Brown Case Shows Need for Street Cameras

[protectionist]

Here's what happens thousands of times every day in America. A crime is committed out in broad daylight, but nobody was there to see it. Or if/whenever somebody says they were, nobody knows if that's true. Result ? No charges placed becasue of insufficient evidence.

At the same time, an innocent person could get caught up in something when in the aftermath, it appears like he might have done a crime. He gets arrested wrongly.

All this could be avoided by having street cameras, hooked into recorders.

I am a big fan of the TV show "Forensic Files". It is amazing how many criminals would have gone scott free had it not been for the forensic science investigation. But many criminals ARE going free right now, only because of the lack of street cameras which could catch criminals in the act, before the cops even arrive at the scene.

The Brown case is a perfect example. Had a street camera been on in the street where the shooting occured we could simple play back the video and know exactly what happened. There was no camera, so we can't. Contrast that with the camera/recorder of the convenience store which WAS operating, and DID catch thug boy Brown right in his tracks. And without that video, we would be seeing this Brown case quite differently right now.

Another example is the Carlie Brucia murder case. Killer Joseph Smith was convicted killing 11 year old Carlie. But would he have been even arrested, if not for a video which showed him and little Carlie Brucia walking together through a car wash, where Smith picked her up ? Probably not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgd0I77Rao

[Codename Section]

Or cops wearing cameras is better.

[Common Sense]

While I see the merits...it's a slippery slope. I certainly think in commercial areas or in intersections isn't a horrible idea. But it is sorta scary in a big brother sort of way.

[Common Sense]

Or cops wearing cameras is better.

I'm a proponent of that. It protects the cops and the citizens.

[Ravens Fan]

I prefer the cops wearing the cameras. Keeps them honest and protects them from false claims.

[PolWatch]

Doesn't Britain have a lot of CCT on public streets? If so, anyone know they are working for 'em?

[The Xl]

Or cops wearing cameras is better.

This.

And consequences should be immediately be felt if an incident occurs and said cops camera "breaks"

[del]

there are an estimated 30,000,000 surveillance cameras in the us now.

how many are enough?

[Chris]

Yea, I raised this possibility this morning, officers wearing cameras. Here's a video story on Albuquerque PD using them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB57dxYJXQU

Part of the discussion is if police can video tape people, people should also be able to video them.

[del]

Yea, I raised this possibility this morning, officers wearing cameras. Here's a video story on Albuquerque PD using them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB57dxYJXQU

Part of the discussion is if police can video tape people, people should also be able to video them.

people already can video them.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

[PolWatch]

uh..no, citizens can't video cops...ask the reporters arrested in the Ferguson MO McDonalds.

[Chris]

people already can video them.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

Should be able to, I agree, and legal, yes, but the police in many cases hassle you.

[Cigar]

There would still be endless denials :rollseyes:

A Man got Choked to death with multiple eye witnesses and numerous Cell Cameras recording there event and people where still not convinced there was even a choke hold ever used.

:wink:

[del]

uh..no, citizens can't video cops...ask the reporters arrested in the Ferguson MO McDonalds.

citizens can video cops, but cops try to make you believe otherwise. if you're in a public place you can video whatever you want.

on private property, it's up to the owner

you also have an obligation not to interfere with the police doing their job, nor can you break laws just because you're video/photographing (e.g. trepassing)

[Common Sense]

uh..no, citizens can't video cops...ask the reporters arrested in the Ferguson MO McDonalds.

You are legally allowed to film cops. That doesn't mean they wont arrest you...but you can film them.

[del]

Should be able to, I agree, and legal, yes, but the police in many cases hassle you.

fuck em

they know, or should know, that you're within your rights.

it's like when they ask if they can look in your car or trunk (because you've got nothing to hide, right?)

i always say yes, just let me read the warrant first.

[Cigar]

there are an estimated 30,000,000 surveillance cameras in the us now.

how many are enough?

Apparently 30,000,000 surveillance cameras aren't in the right place

[del]

Apparently 30,000,000 surveillance cameras aren't in the right place

i think cameras on the cops are a good idea, for the protection of the cops and the public.

otherwise, count me out

[Polecat]

Don't forget the RFID chip in everybody's forehead.

[Cigar]

i think cameras on the cops are a good idea, for the protection of the cops and the public.

otherwise, count me out


I'm not sure, I lean towards cameras on cops as overkill, beside if anyone wants to, there's a way around everything.

It's would be just a waist of money, when better training is needed.

Besides, every place has racist cops, it's up to the cops thenselves to police the few racist out of the force.

[Redrose]

Or cops wearing cameras is better.

All the scenes captured by the patrol car dash cam, the officer is vindicated. All the scenes with no dash cam, are interpreted by the biased crowd as police brutality. Let the cops wear camera, then people will see what they really have to deal with on a regular basis, and what these "little angels" are really doing.

[Common Sense]

All the scenes captured by the patrol car dash cam, the officer is vindicated. All the scenes with no dash cam, are interpreted by the biased crowd as police brutality. Let the cops wear camera, then people will see what they really have to deal with on a regular basis, and what these "little angels" are really doing.

"All the scenes captured by the patrol car dash cam, the officer is vindicated"? Really? There are certainly quite a few dash cam recordings that do not vindicate the officers involved. Agreed many do.

[Polecat]

I'm not sure, I lean towards cameras on cops as overkill, beside if anyone wants to, there's a way around everything.

It's would be just a waist of money, when better training is needed.

Besides, every place has racist cops, it's up to the cops thenselves to police the few racist out of the force.

I hate to bust your bubble there Cigar but I have been on the receiving end of police brutality myself and it didn't have anything to do with race. Also I wasn't in the commission of a crime. I was 14 and walking a girl home late at night and had the audacity to smart mouth the cop. This isn't a race issue. It is a human nature issue. You take 10 guys and give them authority and 2.5 of them ARE going to abuse it.

[protectionist]

Or cops wearing cameras is better.

AND, not "or".

[Common Sense]

AND, not "or".

Or would suffice in this situation. The issue is preventing ambiguity in situations like this.

I'd rather have cops wearing cameras than having cameras all over the place invading privacy.

[protectionist]

While I see the merits...it's a slippery slope. I certainly think in commercial areas or in intersections isn't a horrible idea. But it is sorta scary in a big brother sort of way.

Why ? If Carlie Brucia could come down from Heaven, and post in this forum, would she say the cameras are "scary", do you think ? Or the many little girls who have been saved by Joseph Smith not being on the streets over the past 10 years ?

[Chris]

fuck em

they know, or should know, that you're within your rights.

it's like when they ask if they can look in your car or trunk (because you've got nothing to hide, right?)

i always say yes, just let me read the warrant first.



I have politely refused searches. I'll think about filming them.

[protectionist]

Doesn't Britain have a lot of CCT on public streets? If so, anyone know they are working for 'em?

They HAVE TO BE working for them. Every criminal locked up from a video is then not on the street committing more crimes. Maybe even this turd might have gotten away >>

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFh-gzfNI_AYQPqV4tSfkqQKlutCkTfIMsedL3jvgWCZjVp7Sryg

[protectionist]

there are an estimated 30,000,000 surveillance cameras in the us now.

how many are enough?

When every square inch of PUBLIC space is monitored and recorded, and criminals have NO CHANCE to commit crimes in the PUBLIC sphere, undetected.

[Common Sense]

Why ? If Carlie Brucia could come down from Heaven, and post in this forum, would she say the cameras are "scary", do you think ? Or the many little girls who have been saved by Joseph Smith not being on the streets over the past 10 years ?

Of course they would save people's lives...so would suspending people's rights, breaking down every door in America and confiscating every gun. What price are you willing to pay for security?

[protectionist]

Yea, I raised this possibility this morning, officers wearing cameras. Here's a video story on Albuquerque PD using them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB57dxYJXQU

People should be able to video them, and everyone, and everything else that is in PUBLIC view.

Part of the discussion is if police can video tape people, people should also be able to video them.

[Common Sense]

When every square inch of PUBLIC space is monitored and recorded, and criminals have NO CHANCE to commit crimes in the PUBLIC sphere, undetected.

Welcome to 1984.

[protectionist]

There would still be endless denials :rollseyes:

A Man got Choked to death with multiple eye witnesses and numerous Cell Cameras recording there event and people where still not convinced there was even a choke hold ever used.

Is there some kind of odd point being made here ? If so, what is it ?

[protectionist]

citizens can video cops, but cops try to make you believe otherwise. if you're in a public place you can video whatever you want.

on private property, it's up to the owner

you also have an obligation not to interfere with the police doing their job, nor can you break laws just because you're video/photographing (e.g. trepassing)

Sure, it's basically the same as seeing with your eyes and recording it in your memory. This is why I wonder why some people object. Yes, the cameras are seeing and recording you when you're out in PUBLIC, but so are thousands of people.

[protectionist]

i think cameras on the cops are a good idea, for the protection of the cops and the public.

otherwise, count me out

Count you out of the idea of street cameras ? Why ?

[protectionist]

Don't forget the RFID chip in everybody's forehead.

Yes, we should forget it in this thread, because it is OFF TOPIC.

[protectionist]

I'm not sure, I lean towards cameras on cops as overkill, beside if anyone wants to, there's a way around everything.

