Brown Case Shows Need for Street Cameras

[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.

 

[WinterBorn]

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]

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

 

[protectionist]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Picture is better than the post.

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

Picture is better than the post.

 

[protectionist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Furthermore

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,