Brown Case Shows Need for Street Cameras

[Delta4Embassy]

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]

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]

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.

So what's the downside?

It just makes everything easier

 

[Godboy]

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.

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]

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]

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.

So what's the downside?

It just makes everything easier

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

 

[protectionist]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[protectionist]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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 ?

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 thr matter ? don't you read your own links ? >>> What s Wrong With Public Video Surveillance American Civil Liberties Union

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]

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.

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 ?

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

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]

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.

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 ?

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 thr matter ? don't you read your own links ? >>> What s Wrong With Public Video Surveillance American Civil Liberties Union

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?

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]

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.

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 ?

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

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.

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 ?