It's would be just a waist of money, when better training is needed.

Besides, every place has racist cops, it's up to the cops thenselves to police the few racist out of the force.

The thread is about STREET CAMERAS, not cop cameras. OK ?

[protectionist]

All the scenes captured by the patrol car dash cam, the officer is vindicated. All the scenes with no dash cam, are interpreted by the biased crowd as police brutality. Let the cops wear camera, then people will see what they really have to deal with on a regular basis, and what these "little angels" are really doing.

Absolutely right, and with the street cameras we get a lot more to see than that. Much of which will save lives and property.

[Polecat]

Yes, we should forget it in this thread, because it is OFF TOPIC.

You would think it was off topic but as long as people can advocate 24/7 surveillance in the name of law and order why not also make sure there can be no doubt who the camera is looking at? You are asking for your own demise.

[protectionist]

Or would suffice in this situation. The issue is preventing ambiguity in situations like this.

I'd rather have cops wearing cameras than having cameras all over the place invading privacy.

1. NO. That is NOT the issue. Did you read the OP ?

2. Street cameras CANNOT invade privacy. They only view and record in PUBLIC places. In PUBLIC places YOU DON'T HAVE PRIVACY. You are are out in PUBLIC.

[Ravens Fan]

1. NO. That is NOT the issue. Did you read the OP ?

2. Street cameras CANNOT invade privacy. They only view and record in PUBLIC places. In PUBLIC places YOU DON'T HAVE PRIVACY. You are are out in PUBLIC.


There is a big difference between being out in public and having your every movement recorded.

[PolWatch]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[protectionist]

Of course they would save people's lives...so would suspending people's rights, breaking down every door in America and confiscating every gun. What price are you willing to pay for security?

Yes, doing the things you mention would be suspending people's rights. But we're not talking about doing those things. We are talking about installing street cameras which do nothing but PROTECT us from crime and criminals, except that they also reduce litigation a lot, which is enormously expensive, and thereby reduce public spending, and help keep taxes down. http://www.usmessageboard.com/styles/zipped/xenforo/clear.pnghttp://www.usmessageboard.com/styles/zipped/xenforo/clear.png:thumbsup:

[PolWatch]

ya know, I heard a lot of people using the same reasons in support of the Patriot Act. Not so many now that the Act is still in use under a different administration. Just think about it.... Laws are like taxes...once enacted, they don't go away quite as easily....

[protectionist]

Welcome to 1984.

:bullshit: I read the book 1984. This has nothing to do with that. It's nothing but cameras seeing you where you're being seen already anyway, and stopping crime in the process. You're overreacting.

[Ravens Fan]

Yes, doing the things you mention would be suspending people's rights. But we're not talking about doing those things. We are talking about installing street cameras which do nothing but PROTECT us from crime and criminals, except that they also reduce litigation a lot, which is enormously expensive, and thereby reduce public spending, and help keep taxes down. http://www.usmessageboard.com/styles/zipped/xenforo/clear.pnghttp://www.usmessageboard.com/styles/zipped/xenforo/clear.png:thumbsup:

Out of curiosity, have you ever watched "Person of Interest"?

What happens when they have installed cameras in every square inch of public space? Do they then start to track individuals and their movements? I am sure the big corporations would love to know what your everyday habits are.

[donttread]

Here's what happens thousands of times every day in America. A crime is committed out in broad daylight, but nobody was there to see it. Or if/whenever somebody says they were, nobody knows if that's true. Result ? No charges placed becasue of insufficient evidence.

At the same time, an innocent person could get caught up in something when in the aftermath, it appears like he might have done a crime. He gets arrested wrongly.

All this could be avoided by having street cameras, hooked into recorders.

I am a big fan of the TV show "Forensic Files". It is amazing how many criminals would have gone scott free had it not been for the forensic science investigation. But many criminals ARE going free right now, only because of the lack of street cameras which could catch criminals in the act, before the cops even arrive at the scene.

The Brown case is a perfect example. Had a street camera been on in the street where the shooting occured we could simple play back the video and know exactly what happened. There was no camera, so we can't. Contrast that with the camera/recorder of the convenience store which WAS operating, and DID catch thug boy Brown right in his tracks. And without that video, we would be seeing this Brown case quite differently right now.

Another example is the Carlie Brucia murder case. Killer Joseph Smith was convicted killing 11 year old Carlie. But would he have been even arrested, if not for a video which showed him and little Carlie Brucia walking together through a car wash, where Smith picked her up ? Probably not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgd0I77Rao

Whoa , we don't have to go all 1984 here. We're close enough to that already.

[Ravens Fan]

At least with cop cameras, I know that they are being used to record evidence and to protect the officer and myself. Maybe for training. But not for any other purpose.

[protectionist]

You would think it was off topic but as long as people can advocate 24/7 surveillance in the name of law and order why not also make sure there can be no doubt who the camera is looking at? You are asking for your own demise.

Nonsense. Only folks who should be in the opposition to street cameras category, would be CRIMINALS. Nobody else has any reason to oppose them, and plenty of reason to support them. They help PROTECT us, by getting dangerous criminals off the street. There's lots of ways cameras can prevent crime too. I'm sure you can think of some can't you ?
They also can help to reduce criminal LITIGATION, which is enormously expensive, and can thereby reduce govt spending, and keep taxes down.

[protectionist]

There is a big difference between being out in public and having your every movement recorded.

Not really. Your every movement is fully open to being recorded by dozens of people seeing you, and recording what you do, in their memory. Really no difference at all, except that the video is better evidence against CRIMINALS committing crimes. If you're not one of them, no problem.

[Polecat]

At least with cop cameras, I know that they are being used to record evidence and to protect the officer and myself. Maybe for training. But not for any other purpose.

In the case of police I would advocate they be monitored 24/7. They have been granted authority over us so they should be watched closely.

[Common Sense]

:bullshit: I read the book 1984. This has nothing to do with that. It's nothing but cameras seeing you where you're being seen already anyway, and stopping crime in the process. You're overreacting.

You don't think there is an inherent danger to privacy being monitored in public? Do you really trust your government that much?

[del]

When every square inch of PUBLIC space is monitored and recorded, and criminals have NO CHANCE to commit crimes in the PUBLIC sphere, undetected.

that's not the stupidest idea i've ever heard

it's definitely in the top three, though

[del]

Count you out of the idea of street cameras ? Why ?

because i still cling to the ridiculous, outdated notion that govt doesn't have the right to observe every second of our existence

[protectionist]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Street cameras don't cause any loss of liberty. In fact you GAIN liberty by being liberated from criminals who would/could criminalize you.

[del]

You would think it was off topic but as long as people can advocate 24/7 surveillance in the name of law and order why not also make sure there can be no doubt who the camera is looking at? You are asking for your own demise.

if we all had chips, you wouldn't need cameras.

you just check the history on the chips and throw the appropriate people in jail.

trials and juries are soooooooooooo 12th century

[protectionist]

because i still cling to the ridiculous, outdated notion that govt doesn't have the right to observe every second of our existence

I agree with that 100%. So what does that have to do with street cameras, which only see you when everyone else is also seeing you, out in PUBLIC ?

[del]

Nonsense. Only folks who should be in the opposition to street cameras category, would be CRIMINALS. Nobody else has any reason to oppose them, and plenty of reason to support them. They help PROTECT us, by getting dangerous criminals off the street. There's lots of ways cameras can prevent crime too. I'm sure you can think of some can't you ?
They also can help to reduce criminal LITIGATION, which is enormously expensive, and can thereby reduce govt spending, and keep taxes down.

yes, if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind cameras or the govt listening to your phone calls either

[protectionist]

that's not the stupidest idea i've ever heard

it's definitely in the top three, though

Maybe the next time you get mugged, robbed, burglarized, you won't think it's so stupid.

[donttread]

At least with cop cameras, I know that they are being used to record evidence and to protect the officer and myself. Maybe for training. But not for any other purpose.

Well except when the cops see some hot chicks in tight shorts . But hey can you really blame em? But on a serious note, yes police cameras are better than street camerers for obvious reasons

[del]

Maybe the next time you get mugged, robbed, burglarized, you won't think it's so stupid.

no, i'll still think it's stupid.

strangely, i think 30 million cameras are more than enough.

[protectionist]

Out of curiosity, have you ever watched "Person of Interest"?

What happens when they have installed cameras in every square inch of public space? Do they then start to track individuals and their movements? I am sure the big corporations would love to know what your everyday habits are.

I'm not talking about tracking. That's another subject. I'm only talking about having videos of criminals commiting crimes which would PROTECT all of us by getting convictions & keeping bad guys off the street, prevent more crime, and keep spending and taxes down significantly.

[protectionist]

Whoa , we don't have to go all 1984 here. We're close enough to that already.

Answered that lame notion already.

[Bob]

Breaking news

According to Western Journalism, Chief Jackson has confirmed (http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-police-chief-releases-cops-side-story-michael-brown-shooting) that this was anything but murder.
Jackson stated that the officer was severely beaten, and the side of his face (http://www.insidecelebs.com/30-most-memorable-tv-moments-you-will-never-forget?utm_source=linksmart&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=english&utm_content=articles) was swollen.

