Brown Case Shows Need for Street Cameras

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by protectionist, Aug 18, 2014.

  1. WinterBorn
    Offline

    WinterBorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,100
    Thanks Received:
    3,020
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +9,018
    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.
     
  2. WinterBorn
    Offline

    WinterBorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,100
    Thanks Received:
    3,020
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +9,018
    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.
     
  3. protectionist
    Online

    protectionist Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,551
    Thanks Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +5,352
    I will decide when I get back to you, and under what circumstances. :D

    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. [​IMG]
     
  4. protectionist
    Online

    protectionist Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,551
    Thanks Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +5,352
    Then don't participate in the "gotcha" game (as you've been doing), and instead, just discuss the topic. :D
     
  5. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    37,776
    Thanks Received:
    5,202
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,800
    It would never hold up in court if you fought it.
     
  6. protectionist
    Online

    protectionist Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,551
    Thanks Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +5,352
    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.
     
  7. WinterBorn
    Offline

    WinterBorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,100
    Thanks Received:
    3,020
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +9,018
    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.
     
  8. protectionist
    Online

    protectionist Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,551
    Thanks Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +5,352
    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. :laugh:

    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
     
  9. WinterBorn
    Offline

    WinterBorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,100
    Thanks Received:
    3,020
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +9,018
    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."
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

is facial recognition software admissable

,

street cams in brown shooting