boston, San Francisco.

6.  # 142  -  Philadelphia


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> You can disagree with that and have opinion which you are entitled to.  What you are not entitled to do is change facts, which say that crime has been reduced, significantly all over the US (as I posted , and provided links for  >>
> 
> 1.  Post # 101  -  Chicago
> 
> ...



Have you read my link yet?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Thanks for blowing the conservative image. I was always pretty safe in calling Liberals Totalitarians for their love of Big Government and then you come along pushing for a surveillance state where government tracks you and you have the gall to call that Freedom. Why don't you just complete your transformation and join your totalitarian friends on the left and declare yourself a liberal.


Because I'm NOT a liberal (although I do have some liberal economic positions)  Basically, I am a REAL Conservative, from the Eisenhower days (when I attended elementary school) Contrary to popular belief (mostly among young people) Conservative is not synonomous with small, weak, impotent governments, with small treasuries, and low taxes on the rich.

  That is a concept which only came about since Ronald Reagan took over. He lowered the top bracket tax from 70% to 28%, and declared that Conservatism was low taxes, low spending, and small (weak) govt.  Well, all you youngsters out there who weren't alive during the REAL Conservative days, I hate to burst your Reaganist bubble, but REAL Conservatism hasn't changed, no matter what some goofball movie actor with a super high salary, who didn't want to pay a 70% tax, had to say.

REAL Conservatism was in the 50s, and still is, a concentration on National Defense, Homeland Security, strong military, strong law enforcement, America's traditional values, and a BIG strong national govt to support all these things (as opposed to  small, weak, penniless govt unable to hire ICE agents, CBP officers, FBI, CIA. DEA, build a border fence, repair infrastructure, etc.)

So if you want to go around calling yourself a conservative, while you allow criminals to run rampant, without street cameras, and police depts big enough to control them , without sufficient prison space, and everything else needed to ensure national security, you can do that.   In the meantime, for all your weaken America efforts, the Muslim Brotherhood thanks you, al Qaeda thanks you, ISIS thanks you, La Raza thanks you, illegal aliens thank you, the NAACP thanks you, the ACLU thanks you, etc.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 19, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Have you read my link yet?



I'll get to it (eventually)  I'm off the computer right now.

Have you read MY links ?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 19, 2014)

protectionist said:


> I'll get to it (eventually)  I'm off the computer right now.
> 
> Have you read MY links ?


I am not disputing your links, nor have I asked for a readers digest version.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 20, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I am not disputing your links, nor have I asked for a readers digest version.


That wasn't the question.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 20, 2014)

protectionist said:


> First of all, NO, the law abiding citizens are NOT being monitored going about their* private *business.  That is because the camera only records those_ "law abiding citizens"_ when they are going about their *PUBLIC *business, because those are the only places where street cameras monitor.  And it also monitors law-BREAKING citizens (and non-citizens), breaking the law helping police to protect you.
> 
> And the law abiding citizens are  no more "monitored" (ie. seen) by a camera and some security/police personnel, than they are by people in the street, who see them also.  Go to a football game. 90,000 people in the stadium you're in, can see you.


Can and do are different. People on the street CAN see you. Cameras on the street WILL see you every single time unless something gets in the way. I can walk past someone on the street and not be able to tell you one detail about that person because I wasn't paying attention to them. A camera will "remember" every detail it is capable of capturing. It is not capable of not paying attention.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 20, 2014)

OP says, "Brown case shows need for street cameras". 

It also shows need for ALL Americans to be treated the same.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 20, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> OP says, "Brown case shows need for street cameras".
> 
> It also shows need for ALL Americans to be treated the same.


It does?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 21, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for blowing the conservative image. I was always pretty safe in calling Liberals Totalitarians for their love of Big Government and then you come along pushing for a surveillance state where government tracks you and you have the gall to call that Freedom. Why don't you just complete your transformation and join your totalitarian friends on the left and declare yourself a liberal.
> ...


Those who talk about big brother, have little conception of US govt.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 21, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Rikurzhen said:
> ...



Really?  Because it seems to me that we have had ample evidence that NSA and Homeland Security have been spying on us with alarming frequency.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 21, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Yeah!  Really!