[PolWatch]

After thinking about the subject of having cameras everywhere (new idea to me)...I vote...not no....but HELL NO! I'm not a crook wanting to get away with something...I'm not even a wanna be flasher...I'm just an old woman who doesn't want to know that someone is watching me every time I leave my home. Its no one's business but mine (& husband) if I wanna go to the liquor store or Victoria's Secrets (fat chance :wink:). If anyone thinks being monitored by the authorities is a good idea, then why do we have so many Cubans in Miami? That might be a good group to ask their opinion on this subject.

I do think requiring the police to be under surveillance 24/7 is a good idea. They are given a lot of power & authority when they take a badge. While I don't think they all (or even a majority) are bad, there are enough who teeter on the line to merit watching. Who knows, we might have a change of opinion of their actions...this would be like allowing us all to walk a mile in their shoes.

[protectionist]

In the case of police I would advocate they be monitored 24/7. They have been granted authority over us so they should be watched closely.

How about the guy who is planning to burglarize your home ? Should he be videoed while walking out of your house carrying your TV set, computer, stereo, etc ??? Or the guy stealing your car ? Or worse.

[Bob]

Breaking news

According to Western Journalism, Chief Jackson has confirmed (http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-police-chief-releases-cops-side-story-michael-brown-shooting) that this was anything but murder.
Jackson stated that the officer was severely beaten, and the side of his face (http://www.insidecelebs.com/30-most-memorable-tv-moments-you-will-never-forget?utm_source=linksmart&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=english&utm_content=articles) was swollen.

[protectionist]

You don't think there is an inherent danger to privacy being monitored in public? Do you really trust your government that much?

No. I don't see a problem. If you do, let's hear it.

And how can you talk about "privacy", ? .....when this discussion is limited to the PUBLIC arena, WHERE THERE IS NO PRIVACY.

[Common Sense]

Nonsense. Only folks who should be in the opposition to street cameras category, would be CRIMINALS. Nobody else has any reason to oppose them, and plenty of reason to support them. They help PROTECT us, by getting dangerous criminals off the street. There's lots of ways cameras can prevent crime too. I'm sure you can think of some can't you ?
They also can help to reduce criminal LITIGATION, which is enormously expensive, and can thereby reduce govt spending, and keep taxes down.

Maybe have all the phone tapped as well. After all, only criminals would have something to hide.

[del]

Breaking news

According to Western Journalism, Chief Jackson has confirmed (http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-police-chief-releases-cops-side-story-michael-brown-shooting) that this was anything but murder.
Jackson stated that the officer was severely beaten, and the side of his face (http://www.insidecelebs.com/30-most-memorable-tv-moments-you-will-never-forget?utm_source=linksmart&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=english&utm_content=articles) was swollen.

it was breaking news four days ago.

[Ravens Fan]

I'm not talking about tracking. That's another subject. I'm only talking about having videos of criminals commiting crimes which would PROTECT all of us by getting convictions & keeping bad guys off the street, prevent more crime, and keep spending and taxes down significantly.

But with the cameras in place, what is the next logical step?

You also talk about money saved by installing the cameras. To have total saturation as you want would be astronomical in costs, just for startup. Not to mention maintenance and repairs. It would require some serious investors, who would probably have their own agendas in mind.

[Polecat]

How about the guy who is planning to burglarize your home ? Should he be videoed while walking out of your house carrying your TV set, computer, stereo, etc ??? Or the guy stealing your car ? Or worse.

If I happened to be out my neighbors would handle it.

[protectionist]

if we all had chips, you wouldn't need cameras.

You just check the history on the chips and throw the appropriate people in jail.

Trials and juries are soooooooooooo 12th century

off topic!!!

[del]

But with the cameras in place, what is the next logical step?

You also talk about money saved by installing the cameras. To have total saturation as you want would be astronomical in costs, just for startup. Not to mention maintenance and repairs. It would require some serious investors, who would probably have their own agendas in mind.

you'd probably have to pay someone to, you know, watch the footage, too.

[del]

off topic!!!


<buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurp>

[protectionist]

yes, if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind cameras or the govt listening to your phone calls either

FALSE! Now you've diverged into a different subject. Keep on topic. Street cameras are PUBLIC entities. Phones calls are not. They are PRIVATE, and I never suggested listening to them. YOU said that.

[PolWatch]

How about the guy who is planning to burglarize your home ? Should he be videoed while walking out of your house carrying your TV set, computer, stereo, etc ??? Or the guy stealing your car ? Or worse.

not a prob...I have nosy neighbors...they called the cops to my brother in law borrowing a saw (with permission) before he could start the car. Old fashioned, but effective.

[protectionist]

Well except when the cops see some hot chicks in tight shorts . But hey can you really blame em? But on a serious note, yes police cameras are better than street camerers for obvious reasons

"Better" isn't the point. We should have all the protection we can get, with no loss of privacy whatsoever.
And the cameras could pay for themselves by the reduction of litigation.

[Ravens Fan]

"Better" isn't the point. We should have all the protection we can get, with no loss of privacy whatsoever.
And the cameras could pay for themselves by the reduction of litigation.

I bet those streer cameras would be able to see inside your car too, or into the window of your home. Is that not loosing privacy? Howabout being able to track your every movement from the time you leave your house until you return, I believe the courts won't even allow cops to do that without a warrant.

[protectionist]

no, i'll still think it's stupid.

strangely, i think 30 million cameras are more than enough.

HA HA. So if you came home one day and saw your front door wide open, and two guys loading your home electronics into a van, and then quickly speeding away, before you could get close enough to see their license plate #, or even the make/model of the van. And you know that a video camera could have recorded the whole thing, you'd think that video camera would be stupid, huh ? I don't believe you. Not a word.

[protectionist]

Breaking news

According to Western Journalism, Chief Jackson has confirmed (http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-police-chief-releases-cops-side-story-michael-brown-shooting) that this was anything but murder.
Jackson stated that the officer was severely beaten, and the side of his face (http://www.insidecelebs.com/30-most-memorable-tv-moments-you-will-never-forget?utm_source=linksmart&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=english&utm_content=articles) was swollen.

Too bad there wasn't a street camera there to have recorded it when it happened. Then we wouldn't have had to wait until now, and the riots may never have occured.

[del]

FALSE! Now you've diverged into a different subject. Keep on topic. Street cameras are PUBLIC entities. Phones calls are not. They are PRIVATE, and I never suggested listening to them. YOU said that.

what are you so afraid of?

[Polecat]

"Better" isn't the point. We should have all the protection we can get, with no loss of privacy whatsoever.
And the cameras could pay for themselves by the reduction of litigation.

You can have your own camera system that covers your property. I have no problem with that. What you seem to be missing here is the obvious problem that street crime is a minor matter compared to an already untrustworthy government having the ability to monitor your every move. But then, they can do that anyway if you carry a legitimate cell phone.

[protectionist]

After thinking about the subject of having cameras everywhere (new idea to me)...I vote...not no....but HELL NO! I'm not a crook wanting to get away with something...I'm not even a wanna be flasher...I'm just an old woman who doesn't want to know that someone is watching me every time I leave my home. Its no one's business but mine (& husband) if I wanna go to the liquor store or Victoria's Secrets (fat chance :wink:). If anyone thinks being monitored by the authorities is a good idea, then why do we have so many Cubans in Miami? That might be a good group to ask their opinion on this subject.

I do think requiring the police to be under surveillance 24/7 is a good idea. They are given a lot of power & authority when they take a badge. While I don't think they all (or even a majority) are bad, there are enough who teeter on the line to merit watching. Who knows, we might have a change of opinion of their actions...this would be like allowing us all to walk a mile in their shoes.

No one is watching you with street cameras. They are only looked at when a crime occurs, and THEN the video is played back and can be used for making arrests and getting convictions.

Funny how you want the police to be monitored, but you're against criminals being monitored. One would think only criminals would favor that.

[protectionist]

Maybe have all the phone tapped as well. After all, only criminals would have something to hide.

OFF TOPIC. Phone tapping is recording PRIVATE activity. Street cameras only pertain to PUBLIC activity.

[del]

No one is watching you with street cameras. They are only looked at when a crime occurs, and THEN the video is played back and can be used for making arrests and getting convictions.

Funny how you want the police to be monitored, but you're against criminals being monitored. One would think only criminals would favor that.

how do you know when they're looked at?

oh, that's right, you don't.

[del]

OFF TOPIC. Phone tapping is recording PRIVATE activity. Street cameras only pertain to PUBLIC activity.

<buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurp>

[Ravens Fan]

No one is watching you with street cameras. They are only looked at when a crime occurs, and THEN the video is played back and can be used for making arrests and getting convictions.

Funny how you want the police to be monitored, but you're against criminals being monitored. One would think only criminals would favor that.

Why should we believe that? Because you say it is so? Or maybe because some politician tells us so?

It is not a matter of having something to hide, but a matter of a police state that I do not wish to be part of.

[protectionist]

But with the cameras in place, what is the next logical step?

You also talk about money saved by installing the cameras. To have total saturation as you want would be astronomical in costs, just for startup. Not to mention maintenance and repairs. It would require some serious investors, who would probably have their own agendas in mind.

