Brown Case Shows Need for Street Cameras

[Rikurzhen]

Anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.

What liberty are you losing by walking past a camera?

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]

Anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.

What liberty are you losing by walking past a camera?

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]

Anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.

What liberty are you losing by walking past a camera?

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.

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

 

[Mr. H.]

If only we were all cameras...

 

[Missourian]

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]

Anyone willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.

What liberty are you losing by walking past a camera?

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.

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

Lean? I firmly state it.

 

[Stephanie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

I'm talking about situations where a third party runs in and starts recording and soon there is a crowd ignorantly yelling that the cop is doing something wrong , inciting even more trouble for the police.

I know you've seen the type of videos I'm talking about, and that most assuredly doesn't make the cops job easier. Oh, it may make proving the cop did everything right easier after the fact, but dealing with a crowd while dealing with a suspect is too much to ask of anyone.

 

[protectionist]

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.

I'm talking about situations where a third party runs in and starts recording and soon there is a crowd ignorantly yelling that the cop is doing something wrong , inciting even more trouble for the police.

I know you've seen the type of videos I'm talking about, and that most assuredly doesn't make the cops job easier. Oh, it may make proving the cop did everything right easier after the fact, but dealing with a crowd while dealing with a suspect is too much to ask of anyone.

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.