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 21, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



You trust our federal gov't?


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 21, 2014)

Liberals won't feel safe until every home is equipped with bedroom and bathroom cams.  But they'd draw the line at having basement cams......


----------



## dblack (Aug 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Liberals won't feel safe until every home is equipped with bedroom and bathroom cams.  But they'd draw the line at having basement cams......



Whadya talkin' bout? Protectionist is 'conservative'. He SAID so!!!

When it comes down to it, authoritarians are comfortable in either party. Which sucks.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 21, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



My entire income comes from the federal govt (VA pension + Social Security)  This has been the case for 5 years with SS, and 3 years with VA.  I haven't missed a payment yet.  So after about 100 monthly payments, they haven't missed one.

Also, I get medical care from the VA.  Contrary to negative publicity, the overwhelming majority of VA medical care is excellent.  Mine has been, and I've had 7 surgeries since New Years 2014.  So yeah, I guess I trust them.  They've come through for me.  BIG time.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 21, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Liberals won't feel safe until every home is equipped with bedroom and bathroom cams.  But they'd draw the line at having basement cams......


Street cams are a conservative thing.  Biggest proponents > dozens of police departments all over the country.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 21, 2014)

Tonight on Fox News, a radio talk show host, McGraw Millhaven, said various people in Ferguson, MO are posturing in front of the cameras in an effort to get elected mayor. And in the meantime, a teenager is dead, and a cop is being accused (by some) of murder.  And the fact is, we don't know what happened.

Well folks, if there was a street camera on the street of the shooting, we'd have a video of the whole thing, and we WOULD know what happened.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 22, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 22, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Street cams are a conservative thing.  Biggest proponents > dozens of police departments all over the country.



Noted that you do NOT dispute the liberal hunger for bedroom and bathroom cameras!


----------



## protectionist (Aug 22, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > I meant *WHY* do they think the cameras are not a good idea.  Upon what do they base that "judgement" ?
> ...


In the time you have taken to not tell us (in a nutshell) *WHY* they think the cameras are not a good idea, you could have told us 1000 times over.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Street cams are a conservative thing.  Biggest proponents > dozens of police departments all over the country.
> ...


I never even heard of such looney things. Where does such a goofball notion originate ?  In MAD Magazine ?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 22, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



And you could have read the link I provided.  That is kinda the point of links.   

But if you insist on staying off topic, I guess that answers it all.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 22, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > True, but the camera could still pick up other distinctions.  Such as a particular type of boots or shoes, pants, shirt, jacket, gait, slight limp, peculiar habit (ex. rubbing one's ear), scars on arms, legs, or hands, tattoos, particular type of drink, food, candy, or cigarette, etc.
> ...


Of course.  And that is the beauty of video cameras.  They do just that.


WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Where was I off topic ????????


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 22, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Every time you post whining that I won't give you some "in a nutshell" version of a link I posted.   Read the freakin link or don't.  No skin off my ass either way.

You want big brother watching.  We get that.   Some don't prefer a nanny state.


----------



## Godboy (Aug 22, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...


 
Yes, it would significantly reduce the window of opportunity for monsters to kidnap girls. Who would kidnap someone if they know they are being filmed?


----------



## Godboy (Aug 22, 2014)

"Nanny state"? How do cameras turn the government into our nannies? Give me an example.


----------



## Godboy (Aug 22, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.


What liberty are you losing by walking past a camera?


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 22, 2014)

Godboy said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.
> ...



Are you a father? Let's say you and your daughter go to the beach. You daughter is lying on her towel getting a tan. Some dude sits right down next to her and starts taking crotch shots with his camera. Hey, she's in public, he's in public, so what's the problem?

The problem is the intent of the photographer. You don't trust him.

Well, plenty of people don't want the government recording their every move, scanning their faces, putting the photo and ID into a database and being able to construct a story about the personal details of your life via your movements and associations with friends and family.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 22, 2014)

Godboy said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.
> ...



If the government embedded a GPS tracker under your skin and tracked your every movement from the time you left your house until you returned to it,  would your liberty be infringed?

Would you go to AA or to see your therapist?

How about visiting that friend with a questionable past?