Anything could be construed to be a "next logical step". THERE IS NO NEXT LOGICAL STEP. We're talking about just ONE THING. Street cameras.

[protectionist]

If I happened to be out my neighbors would handle it.

Nah, they were having sex that day. Or fell asleep. LOL. C'mon you know I'm right. C'mon!

[Ravens Fan]

Anything could be construed to be a "next logical step". THERE IS NO NEXT LOGICAL STEP. We're talking about just ONE THING. Street cameras.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, STREET CAMERAS! And their many uses.

[Polecat]

I have been declared a domestic terrorist by our own government because I support the second amendment. As a domestic terrorist I have to admit that I prefer not to be monitored everywhere I might go.

[protectionist]

you'd probably have to pay someone to, you know, watch the footage, too.

A lot cheaper than paying defense lawyers, prosecutors, judge, bailiff, court reporters, etc. for cases that never had to go to trial. (if only a video camera recorded the crime). We're ALREADY shelling out a fortune (which could be eliminated)

[Ravens Fan]

Nah, they were having sex that day. Or fell asleep. LOL. C'mon you know I'm right. C'mon!

And that is the argument you are left with. Lol.

[Polecat]

Nah, they were having sex that day. Or fell asleep. LOL. C'mon you know I'm right. C'mon!

Sorry, If I am ever forced to take sides I will stand with the people of Ferguson rather than our corrupt government.

[protectionist]

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, STREET CAMERAS! And their many uses.

Many uses >

1. Keep criminals off the streets. Save lives and property.

2. Prevent crime. Save lives and property.

3. Reduce litigation. Reduce spending.

4. Keep taxes down.

5. Make people feel safer and more confident.

[protectionist]

I bet those streer cameras would be able to see inside your car too, or into the window of your home. Is that not loosing privacy? Howabout being able to track your every movement from the time you leave your house until you return, I believe the courts won't even allow cops to do that without a warrant.

No they can't see into the window of your home any more than the man on the street can see that. Same with your car.

Interesting how nobody in this thread (except me) is mentioning the name Carlie Brucia, or the thousands of other crime victims like her.

Did anyone see the OP video ? Just wondering.

[del]

Many uses >

1. Keep criminals off the streets. Save lives and property.

2. Prevent crime. Save lives and property.

3. Reduce litigation. Reduce spending.

4. Keep taxes down.

5. Make people feel safer and more confident.

there's 30 million of them now

how's your taxes doing, einstein?

[Ravens Fan]

Many uses >

1. Keep criminals off the streets. Save lives and property.

2. Prevent crime. Save lives and property.

3. Reduce litigation. Reduce spending.

4. Keep taxes down.

5. Make people feel safer and more confident.

You forgot a few...
6. Keep an eye on the populace

7. Track individual's movements

8. Spy into private areas when possible

9. Generate fear of "Big Brother" watching everything you do

10. Cause criminals to find a way around being recorded in the act

[PolWatch]

yeap, you've convinced me...let's fire all the cops & hire the cameras...hey! let's put them on every border of the nation...including the Atlantic & Pacific...think of all the military spending we could save! <snark off>

[protectionist]

what are you so afraid of?

Murder, robbery, burglary, arson, car theft, vandalism, animal cruelty, people not picking up after their dogs, noisy people at 4:00 AM in my apartment complex, ..... That'll do for starters.

[Ravens Fan]

No they can't see into the window of your home any more than the man on the street can see that. Same with your car.

Interesting how nobody in this thread (except me) is mentioning the name Carlie Brucia, or the thousands of other crime victims like her.

Did anyone see the OP video ? Just wondering.

Wow, really? You don't have much experience with video, do ya? Especially security grade cameras.

Even cops aren't allowed to stand outside your window and note everything they see...

[protectionist]

You can have your own camera system that covers your property. I have no problem with that. What you seem to be missing here is the obvious problem that street crime is a minor matter compared to an already untrustworthy government having the ability to monitor your every move. But then, they can do that anyway if you carry a legitimate cell phone.

You're being too paranoid. The govt probably doesn't even know who you are, or care. But the guy who's going to steal your car, or burglarize you ,may be casing you down, right at this moment.

[Ravens Fan]

You're being too paranoid. The govt probably doesn't even know who you are, or care. But the guy who's going to steal your car, or burglarize you ,may be casing you down, right at this moment.

And if he sees a camera, he will put on a mask. Whoo-hoo a lot of good that did.

[protectionist]

how do you know when they're looked at?

oh, that's right, you don't.

I DO know. i worked with a local police dept and also as a security supervisor and checked security camera monitors and observed crimes on the monitors.You play it back, and watch the crime happening (from an earlier time) right before your eyes,in living color.

[protectionist]

Why should we believe that? Because you say it is so? Or maybe because some politician tells us so?

It is not a matter of having something to hide, but a matter of a police state that I do not wish to be part of.

What country do you think you're living in ? Do you not hold your public officials responsible for what they do ? Do you you not contact them, go to their offices, and check up on them ? These are all rights YOU HAVE as Americans. Where do you think you're living ? In Syria ?

[protectionist]

I have been declared a domestic terrorist by our own government because I support the second amendment. As a domestic terrorist I have to admit that I prefer not to be monitored everywhere I might go.

You would NOT be monitored everywhere you might go. You would only be monitored if a crime was committed in a PUBLIC place, and you were involved in it.

[protectionist]

And that is the argument you are left with. Lol.

And you know that argument is right. YOU KNOW.

[Ravens Fan]

What country do you think you're living in ? Do you not hold your public officials responsible for what they do ? Do you you not contact them, go to their offices, and check up on them ? These are all rights YOU HAVE as Americans. Where do you think you're living ? In Syria ?

I'm in the good ole USA. What I would like to know is what rock you live under that you still think our country wouldn't lie about collecting and using our information?

[protectionist]

Sorry, If I am ever forced to take sides I will stand with the people of Ferguson rather than our corrupt government.

If the people of Ferguson were doing their civic duties, they would not HAVE a corrupt govt, and I don't know that they do. Their govt looks OK to me.

[protectionist]

there's 30 million of them now

how's your taxes doing, einstein?

My taxes are just fine. And they could be even lower if we had street cameras, as I've explained 6 times already.

[Ravens Fan]

And you know that argument is right. YOU KNOW.
And you know that if this thread goes a millimeter off your intended topic, your whole argument falls to pieces.

[protectionist]

You forgot a few...
6. Keep an eye on the populace

7. Track individual's movements

8. Spy into private areas when possible

9. Generate fear of "Big Brother" watching everything you do

10. Cause criminals to find a way around being recorded in the act

:bullshit: You'r stretching this out into things that are not part of the scenario. I'm beginnig to wonder if all you critics might be CRIMINALS. I see no one else having any motive to oppose this good, PUBLIC activity.

I'm off the computer now, Been on it all day.

[Private Pickle]

Here's what happens thousands of times every day in America. A crime is committed out in broad daylight, but nobody was there to see it. Or if/whenever somebody says they were, nobody knows if that's true. Result ? No charges placed becasue of insufficient evidence.

At the same time, an innocent person could get caught up in something when in the aftermath, it appears like he might have done a crime. He gets arrested wrongly.

All this could be avoided by having street cameras, hooked into recorders.

I am a big fan of the TV show "Forensic Files". It is amazing how many criminals would have gone scott free had it not been for the forensic science investigation. But many criminals ARE going free right now, only because of the lack of street cameras which could catch criminals in the act, before the cops even arrive at the scene.

The Brown case is a perfect example. Had a street camera been on in the street where the shooting occured we could simple play back the video and know exactly what happened. There was no camera, so we can't. Contrast that with the camera/recorder of the convenience store which WAS operating, and DID catch thug boy Brown right in his tracks. And without that video, we would be seeing this Brown case quite differently right now.

Another example is the Carlie Brucia murder case. Killer Joseph Smith was convicted killing 11 year old Carlie. But would he have been even arrested, if not for a video which showed him and little Carlie Brucia walking together through a car wash, where Smith picked her up ? Probably not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgd0I77Rao

Random killing = Police State = Fail

[Ravens Fan]

:bullshit: You'r stretching this out into things that are not part of the scenario. I'm beginnig to wonder if all you critics might be CRIMINALS. I see no one else having any motive to oppose this good, PUBLIC activity.

I'm off the computer now, Been on it all day.

No need to be a criminal to oppose big brother, you just need to care about your own freedom.

[Private Pickle]

No need to be a criminal to oppose big brother, you just need to care about your own freedom.

Fuckin Ravens....

-Bronco Fan

[Ravens Fan]

Fuckin Ravens....

-Bronco Fan

Sorry bout your luck :wink:

[Dr. Who]

I'm not sure, I lean towards cameras on cops as overkill, beside if anyone wants to, there's a way around everything.

It's would be just a waist of money, when better training is needed.

Besides, every place has racist cops, it's up to the cops thenselves to police the few racist out of the force.
Cameras keep them honest. Self-policing is always subject to criticism.

[Dr. Who]

The thread is about STREET CAMERAS, not cop cameras. OK ?
Cop cameras is a natural progression of the thread and well within the rules. I'm speaking as a Mod now.

[Peter1469]

Storing all of this data is expensive.

