Deserving Neither
An ABC News poll (PDF) has shown that the majority of Americans seem to prefer a police state.
[…]
I find it shocking that 71 percent said they favored surveillance cameras, and only 25 percent were opposed.
Update: Barry doesn’t dig McBee’s ditch, citing he’s large on the hyperbole. I agree. But the short version of what Barry says is: you have a right to privacy except when you don’t. Now, I don’t mind, to use Barry’s example, cameras put up by non-governmental entities to monitor their property. Heck, the office I’m in now has them. I do, however, mind big brother doing it. Just because I got nothing to hide, it don’t mean you should be looking.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:24 am
When some people use fear to advance an agenda you get more fear. To paraphrase Gordon Geeko … Fear, for lack of a better word … works, fear is good.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:46 am
My issue is spending a load of public funds to tie the private cameras together to one government location, like what is going to happen in Pittsburgh. Can’t find the article on it at the moment, I’ll post the link if I manage to find it.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
One thing I worry about is that the government may find a way to access/monitor private security camera systems. For I know they already have, but one way or another, the technology is obviously avaliable and it may be only a matter of time. Mr. Orwell may have been off by only a few decades after all…
August 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Not really a valid pole unless you know how the question were posed. As in: would you support reducing crime by installing more video cameras in public places? Well, duh, most government educated idiots will agree with that one.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:10 pm
By the same process, do you mind, say, a cop standing on the street-corner watching the crowds? Do the police have the right (or more accurately do we give them the right) to stand out in on the sidewalk, or atop a horse, or in a squad car, and watch a crowd – or is that an invasion of our privacy? He’s watching for someone to break a law or cause some sort of problem (as well as assist others in need) but he can’t do his job unless he’s keeping an eye out. Is he invading your privacy in doing so?
Now, the obvious differences between a cop and a video camera are the camera(s) have a much greater field of vision and recording capabilities. Is that where you draw the line, at being recorded? Or that they can see much more than one cop?
Of course, a camera can’t suddenly drag you away for no reason, so there’s that added safety feature.
Do you have the same amount of misgivings about public cameras watching a street corner as you might about a policeman standing there? I’m just curious where the boundary is between maintaining and violating your privacy.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I have no problem with private cameras. I do with governmental universal monitoring.
Anybody who doesn’t understand why is beyond reason.
August 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Well, Barry, then let’s put cameras/cops into our houses. I mean, we could be breaking the law right now!!!
Ok, kidding aside. If the police are watching a crowd, so be it. They can respond. A camera can not. The police provide other benefits whereas a camera is likely just a revenue scheme.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Well, if it’s a revenue scheme then attack it for being a revenue scheme. Don’t accuse it of one thing when you actually believe it’s done another, just because the first thing resonates better and riles people up more.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
It can’t be both a revenue scheme (primary purpose) and an invasion of privacy? And I also pointed out that, unlike cameras, police serve a secondary valuable service – namely responding. Whereas the cameras’ purpose is less valuable to me.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Coincidentally, I could have responded with:
Well, if it’s not a 4th amendment issue then don’t defend it as being like the police. Don’t defend one thing when you actually believe in another, just because . . . err what was I saying? 😉
Nah, seriously, pointing out multiple defenses and attacks on an issue is kinda key. I mean, things like this are complex and have multiple cons and pros. I happen to hate the cons more than I dig the pros.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Sure it can be both. But that previous comment was the first time revenue scheme was brought up, and you made it sound like that was the main reason to oppose it. Similar to the intersection cameras, I guess.
I’m working on a principle analysis here, and not really trying to argue the practicality of the cameras. Are they truly an invasion of our privacy or not, or to the degree that it actually violates your rights? And are they really much different, from a privacy standpoint, than a cop watching you? That’s all I’m asking.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Yes. A cop has judgment. A camera does not. And, as I said, just because I got nothing to hide, it’s no justification for someone to take a peak.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
And a cop will do something about a crime happening right in front of him. With a camera, the absolute best you can hope for is that someone was watching the screen and sends out an ambulance to pick you up after the mugger has left. (Of course, the tapes might help send the mugger to jail someday – but first, a cop has to get out on the streets, instead of watching TV screens, and catch him…)
Finally, there can’t be very many cops standing out there watching the crowd, because their salaries add up. With cameras, it is possible that the government could afford enough of them, that if someone in power took a particular interest in you, they could start puttting the recordings together and trace everywhere you went.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:37 pm
This is one of those cases where lame hyperbole makes intelligent debate impossible. Should we put surveillance cameras in public places as a way to help solve crimes? I don’t know. It depends on which public places, how crime-ridden they are or aren’t, how much the cameras cost, and too many other factors to count. But to call it “spying” or to whine about so-called privacy is truly pathetic. We’re talking about cameras in public places. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. When the .gov starts sneaking in surveillance cameras where real police can’t go, then and only then will it make sense to prattle about a “police state.” Or is it McBee’s position that police shouldn’t be allowed in public places, either?
August 1st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
That’s no distinction at all. If a camera takes a picture in the wilderness and no one looks at the picture, did it really take a picture? And if someone does look at the picture, what makes you think that person has any less judgment than a beat cop?
August 1st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Sure it is. A camera watches everything or nothing. A cop watches based on suspicion of actual wrongdoing.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Huh? Cops routinely patrol areas with no suspicion of wrongdoing at all. If they find wrongdoing, or anything that smells like it, then they zero in. Cameras just give cops more eyes and ears.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
If the police want to take pictures of me, surely they won’t me setting up a network of cameras in police stations to monitor what they are doing, with feeds that anyone can tap into take take a gander.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:17 am
Xrlqy Wrlqy, sure they do. But they focus on those suspected of wrongdoing and not just some random person.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
And of course there would never be any chicanery. Martin-Marietta and San Diego never happened. Uh huh!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Nor would there ever be any misuse of the ability to listen to your private conversations over your telephone, cell phone or OnStar in your homes and cars. I mean that ability hasn’t been abused, oh wait, yes it has! How about that? Well, I’m sure they would draw the line at abusing video abilities. I mean there aren’t any places in the country that outlaw the videotaping of police in public places, oh wait, yes there are!
But somehow, I am supposed to be fine with them doing it to me. Oh, wait, no I’m not!
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
At trial a cop can be called on to testify as to the circumstance and the appropriateness of his response. A camera cannot. But with a few keystrokes on a computer it can be made to present an inaccurate picture of events. Yet it cannot be questioned and is almost universally accepted as true, despite the ability to pervert its depictions.