Or your friend who is Muslim?

Would you go to the strip bar?

With facial recognition software,  this is basically the same thing.


We know for a fact the government has misused the email and phone call interception programs...do you trust them with this even more powerful tool for spying on the citizenry?

I do not.

Read 1984.  Please.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 22, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Indeed.   Anyone who trusts our gov't is either naive or a fool.  I would lean towards the latter.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 22, 2014)

If only we were all cameras...


----------



## Missourian (Aug 23, 2014)

Some future Franklin,  King or Gandhi will look back at 21st century America and lament "Link by link,  in the name of security they forged the chain that would inevitably deliver them into the bondage of tyranny.  It should have been obvious that a government that is all-knowing becomes all-powerful."


----------



## Politico (Aug 23, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Godboy said:
> ...



Lean? I firmly state it.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 23, 2014)

First they whine about the police becoming militarized, then they want BIG Brother on every street corner invading our privacy. not like there isn't enough already. Let's just put chips in everyone next to monitor their every movement

this op is one scary person. probably look good brown shirt


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 23, 2014)

I don't think cameras everywhere are necessary but I do think every cop should have a camera and mic on their person.

Anyone should be allowed to video and audio record any and all dealings with any public employee


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 23, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> I don't think cameras everywhere are necessary but I do think every cop should have a camera and mic on their person.
> 
> Anyone should be allowed to video and audio record any and all dealings with any public employee



absolutely we should be able to video them, they work for US and we pay their salary. I saw a news clip on these cameras that police can wear on their shirts. Pretty cool really, that might the next step


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 23, 2014)

Afaik, even if the shooting had been on a street cam it wouldn't be admissable as evidence as is the case with traffic cams and going through red lights. Because we have the right to confront our accuser, because a camera doesn't afford us that right it's been rule inadmissable in traffic incidents. Including right there in St. Louis if not mistaken.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 23, 2014)

Do I need to pay red light camera ticket in City of St. Louis - Avvo.com

Missouri trafficcam litigation and 4 answers from lawyers of 'do I have to pay these tickets?' Short answer no, but only because of current cases including state Supreme Court. Depending the outcome, trafficcams may be done away with altogether or kept solely as what they were intended to be, traffic flow cams, not enforcement devices.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 23, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Do I need to pay red light camera ticket in City of St. Louis - Avvo.com
> 
> Missouri trafficcam litigation and 4 answers from lawyers of 'do I have to pay these tickets?' Short answer no, but only because of current cases including state Supreme Court. Depending the outcome, trafficcams may be done away with altogether or kept solely as what they were intended to be, traffic flow cams, not enforcement devices.


I remember an article from some time ago where a kid wearing a cap, a hood and sunglasses was caught on multiple traffic cameras running lights etc and got away with it


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 23, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> First they whine about the police becoming militarized, then they want BIG Brother on every street corner invading our privacy. not like there isn't enough already. Let's just put chips in everyone next to monitor their every movement
> 
> this op is one scary person. probably look good brown shirt



Indeed he would.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 23, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



1.  When I ask you to simply tell us what the ACLU said about street cameras, that's NOT off topic.  It's concerning street cameras (the topic).

2.  Street cameras have nothing to do with "big brother."  They are simply better law enforcement. Something we should appreciate (unless they're criminals)

3.  Street cameras are not a nanny state either.

Strike 1.  Strike 2.  Strike 3.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 23, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> First they whine about the police becoming militarized, then they want BIG Brother on every street corner invading our privacy. not like there isn't enough already. Let's just put chips in everyone next to monitor their every movement
> 
> this op is one scary person. probably look good brown shirt


I never said anything about police being militarized, and who is this _"they"_ you speak of ?  Then you say _"they" want BIG Brother on every street corner invading our privacy".
_
Well, I DO know who that "they" is.  It is citizens, business owners, and police departments all over the country, who have installed hundreds of thousands of street cameras, and seen crime go down significantly soon afterward.  They've also seen the videos give prosecutors the EVIDENCE they need to convict guilty criminals.  They also have helped save communities millions of dollars, by reducing the number of trials they have had to hold.