[Private Pickle]

Sorry bout your luck :wink:

No you're not but thanks.

[Private Pickle]

Cameras keep them honest. Self-policing is always subject to criticism.

Cameras are an invasion of privacy... Unconstitutional. We are not England and if it takes us some gang members killing each other and getting away with it to remain so then so be it...

[Private Pickle]

Storing all of this data is expensive.

Not so much if you do it on tape but the initial disk storage cost will probably run $4-$5M.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, doing the things you mention would be suspending people's rights. But we're not talking about doing those things. We are talking about installing street cameras which do nothing but PROTECT us from crime and criminals, except that they also reduce litigation a lot, which is enormously expensive, and thereby reduce public spending, and help keep taxes down. http://www.usmessageboard.com/styles/zipped/xenforo/clear.pnghttp://www.usmessageboard.com/styles/zipped/xenforo/clear.png:thumbsup:
You would also be very protected if every citizen was required to carry papers, or if they had to justify their movements in society. Slippery slope Protectionist. Eleven o'clock curfews for all non-shift workers would also ensure no or little activity on the street at night. How much liberty and privacy are you willing to forfeit for "safety". Perhaps you wouldn't mind being microchipped so that as you pass specific receivers, your movement is tracked and if you suddenly deviate, you are stopped and questioned? When does safety become prison Protectionist?

[Dr. Who]

Cameras are an invasion of privacy... Unconstitutional. We are not England and if it takes us some gang members killing each other and getting away with it to remain so then so be it...
I'm talking about personal cameras on police officers. Not surveillance everywhere.

[momsapplepie]

Doesn't Britain have a lot of CCT on public streets? If so, anyone know they are working for 'em?
Yes London has a ton of cameras and yes it helped them catch the bombers.

[del]

You're being too paranoid. The govt probably doesn't even know who you are, or care. But the guy who's going to steal your car, or burglarize you ,may be casing you down, right at this moment.

lol

[Private Pickle]

I'm talking about personal cameras on police officers. Not surveillance everywhere.

Personally I think that is a slippery slope. American cops have rights too. Now if one is being questioned or detained I think that their arrest should be documented on video. Don't think bystanders should have the right to randomly film anyone and I think public property is a cop out.

[Private Pickle]

lol

This sums it up.

[PolWatch]

'You're being too paranoid. The govt probably doesn't even know who you are, or care. But the guy who's going to steal your car, or burglarize you ,may be casing you down, right at this moment'

hmm...someone is casing your place now...but you're too paranoid? you're not paranoid if they really are out to get ya...you're a realist!

[Private Pickle]

Sorry bout your luck :wink:

By the way...fuck all the haters! Ray Lewis for PRES!

[Private Pickle]

'You're being too paranoid. The govt probably doesn't even know who you are, or care. But the guy who's going to steal your car, or burglarize you ,may be casing you down, right at this moment'

hmm...someone is casing your place now...but you're too paranoid? you're not paranoid if they really are out to get ya...you're a realist!

Someday I hope to find someone casing my place...

[Ravens Fan]

Personally I think that is a slippery slope. American cops have rights too. Now if one is being questioned or detained I think that their arrest should be documented on video. Don't think bystanders should have the right to randomly film anyone and I think public property is a cop out.

I disagree. The cop camera route is the least slippery slope IMO. Sure cops have rights, but they also have the advantage of being able to take away our rights, and having the full support of the law behind them. I feel that this would be a way to hold them accountable for their actions, while acting as an officer of the law. I feel that bystanders should have every right to film as long as they are not interfering, without harassment. These guys are supposed to work for us, but encounters with them can be life changing. Without a camera, it is your word against theirs, and guess who the court is going to go with? It will just keep the honest cops honest, and the bad ones... simply won't last very long.

As to filming in public, I can agree that it gets old, but what can you do? As long as the person is not profiting from your image, nothing.

[Dr. Who]

Personally I think that is a slippery slope. American cops have rights too. Now if one is being questioned or detained I think that their arrest should be documented on video. Don't think bystanders should have the right to randomly film anyone and I think public property is a cop out.
I guess the problem is that the only defense against police brutality is to have the entire exchange recorded. If either side is in the wrong, it will be documented. I don't believe that there are any current laws prohibiting private citizens from recording any activities in public spaces. If such laws were enacted, it would put a major dent in tourism, since you couldn't discriminate between still shots and videos. There is a difference between that and passively surveilling the entire population.

[Ravens Fan]

By the way...fuck all the haters! Ray Lewis for PRES!

Haha, I like that.

[Private Pickle]

I disagree. The cop camera route is the least slippery slope IMO. Sure cops have rights, but they also have the advantage of being able to take away our rights, and having the full support of the law behind them. I feel that this would be a way to hold them accountable for their actions, while acting as an officer of the law. I feel that bystanders should have every right to film as long as they are not interfering, without harassment. These guys are supposed to work for us, but encounters with them can be life changing. Without a camera, it is your word against theirs, and guess who the court is going to go with? It will just keep the honest cops honest, and the bad ones... simply won't last very long.

As to filming in public, I can agree that it gets old, but what can you do? As long as the person is not profiting from your image, nothing.

You are talking about a problem of logistics...not rights...

Yes, cops are supposed to work for us and follow the Constitution however; we cannot lose sight of the Constitution. Like I said, if one is being detained or arrested it should be recorded but sometimes I think a large group of bystanders all standing around taping and telling the cops to fuck themselves is interfering and some individuals harass cops by constantly following them around and taping their every move.

[Private Pickle]

Haha, I like that.

I did too and I'm a Bronc.

[Private Pickle]

I guess the problem is that the only defense against police brutality is to have the entire exchange recorded. If either side is in the wrong, it will be documented. I don't believe that there are any current laws prohibiting private citizens from recording any activities in public spaces. If such laws were enacted, it would put a major dent in tourism, since you couldn't discriminate between still shots and videos. There is a difference between that and passively surveilling the entire population.

No. The defense against the problem is the Constitution. Education. Enablement of the public. Politicians that don't pander. Leaders who don't look for media ratings. I mean seriously, would Al Sharpton exist if it were not for rare occurrences like this? And are they calling for peace? Are they calling for equality?

They are calling for status, money and power like the parasites they are...feeding off of tragedy and turning horrible events into beneficiary mixers...

[Ravens Fan]

You are talking about a problem of logistics...not rights...

Yes, cops are supposed to work for us and follow the Constitution however; we cannot lose sight of the Constitution. Like I said, if one is being detained or arrested it should be recorded but sometimes I think a large group of bystanders all standing around taping and telling the cops to fuck themselves is interfering and some individuals harass cops by constantly following them around and taping their every move.

I'm not following how that is logistics vs rights... cameras in the workplace is a pretty common occurrence these days.

I agree about the dumbasses with cameras who purposely try to piss off cops. You see their videos on FB or youtube, and wonder if they just don't have lives or what. However, the act of taping without interfering is what I am referring to, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

[Ravens Fan]

No. The defense against the problem is the Constitution. Education. Enablement of the public. Politicians that don't pander. Leaders who don't look for media ratings. I mean seriously, would Al Sharpton exist if it were not for rare occurrences like this? And are they calling for peace? Are they calling for equality?

They are calling for status, money and power like the parasites they are...feeding off of tragedy and turning horrible events into beneficiary mixers...

If we could fix those things, many of America's problems would be solved. I don't see it happening anytime soon tho.

[Private Pickle]

I'm not following how that is logistics vs rights... cameras in the workplace is a pretty common occurrence these days.

I agree about the dumbasses with cameras who purposely try to piss off cops. You see their videos on FB or youtube, and wonder if they just don't have lives or what. However, the act of taping without interfering is what I am referring to, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

But then we get into the details. Things like the paparazzi using drones to film celebrity houses 24/7. Things like film being introduced with the audio commentary of the filmer omitted.

[Dr. Who]

But then we get into the details. Things like the paparazzi using drones to film celebrity houses 24/7. Things like film being introduced with the audio commentary of the filmer omitted.
The recording of public behavior is far different than surveilling someone's private home. The latter is disgusting - the public has no right to know what people do in their own back yards with some expectation of privacy. Nevertheless, the passive surveillance of everyone everywhere is also rather creepy and I would suggest it is also excessive vigilance.

[protectionist]

The recording of public behavior is far different than surveilling someone's private home. The latter is disgusting - the public has no right to know what people do in their own back yards with some expectation of privacy. Nevertheless, the passive surveillance of everyone everywhere is also rather creepy and I would suggest it is also excessive vigilance.

It isn't "surveillance". The cameras are only reviewed after a crime has occured, and then the video is played back showing the crime being committed. This provides evidence to identify perpetrators, arrest and convict them. Then they're off the streets for years, saving lives and property.
If a town wanted to have security guards monitor the cameras, so what ? They wouldn't be seeing anything more than what people in the street are seeing. What's so creepy about that ?

The cameras also provide a deterrent. One would have to be pretty dumb to walk out of somebody's apartment stealing their TV set, when they know a camera is recording the whole thing. Not everybody is as dumb as Michael Brown was. :rollseyes:

[Ravens Fan]

But then we get into the details. Things like the paparazzi using drones to film celebrity houses 24/7. Things like film being introduced with the audio commentary of the filmer omitted.

Yeah, that kinda goes way off topic as to what we were talking about.

The drone issue, I am still very undecided on. I can see a lot of positives that could come from it, but the thought of looking out my window at them filming me is not too settling.

[protectionist]

but then we get into the details. Things like the paparazzi using drones to film celebrity houses 24/7. Things like film being introduced with the audio commentary of the filmer omitted.

off topic!!!

[protectionist]

Wow, really? You don't have much experience with video, do ya? Especially security grade cameras.

Even cops aren't allowed to stand outside your window and note everything they see...

I happen to have a lot of experience with security grade cameras, muliplexers, old and new. What's your point ?

[protectionist]

And if he sees a camera, he will put on a mask. Whoo-hoo a lot of good that did.

You are joking (I hope) . Yeah, I could just see someone exiting somebody's apartment, carrying a TV set, and WEARING A MASK. Right ? HA HA HA. Oh man, this is getting too funny, now. I mean really.

[Ravens Fan]

It isn't "surveillance". The cameras are only reviewed after a crime has occured, and then the video is played back showing the crime being committed. This provides evidence to identify perpetrators, arrest and convict them. Then they're off the streets for years, saving lives and property.
If a town wanted to have security guards monitor the cameras, so what ? They wouldn't be seeing anything more than what people in the street are seeing. What's so creepy about that ?

The cameras also provide a deterrent. One would have to be pretty dumb to walk out of somebody's apartment stealing their TV set, when they know a camera is recording the whole thing. Not everybody is as dumb as Michael Brown was. :rollseyes:

OH, but it is. What else would you call it, having cameras everywhere actively recording everyone's moves?

And how can you ensure that the only time the tapes are watched is after a crime? I mean the Govt. isn't supposed to be able to listen in on phone conversations or read emails without specific warrants... The IRS is supposed to be non political...

The road to hell is lined with good intentions.

[protectionist]

I'm in the good ole USA. What I would like to know is what rock you live under that you still think our country wouldn't lie about collecting and using our information?

You're in the wrong thread. This is about localities stopping street crime, not FBI and NSA. Pheeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

[Ravens Fan]

I happen to have a lot of experience with security grade cameras, muliplexers, old and new. What's your point ?

My point is that you don't think those cameras could see inside your car or home. That proves to me that you do not have sufficient experience to know what the cameras are capable of (not the cameras in gas staions that you can barely make out shapes on either).

[protectionist]

And you know that if this thread goes a millimeter off your intended topic, your whole argument falls to pieces.

My argument NEVER falls to pieces. Street cameras PROTECT citizens > stop crime and prevent crime. That's all there is to it.

[protectionist]

Random killing = Police State = Fail

This post = unintelligible. Try sentences.

[del]

It isn't "surveillance". The cameras are only reviewed after a crime has occured, and then the video is played back showing the crime being committed. This provides evidence to identify perpetrators, arrest and convict them. Then they're off the streets for years, saving lives and property.
If a town wanted to have security guards monitor the cameras, so what ? They wouldn't be seeing anything more than what people in the street are seeing. What's so creepy about that ?

The cameras also provide a deterrent. One would have to be pretty dumb to walk out of somebody's apartment stealing their TV set, when they know a camera is recording the whole thing. Not everybody is as dumb as Michael Brown was. :rollseyes:

according to whom?

[protectionist]

No need to be a criminal to oppose big brother, you just need to care about your own freedom.

This has nothing to do with "big brother". It has to do with street cameras, from which you don't lose any freedom, and you GAIN a lot of freedom.

[protectionist]

Cop cameras is a natural progression of the thread and well within the rules. I'm speaking as a Mod now.

Yeah. As long as the tread retains it's basic identity (topic). To go to cop cameras EXCLUSIVELY, would be a derail.

[protectionist]

Storing all of this data is expensive.

That was covered earlier. Actually, the street cameras REDUCE costs.

[Ravens Fan]

Yeah. As long as the tread retains it's basic identity (topic). To go to cop cameras EXCLUSIVELY, would be a derail.

Not when it has been determined by everyone else on the thread that street cameras are not the way to go. Shifting the topic a bit to a sustainable solution improved the thread.

[protectionist]

Cameras are an invasion of privacy... Unconstitutional. We are not England and if it takes us some gang members killing each other and getting away with it to remain so then so be it...

"Cameras" did you say ? We're not talking about "cameras". We're talking about STREET cameras, which are only used in PUBLIC places, where there IS NO PRIVACY.

[protectionist]

Not so much if you do it on tape but the initial disk storage cost will probably run $4-$5M.

You don't know what you're talking about. The storage doesn't cost ANYTHING.

[Ravens Fan]

That was covered earlier. Actually, the street cameras REDUCE costs.

Really? just because you say it's so, doesn't make it true. Think about the costs of providing the backbone for this system. Cameras need power and signal cables... every single one of them. they would also need internet access and a network. Then there's the personnel needed to operate the system. What about the rural areas? or even the suburbs, how expensive would that be?

How would local municipalities even try to provide for all of that? How do you even justify a program that size?

[del]

You don't know what you're talking about. The storage doesn't cost ANYTHING.

does the camera fairy hide it under cabbage leaves?

[protectionist]

You would also be very protected if every citizen was required to carry papers, or if they had to justify their movements in society. Slippery slope Protectionist. Eleven o'clock curfews for all non-shift workers would also ensure no or little activity on the street at night. How much liberty and privacy are you willing to forfeit for "safety". Perhaps you wouldn't mind being microchipped so that as you pass specific receivers, your movement is tracked and if you suddenly deviate, you are stopped and questioned? When does safety become prison Protectionist?

It becomes prison when you put all your "alsos" in here, which we are not talking about. I'm talking about ONE THING. Street cameras. Not also this or also that.

If a hiker walks on a safe park trail, he's perfectly safe. If he ALSO wanders into a nearby lake, he could be bitten by water mocassins or devoured by a 12 foot alligator. Anything can be a problem if you expand to other things

[protectionist]

'You're being too paranoid. The govt probably doesn't even know who you are, or care. But the guy who's going to steal your car, or burglarize you ,may be casing you down, right at this moment'

hmm...someone is casing your place now...but you're too paranoid? you're not paranoid if they really are out to get ya...you're a realist!

Exactly right. It's just simple reality.

[protectionist]

Someday I hope to find someone casing my place...

Before they find you. :laugh:

[protectionist]

OH, but it is. What else would you call it, having cameras everywhere actively recording everyone's moves?

And how can you ensure that the only time the tapes are watched is after a crime? I mean the Govt. isn't supposed to be able to listen in on phone conversations or read emails without specific warrants... The IRS is supposed to be non political...

The road to hell is lined with good intentions.

I'd call it about the same as dozens of people in a WalMart parking lot seeing you and recording your every move, in their memory banks, if they care that much. So what ? If you cant have people seeing you, maybe you could never leave your house, or wear a Muslim niqab, that covers every bit of you except your eyes. :laugh:

Who cares when they watch the recordings ? Suppose you went to Walmart. 200+ people inside and outside the store will see you. So ? So they all see you in the store, and maybe some security guy sees you in his security recording (they don't use "tapes" anymore) the next day. So what, dude ? What is the difference ? What is your problem ? Are you going to buy a burka ?

[Dr. Who]

It isn't "surveillance". The cameras are only reviewed after a crime has occured, and then the video is played back showing the crime being committed. This provides evidence to identify perpetrators, arrest and convict them. Then they're off the streets for years, saving lives and property.
If a town wanted to have security guards monitor the cameras, so what ? They wouldn't be seeing anything more than what people in the street are seeing. What's so creepy about that ?

The cameras also provide a deterrent. One would have to be pretty dumb to walk out of somebody's apartment stealing their TV set, when they know a camera is recording the whole thing. Not everybody is as dumb as Michael Brown was. :rollseyes:
You don't really know who has access to the video and what it is being used for, do you? Do you know whether it is being used to record people's faces to add them to a database. You don't. Add together the faces and broadcast from their cell phones and for all you know, all people are being added to a complex database. Then you are being surreptitiously tracked. They have your face, they know your name, they have access to your bank account, your credit cards, your tax return - virtually everything. This is not science fiction, they really do have facial recognition software - they've been using it in the UK for years. They really can identify you from your cell phone signals. It's no big deal to put them together. If they choose to, they could eliminate your identity - no bank account, no credit, social security number, nothing. You wouldn't, for all intents and purposes, exist. How much do you trust your government?

[Ravens Fan]

I'd call it about the same as dozens of people in a WalMart parking lot seeing you and recording your every move, in their memory banks, if they care that much. So what ? If you cant have people seeing you, maybe you could never leave your house, or wear a Muslim niqab, that covers every bit of you except your eyes. :laugh:

Who cares when they watch the recordings ? Suppose you went to Walmart. 200+ people inside and outside the store will see you. So ? So they all see you in the store, and maybe some security guy sees you in his security recording (they don't use "tapes" anymore) the next day. So what, dude ? What is the difference ? What is your problem ? Are you going to buy a burka ?

Since part of your premise is that they would ONLY watch the recordings is AFTER a crime has occurred, I think when they will watch them is fairly important to your argument.