As for your comment about_ "privacy"_, that shows how out of touch you are on this issue.  As I noted repeatedly in this thread, street cameras only monitor/record in PUBLIC places, not private ones. Out in the PUBLIC, you DON"T HAVE privacy.  If you read the thread before posting, you could avoid talking foolishly.

And nobody here has advocated putting _"chips in everyone next to monitor their every movement" _ YOU said that.   Sorry, this is a smart forum.    Straw men don't fly here.
"Next" arguments are stupid.  When legislators legalized handguns, one could have said >> " Let's just let everyone have rocket launchers".  Well, they don't, because thing are done smartly. Sure, all kinds of things could go wrong _"next"_ if what is done is stupid.  Simple answer:  Don't be stupid.

PS - street cameras may indeed be_ "scary" _(was the word you used).    Yes, they could indeed be scary.  TO CRIMINALS.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 23, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> I don't think cameras everywhere are necessary but I do think every cop should have a camera and mic on their person.
> 
> Anyone should be allowed to video and audio record any and all dealings with any public employee



Amend that to read "Anyone ought to be able to record THEIR dealings with a public employee" and I agree.

I don't think people should be allowed to further complicate a cop's job by running in and recording the interaction between the cop and a third party. That should be illegal. 

But yeah you get pulled over and want to record the incident, that should be a okay.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 23, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think cameras everywhere are necessary but I do think every cop should have a camera and mic on their person.
> ...


Most videos of police traffic stops have SIMPLIFIED the cop's job, by showing that he did his job properly.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 23, 2014)

protectionist said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


----------



## protectionist (Aug 23, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...


This quote is showing me to be saying words I never said.  Whose words they really are, I don't know.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 24, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



If you had stopped at asking for a summary, then perhaps it would not be off topic.  But the whole "In the time it took you to......yada yada yada" was certainly off topic.

I would be embarrassed to admit I wouldn't read such a link as I posted.

I don't recall saying that the ACLU had anything to do with the link I posted.

The cameras most certainly have to do with Big Brother.  He is the one watching them.  It is the gov't employees playing voyeur with out wives & daughters.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 24, 2014)

I don't have a problem with Big Brother. And given how readily we reveal private information on websites I question the legitimacy of complaints about it. If some cams in public places help catch bad guys I'm all for it. I don't think they actually deter crime, but documenting it's something.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 24, 2014)

Well, some towns can't afford it. So I guess he's suggesting us taxpayers now pay for every state, city and town now too even though WE DON'T LIVE THERE


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 24, 2014)

protectionist said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


So what's the downside?

It just makes everything easier


----------



## Godboy (Aug 24, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


Are we talking about security cameras or forcing people to undergo surgeries? Quit getting your political views from movies.

England has those cameras everywhere and it has both prevented crimes and solved a lot of crimes. What has been the downside to that program that outweighs all the good its done?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Well, some towns can't afford it. So I guess he's suggesting us taxpayers now pay for every state, city and town now too even though WE DON'T LIVE THERE


Quite the contrary. They can't afford TO NOT install street cameras.  They SAVE communities money, not cost them.  You come in late to a thread, saying things that have already been refuted by multiple posters and multiple links.  Please read the thread before posting.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...


There ISN'T any downside (except for the criminals)


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Godboy said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Godboy said:
> ...


Dozens of studies and experience have consistently shown the cameras reduce crime, prevent it, provide evidence, and reduce trials thereby saving large amounts of money.  Only criminals and paranoia fanatics are opposed.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


Paranoiac overreaction.  Where do you get the idea that these concoctions of yours are going to happen ?  One could concoct terrible things about many harmless activites, if you look at them negatively.

  You could say if you go fishing, you could fall off the boat and drown, you could say a shark might bite your leg off, you could say a fish hook might get stuck in your ear, you could say you might slip on the wet deck and hit your head, etc etc.  Yet, millions of people go out on fishing boats everyday, all over the world.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


I read 1984.  Your ideas are ridiculous.  Who said anything about a GPS tracker under your skin, or facial recognition software ?  Answer:  YOU did.  There seems to be  a consistent pattern in this thread, of people bringing up extreme scenarios, which are not part of the OP or topic of the thread, or are extreme stretches of it, and then attacking the topic from these extreme scenarios.