Comparing Walmart security to the surveillance of all public land is ridiculous. A Walmart store is private property, they can film all they want, as they own the property. My problem is with the Government becoming big brother.


Comparing a video recording to people witnessing something is equally ridiculous. People's memories change and fade away, a recording does not. A recording can be shared in it's entirety, a personal memory cannot. And I am very aware that the footage is stored on hard drives (which are far from free), I was trying to keep it simple for you.

[protectionist]

My point is that you don't think those cameras could see inside your car or home. That proves to me that you do not have sufficient experience to know what the cameras are capable of (not the cameras in gas staions that you can barely make out shapes on either).

You're thinking and worrying too much. I'm talking about cameras that don't see anything more than what the man in hte street can see while he's out walking around. Dude, you can magnify ANYTHING into something harmful. If you talked about simple swimming it's pretty harmless. But if you magnify it to talk about swimming is shark infested waters, or barracudas, or swimming into underwater caves, where you could get trapped, then sure, that's a bad thing.

As my old physics professor used to say > "Qualitatives measures are created by quantative measures." Anything can become bad if you do it in a harmful way. Cars can be dangerous if we drive them too fast. Alcohol can be dangerous if we drink too much of it. I'm talking about the harmless cameras, and nothing more, and many of them are already out there (ex, every aisle in your local WalMart store)

[Dr. Who]

It becomes prison when you put all your "alsos" in here, which we are not talking about. I'm talking about ONE THING. Street cameras. Not also this or also that.

If a hiker walks on a safe park trail, he's perfectly safe. If he ALSO wanders into a nearby lake, he could be bitten by water mocassins or devoured by a 12 foot alligator. Anything can be a problem if you expand to other things
I'm suggesting it is the beginning of the end. You're rights are being violated, but you don't recognize it. You see it as protection and then you accept the next thing as protection until you are so protected, that you are a prisoner.

[protectionist]

according to whom?

You don't think he was dumb ? Committing crimes in front of a security camera/recorder ?

[protectionist]

Not when it has been determined by everyone else on the thread that street cameras are not the way to go. Shifting the topic a bit to a sustainable solution improved the thread.

FALSE!! If you don't like the tread topic, you can leave. You don't have a right to change the topic.

[Professor Peabody]

Or cops wearing cameras is better. Excellent Idea!

[protectionist]

Really? just because you say it's so, doesn't make it true. Think about the costs of providing the backbone for this system. Cameras need power and signal cables... every single one of them. they would also need internet access and a network. Then there's the personnel needed to operate the system. What about the rural areas? or even the suburbs, how expensive would that be?

How would local municipalities even try to provide for all of that? How do you even justify a program that size?

I've already answered that repeatedly, earlier in the tread. So now I show do extrawork re-answering, to save you the work of reading the thread ? Hint: Litigation. Now read the thread if you want to know.

[Ravens Fan]

You're thinking and worrying too much. I'm talking about cameras that don't see anything more than what the man in hte street can see while he's out walking around. Dude, you can magnify ANYTHING into something harmful. If you talked about simple swimming it's pretty harmless. But if you magnify it to talk about swimming is shark infested waters, or barracudas, or swimming into underwater caves, where you could get trapped, then sure, that's a bad thing.

As my old physics professor used to say > "Qualitatives measures are created by quantative measures." Anything can become bad if you do it in a harmful way. Cars can be dangerous if we drive them too fast. Alcohol can be dangerous if we drink too much of it. I'm talking about the harmless cameras, and nothing more, and many of them are already out there (ex, every aisle in your local WalMart store)

So, you are advocating for cameras that are sharp enough to positively identify suspects and/or tag numbers, but nothing else around them. That sent this footage to some free storage facility that would have to make the new NSA facility look like a hot dog cart, then are only reviewable by a very highly trustworthy person who will only look at the exact crime in question. and never at anything else. And all this will be cheaper than just putting cameras on all police officers.

Are the easter bunny and the tooth fairy going to head up this project?

[protectionist]

does the camera fairy hide it under cabbage leaves?

It gets recorded, stays for a brief time (as long as needed) and gets recorded over, and over, and over, etc.

[Ravens Fan]

FALSE!! If you don't like the tread topic, you can leave. You don't have a right to change the topic.

Or I can stay and prove why I think your idea would not work, which I have been doing over and over...

[protectionist]

You don't really know who has access to the video and what it is being used for, do you? Do you know whether it is being used to record people's faces to add them to a database. You don't. Add together the faces and broadcast from their cell phones and for all you know, all people are being added to a complex database. Then you are being surreptitiously tracked. They have your face, they know your name, they have access to your bank account, your credit cards, your tax return - virtually everything. This is not science fiction, they really do have facial recognition software - they've been using it in the UK for years. They really can identify you from your cell phone signals. It's no big deal to put them together. If they choose to, they could eliminate your identity - no bank account, no credit, social security number, nothing. You wouldn't, for all intents and purposes, exist. How much do you trust your government?

Sure you know. In the case of PUBLIC cameras recording PUBLIC places, guess who owns those cameras ? YOU DO. The PUBLIC. You have a right to know and see. This isn't the old Soviet Union.

Also, you are going off on a tangent. Nobody said anything about tracking. I'm not proposing tracking.

And these are LOCAL govts (city/town/county) So who is this "they" you keep mentioning ? The "they" is YOU. The PUBLIC. YOU are paying for the cameras. They are YOUR cameras, put there to PROTECT YOU.

As for how much anyone trusts THEIR city govt. is all a matter of how much you hold their feet to the fire. If you let them go haywire, guess who's fault that is > it's YOURS.

[Ravens Fan]

I've already answered that repeatedly, earlier in the tread. So now I show do extrawork re-answering, to save you the work of reading the thread ? Hint: Litigation. Now read the thread if you want to know.

I have been actively involved in the thread since you started it. Never did see any real ideas of where the funding would come from. Cameras will not replace to justice system. There will still be a need for prosecutors and judges, and all the clerical jobs that go with it. The small impact the cameras would make in the system would not support it's costs.

[protectionist]

Since part of your premise is that they would ONLY watch the recordings is AFTER a crime has occurred, I think when they will watch them is fairly important to your argument.

Comparing Walmart security to the surveillance of all public land is ridiculous. A Walmart store is private property, they can film all they want, as they own the property. My problem is with the Government becoming big brother.


Comparing a video recording to people witnessing something is equally ridiculous. People's memories change and fade away, a recording does not. A recording can be shared in it's entirety, a personal memory cannot. And I am very aware that the footage is stored on hard drives (which are far from free), I was trying to keep it simple for you.
Sounds to me like your real problem is you don't have a grasp on the definition of representitive govt. YOU ARE the govt. See Post # 177.

People's memories fade away do they ? I can remember things from the 1940s. I can remember more things and more clearly from the 1950s. I play songs on the guitar that I learned 50 years ago, an ddon't miss a note.

[protectionist]

I have been actively involved in the thread since you started it. Never did see any real ideas of where the funding would come from. Cameras will not replace to justice system. There will still be a need for prosecutors and judges, and all the clerical jobs that go with it. The small impact the cameras would make in the system would not support it's costs.

Pretty bad reader it looks like. Even when I give you a hint, you're still floundering about.

You don't remember when I said dozens of cases would never go to trial ? This would save millions$$$$$$. Probably the biggest savings any jusrisdiction would ever have. As for supporting costs or not, come back to me with a link, if you want to try and throw that one out.

[protectionist]

Or I can stay and prove why I think your idea would not work, which I have been doing over and over...

Not hardly. Not even close.

[protectionist]

So, you are advocating for cameras that are sharp enough to positively identify suspects and/or tag numbers, but nothing else around them. That sent this footage to some free storage facility that would have to make the new NSA facility look like a hot dog cart, then are only reviewable by a very highly trustworthy person who will only look at the exact crime in question. and never at anything else. And all this will be cheaper than just putting cameras on all police officers.

Are the easter bunny and the tooth fairy going to head up this project?

I think they may head up that looney post you just came up with, not one part of it making any sense. Might as well have been in Chinese. Bunch of ridiculous statements based on even more ridiculous premises. :laugh:

[Ravens Fan]

Sounds to me like your real problem is you don't have a grasp on the definition of representitive govt. YOU ARE the govt. See Post # 177.

People's memories fade away do they ? I can remember things from the 1940s. I can remember more things and more clearly from the 1950s. I play songs on the guitar that I learned 50 years ago, an ddon't miss a note.

Sounds to me like your problem is with reality.

I too can remember quite vividly things from my childhood. Seeing it on tape though, brings up things that I have forgotten or was not paying attention to at the time.

[protectionist]

I'm suggesting it is the beginning of the end. You're rights are being violated, but you don't recognize it. You see it as protection and then you accept the next thing as protection until you are so protected, that you are a prisoner.

How is anyone's rights being violated by street cameras ? That makes no sense.

[protectionist]

Sounds to me like your problem is with reality.

I too can remember quite vividly things from my childhood. Seeing it on tape though, brings up things that I have forgotten or was not paying attention to at the time.

Your problem is also with reality. You keep yammering about "they" and the govt, and some strange devious people. Dude, you don't have a clue of what this OP/thread is all about. You are lost.