There are 317 million people in the USA.  Now WHY would any law enforcement agency choose YOU (out of 317 million people) to track your every movement ?  I don't have the slightest trepidation of that happening to me.  I'm probably about as significant to the FBI and other cops, as a ball of dust on the floor.  When I hear from people who ARE concerned, I can't help wondering what they might be involved with.  Something illegal maybe ?  Otherwise, why worry ?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Godboy said:
> ...


This is a foolish statement.  I've trusted the federal govt to send me monthly Social Security payments since 2009.  I've trusted them to send monthly VA pension payments since 2011.  That totals up to over 100 payments.  I haven't missed a single payment, or been shorted one penny. 

    "The government" is a very broad term. It includes various levels of government from US govt to city govt, and many various branches, departments, agencies, etc. within those.  Some may be very trustable.  Others less so.  But it certainly isn't a subject for blanket evaluations.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Some future Franklin,  King or Gandhi will look back at 21st century America and lament "Link by link,  in the name of security they forged the chain that would inevitably deliver them into the bondage of tyranny.  It should have been obvious that a government that is all-knowing becomes all-powerful."


Being all powerful is not necessarily consistent with being malicious.  The good or evil of a democratic republic govt  (as we have in the US), a is a function of how much we, as citizens, control it with our input, or allow it to run amok without our management, as is our responsibility.
  This is how govt _"becomes"_ what is is, not how knowing it is.  If we manage OUR govt correctly, then more it knows, the better, to PROTECT us from al Qaeda, ISIS, MS 13, street gangs, etc.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Politico said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


You firmly FOOLISHLY state it (as I described in Post # 210).


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Afaik, even if the shooting had been on a street cam it wouldn't be admissable as evidence as is the case with traffic cams and going through red lights. Because we have the right to confront our accuser, because a camera doesn't afford us that right it's been rule inadmissable in traffic incidents. Including right there in St. Louis if not mistaken.


That is about the most WRONG statement I've heard in years.  Millions of people all over America have paid $100+ fines based on red light camera evidence, including me.  I actually don't favor red light cameras simply because they can show motorists going though red lights when it wasn't that motorists fault (you sometimes have to stop while in the intersection)
  As far as general street cameras are concerned, they have been used in court numerous times all over America, to convict criminals, as well as to force the criminal to confess and plead guilty.
This is very common, happening every day, and is the confirmation of the effectiveness of the camera/recorders.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Do I need to pay red light camera ticket in City of St. Louis - Avvo.com
> 
> Missouri trafficcam litigation and 4 answers from lawyers of 'do I have to pay these tickets?' Short answer no, but only because of current cases including state Supreme Court. Depending the outcome, trafficcams may be done away with altogether or kept solely as what they were intended to be, traffic flow cams, not enforcement devices.


They were not intended to be traffic flow cams, they were intended to *prevent accidents *from red light runners, and in worst cases to *catch red light runners* who cause an accident and than flee from it (something ordinary street cameras would do)


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Do I need to pay red light camera ticket in City of St. Louis - Avvo.com
> ...


His make, model, year, and color of car could be detected as well as his license plate.  I watched the video of my car turning right on red (without stopping first).  I got a $150 fine, and my license plate # was crystal clear.  You could even zoom in on it.  At no time was I myself ever visible in the video.  So your scenario of a kid with_ "cap, a hood and sunglasses"_ running lights is a moot point, entirely irrelevant.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


1. If you don't like the phrase "_"In the time it took you to......yada yada yada"_, then why did YOU state it that way?   I borrowed it from YOU , remember ?  (Post # 120)

2.  I don't know what you're talking about that would be embarrased about.  (????)

3.  You said it by having the ACLU in the title of the link.  HA HA HA!!  What's the matter ? Don't you read your own links ? >>>  What s Wrong With Public Video Surveillance American Civil Liberties Union

4.  The cameras most certainly DO NOT have to do with _"Big Brother"_.  NO, He is NOT the one watching them.  There IS NO _"Big Brother"_ except in you paranoid, over-subjective mind.  The idea of  gov't employees playing voyeur with our wives & daughters, is CYBER-STALKING.  You know,   Like YOU'VE been doing to me in the overly permissive forum for the past 3 months.  It's a crime, and having worked is security with CCTV cameras for multiple agencies for years, I can tell you it isn't done there.  It is something that is easily catchable, and punishable with jail time.

Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment Laws State Laws against Cyberbullying


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 24, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Was it in the title of the link?   I didn't pay attention to the title.  I was far more interested in the actual information contained in the article.  You know, the stuff you can't read?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 24, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



And yes, I recognized the words I used when you refused to answer a simple question.  I provided the answer in the form of a link.  You are just too lazy to read it.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



HA HA.  YOU KNOW it's in the title of the link - I just posted it, and so did YOU in my quote. 

Oh, I can read it, all right,   Just like YOU can read the stuff in MY links.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


So if you recognized the words you used, then you should have been easily able to "recall" from just a few days ago, that the ACLU had _"anything to do with the link"_  you posted,  as well as being right in the title of that link, itself. Right ?  Right WinterBorn ?  Right ? Right ?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 24, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Once again, I was interested in the content of the website.   Funny that you can harp on all this, but you cannot read a link that is just under 1,600 words.  Stay on topic, and get back to me when you have read the problems listed in the link.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 24, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



That is certainly correct.  I can read your links and have read links you posted.  The difference is, I prefer to discuss the topic and not try to play this "gotcha" game or waste time going on and on about things that are not relevant to the topic.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I will decide when I get back to you, and under what circumstances. 

And this really isn't the discussion that you want to persist with.  You couldn't recall something from a few days ago.  OK.  Whatever.  It's good to be interested in the content of a website.  It's also good to avoid saying things stupid.  It's over.  We move on.

Yes, I could read your American Civil Laughingstock Union link, but I get the idea that it is in contradiction to the link mountain of evidence I've already posted right here, and I am really busy with other threads, as well as life beyond the computer. An ACLU article seems like trite to me.  Same organization that huffs and puffs about free speech, while putting a GAG ORDER on its own members (to not criticize ACLU leaders)  HA HA HA.  We ought to be paid to read ACLU stuff.  I mean really.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Then don't participate in the "gotcha" game (as you've been doing), and instead, just discuss the topic.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 24, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


It would never hold up in court if you fought it.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 24, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



If that's true, GOOD!  I hate red light cameras, and I go out of my way to avoid them.  But ordinary street cameras are a different story.  They don't screw anybody like red light cameras sometimes do, and they are 100% admissable in court, and are used every day in and out of court.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 24, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



I have been participating.   And, as usual for an internet site such as this, I posted a link with several reasons public surveillance cameras either are not great ideas or they haven't done what you think they will do.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The notion that public surveillance cameras either are not great ideas or they haven't done what I KNOW  they have BEEN DOING, for years now, ...........I need not go further.  

1. Post # 101 - Chicago

2. # 108 - Las Vegas

3. # 115 - 250 cameras across England & Wales

4. # 124 - generic

5. # 139 - Texas, Baltimore, Denver, Boston, San Francisco.

6. # 142 - Philadelphia


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

From a link not read:

"1. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN EFFECTIVE
The implicit justification for the recent push to increase video surveillance is the threat of terrorist attacks. But suicide attackers are clearly not deterred by video cameras - and may even be attracted to the television coverage cameras can ensure - and the expense of an extensive video surveillance system such as Britain's - which sucks up approximately 20 percent of that nation's criminal justice budget - far exceeds the limited benefits that the system may provide in investigating attacks or attempted attacks after the fact (see fact sheet on Surveillance Cameras and the Attempted London Attacks).

The real reason cameras are usually deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes. But it has not even been demonstrated that they can do that. In Britain, where cameras have been extensively deployed in public places, sociologists studying the issue have found that they have not reduced crime. "Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences," criminologists found in one study, "reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre." A 2005 study for the British Home Office also found that cameras did not cut crime or the fear of crime (as had a 2002 study, also for the British government).

In addition, U.S. government experts on security technology, noting that "monitoring video screens is both boring and mesmerizing," have found in experiments that "after only 20 minutes of watching and evaluating monitor screens, the attention of most individuals has degenerated to well below acceptable levels."

2. CCTV IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO ABUSE
One problem with creating such a powerful surveillance system is that experience tells us it will inevitably be abused. There are five ways that surveillance-camera systems are likely to be misused:

*Criminal abuse*
Surveillance systems present law enforcement "bad apples" with a tempting opportunity for criminal misuse. In 1997, for example, a top-ranking police official in Washington, DC was caught using police databases to gather information on patrons of a gay club. By looking up the license plate numbers of cars parked at the club and researching the backgrounds of the vehicles' owners, he tried to blackmail patrons who were married. Imagine what someone like that could do with a citywide spy-camera system.

*Institutional abuse*
Sometimes, bad policies are set at the top, and an entire law enforcement agency is turned toward abusive ends. That is especially prone to happen in periods of social turmoil and intense conflict over government policies. During the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, for example, the FBI - as well as many individual police departments around the nation - conducted illegal operations to spy upon and harass political activists who were challenging racial segregation and the Vietnam War. This concern is especially justified since we are in some respects enduring a similar period of conflict today.

*Abuse for personal purposes*
Powerful surveillance tools also create temptations to abuse them for personal purposes. An investigation by the Detroit Free Press, for example, showed that a database available to Michigan law enforcement was used by officers to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists after traffic altercations, and track estranged spouses.

*Discriminatory targeting*
Video camera systems are operated by humans who bring to the job all their existing prejudices and biases. In Great Britain, camera operators have been found to focus disproportionately on people of color. According to a sociological study of how the systems were operated, "Black people were between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half times more likely to be surveilled than one would expect from their presence in the population."

*Voyeurism*
Experts studying how the camera systems in Britain are operated have also found that the mostly male (and probably bored) operators frequently use the cameras to voyeuristically spy on women. Fully one in 10 women were targeted for entirely voyeuristic reasons, the researchers found. Many incidents have been reported in the United States. In one, New York City police in a helicopter supposedly monitoring the crowds at the 2004 Republican Convention trained an infrared video camera on an amorous couple enjoying the nighttime "privacy" of their rooftop balcony.

3. THE LACK OF LIMITS OR CONTROLS ON CAMERAS USE
Advanced surveillance systems such as CCTV need to be subject to checks and balances. Because the technology has evolved so quickly, however, checks and balances to prevent the kinds of abuses outlined above don't exist. Two elements in particular are missing:

*A consensus on limits for the capability of public CCTV systems.*
Unfortunately, history has shown that surveillance technologies put in place for one purpose inevitably expand into other uses. And with video technology likely to continue advancing, the lack of any clear boundaries for what CCTV systems should be able to do poses a significant danger.

In just the past several years, many cities, including Washington, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, have for the first time installed significant numbers of police-operated cameras trainined on public spaces. And once these surveillance facilities are put in place, police departments will be in a position to increase the quality of its technology and the number of its cameras - and will inevitably be tempted or pressured to do so. Do we want the authorities installing high-resolution cameras that can read a pamphlet from a mile away? Cameras equipped to detect wavelengths outside the visible spectrum, allowing night vision or see-through vision? Cameras equipped with facial recognition, like those that have been installed in airports and even on the streets of Tampa, Florida? Cameras augmented with other forms of artificial intelligence, such as those deployed in Chicago?

As long as there is no clear consensus about where we draw the line on surveillance to protect American values, public CCTV is in danger of evolving into a surveillance monster.

*Legally enforceable rules for the operation of such systems.*
A societal consensus about how cameras should be used is important, but in the end we are a nation of laws and rights that have their root in law. While the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution offers some protection against video searches conducted by the police, there are currently no general, legally enforceable rules to limit privacy invasions and protect against abuse of CCTV systems. Rules are needed to establish a clear public understanding of such issues as whether video signals are recorded, under what conditions, and how long are they retained; what the criteria are for access to archived video by other government agencies, or by the public; how the rules would be verified and enforced; and what punishments would apply to violators.

There have long been well-established rules governing the _audio_ recording of individuals without their consent (there is a reason surveillance cameras never have microphones). It makes no sense that we don't have equivalent laws for video recording."


----------