1:00 in the morning now here in the East. I'm outta here, going to bed. Go ahead and post behind my back, if you're shallow enough for that.

[Ravens Fan]

I think they may head up that looney post you just came up with, not one part of it making any sense. Might as well have been in Chinese. Bunch of ridiculous statements based on even more ridiculous premises. :laugh:

It is all based on your talking points... go figure :smiley:

[Ravens Fan]

Your problem is also with reality. You keep yammering about "they" and the govt, and some strange devious people. Dude, you don't have a clue of what this OP/thread is all about. You are lost.

1:00 in the morning now here in the East. I'm outta here, going to bed. Go ahead and post behind my back, if you're shallow enough for that.

Lol, I'm starting to wonder if you even know what your post is about.

Incase you couldn't tell by my screen name, I too am on the east coast, but was having too much fun with you to go to bed ( like teasing a cat with a laser pointer... just doesn't get old). I wouldn't really be posting behind your back, it will still be there in the morning. I do think I'm done on this topic though. everyone but you seems to be on the same page on this one, and arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall, so good luck with your grand idea :grin:

[protectionist]

Lol, I'm starting to wonder if you even know what your post is about.

Incase you couldn't tell by my screen name, I too am on the east coast, but was having too much fun with you to go to bed ( like teasing a cat with a laser pointer... just doesn't get old). I wouldn't really be posting behind your back, it will still be there in the morning. I do think I'm done on this topic though. everyone but you seems to be on the same page on this one, and arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall, so good luck with your grand idea :grin:

Couldn't sleep. Got up and watched World War II in Color for a while. That gets old quick. So I have to guess that you're a criminal. I could be wrong. But that's my guess. I see no one else who would have any motivation to oppose harmless street cameras, that can save lives like the poor little 11 year old girl Carlie Brucia, who was killed by the worthless turd in the OP video, Joseph Smith.

All this yammering about big brother, and some devious people in the govt, and cameras that can look into one's bedroom, and 1984, ......it's all a big ruse. Smoke and mirrors to cover up the real motivation. To keep street cameras off the street, so criminals can keep on going out and doing their dirty work. And for anyone to battle against this harmless, worthwhile, protective thing is ludicrous UNLESS > they're a criminal, to whom street cameras are a threat to the only occupation they have > crime. That's the only motivation to oppose it there could be.

So no, you're not teasing, you're not cool, you're a stupid jerk criminal failure in life, who's incapable of supporting yourself in any legitimate work, or doing anything other than robbing people, burglarizing homes, stealing cars, etc. and PRETEND as much as you like. You know that you've tried very hard for a long time to discredit an obvious good proposal, and in return, I've handed you your ass here, and YOU KNOW it.

[protectionist]

Washington DC police D.C. police are increasingly relying on video footage pulled from the city’s network of surveillance cameras in criminal investigations, as officers identify more effective ways to deploy the devices and detectives find new uses for them.Investigators retrieved video from the Metropolitan Police Department (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/metropolitan-police/)’s 123 closed-circuit television cameras and the District’s network of red light and Department of Transportation (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-transportation/) cameras 931 times in fiscal 2012 — an increase of 15 percent over the previous year, according to police department data. Police pulled video 796 times in fiscal 2011 and sought it 722 times in 2010.
Since neighborhood crime cameras were first installed in the District in 2006, they have become standard investigative tools, and police detectives are relying on them more than ever.
“It’s the first thing we look for,” said 5th District Cmdr. Andrew Solberg (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/andrew-solberg/), who has studied the placement of cameras in his district to optimize their use. “If you go to a crime scene, all the officers and crime scene detectives will be looking up to find out if there is a camera nearby.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/dc-surveillance-cameras-become-top-crime-fighting-/?page=all

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2013/07/01/cameras_s877x666.jpg?264ab254ef97bbe0097c613dcdb5b 7291bedb2e0

[protectionist]

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, after which surveillance video was used to identify two suspects, lawmakers and law enforcement officials across the country have called for broader use of cameras.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/dc-surveillance-cameras-become-top-crime-fighting-/#ixzz3Ap0yVgGI

[protectionist]

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site296/2013/1006/20131006_094553_10-06Cameras_VPD Dispatch_300.jpg Multiple screens are available at the Vallejo Police Department communication center for dispatchers to view the video camera footage. However, police say the department is understaffed, making it difficult for them to monitor the screens. (Mike Jory/Times-Herald file photo)

In many cities, volunteers come in and monitor the screens, but monitored or not, the cameras still provide a video recorded record of crimes, making identification of crooks possible and their arrests and convictions. This then reduces crime by getting these thugs of the street for years, decades, or their whole lives..as well as creating a deterrent to back crooks off from where they know the cameras are.

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_24251087/questions-abound-about-vallejo-security-cameras

[protectionist]

More CCTV cameras to help fight crime

Hundreds of CCTV schemes received a huge cash injection today as the Government approved the biggest-ever single investment in crime-fighting cameras.
The £79 million plan will set up or expand nearly 250 CCTV schemes across England and Wales.
One unusual scheme which got the go-ahead today will see cameras installed at a rural beauty spot.
The £975,000 scheme in the New Forest will bring cameras to Lymington, Totton and Ringwood town centres as well as in the car parks which are used by a million tourists a year, but have been blighted by car crime.
A Home Office spokesman said today's boost will lead to thousands of cameras being installed to target residential crime hotspots and keep a watchful eye on shopping centres, public transport, car parks and hospitals.
Home Office minister John Denham said: "CCTV has repeatedly proved its effectiveness in the fight against crime and the fear of crime.
"Knowing that there is an extra set of eyes watching over their communities helps to reassure people that they will be safe.
"It also acts as an important set of eyes for the police, providing valuable evidence where incidents occur.
"Today's announcement of the largest single allocation of CCTV money ever made will make a real contribution to continuing the national trend in falling crime figures."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-67572/More-CCTV-cameras-help-fight-crime.html#ixzz3Ap6LMulu

[protectionist]

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2014/0122/20140122__20140123_A4_CD23COLFAXCAMS~p1.jpg Jim Bode, owner of J. Bode Used Cars on East Colfax Avenue, stands by a traffic-light pole equipped with a new high-tech camera. The camera is one of 11 being used to monitor crime along a stretch of East Colfax in Aurora. (Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post)

[protectionist]

In Chicago, the use of street cameras has proven to be very successful in fighting crime. This technology used remote-controlled and viewable cameras called Police Observation Devices - commonly referred to as PODs - positioned to view and record potential crime in high-risk areas.With each POD equipped with flashing blue lights on top, trademark checkerboard markings of the Chicago Police Department, and a large Chicago Police logo, these cameras were designed to ensure that their highly visible presence would inform the public that the area was under police surveillance.
PODs were integrated into ongoing Department crime-fighting initiatives and proved an effective component in its efforts to disrupt drug and gang activity. One particular mission produced interesting results, “Operation Disruption” which was initiated in Summer 2003, incorporated placing surveillance cameras with zoom and 360 degree rotation capabilities in these high-crime areas.

Given the success of the pilot program, in September 2003, Mayor Daley announced that a new phase of PODs would be deployed throughout the City. Subsequently, the number of PODs increased from 30 to 80 by December 2003. Some of the new second generation PODs were also equipped with technology to detect gunfire. Using wireless technology, these units transmitted gunshot alerts, as well as the usual video images, directly to the City’s Emergency Management and Communications Center, thereby providing crucial intelligence on criminal incidents involving guns. Several of the 30 existing PODs were also upgraded with the same technology during that time period.

Statistics showed the use of POD technology had been a very effective tool in the fight against gangs, guns and drugs. The Department looked at crime incidents and calls for service in the areas immediately adjacent to the PODs. While narcotic-related calls declined by 76%, serious index crimes declined by 17%, while non-index, quality-of-life crimes declined by 46%. Focusing on just narcotic-related crime revealed a decrease of 76%.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/i/cpd/clearpath/images/pod_1.gif https://portal.chicagopolice.org/i/cpd/clearpath/images/pod_controlcenter.gif

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About%20CPD/POD%20Program

[protectionist]

The Philadelphia Police have an interesting program which bring residents and businesses together with the police. They call it Safecam. Lt. John Stanford touts the effectiveness of the city’s SafeCam program. Over the last two years, some 600 businesses and residents have registered their surveillance cameras with police, allowing them to amass a database of videos that have helped to solve many crimes.
“Right now we have posted a little over 300 videos. But since we’ve done this, well over 200 people have been arrested and taken off the street as a result,” Lt. Stanford said.
There is example after example of suspects being arrested after video surfaces of a crime.
Surveillance video is proving to be more and more crucial when it comes to solving crimes. That’s why Philadelphia Police are urging more businesses, even residences, to register with the SafeCam program.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/10/24/surveillance-cameras-helping-police-fight-crime-in-philadelphia/

[protectionist]

Another Indiana city (COLUMBUS) plans to install crime-fighting cameras. Indianapolis already has dozens of them, making people think twice before committing crimes. But in Columbus, police plan to put in more high-tech cameras that can even help police prevent a neighborhood threat.

http://wthr.images.worldnow.com/images/24139639_BG1.jpg

http://www.wthr.com/story/24139639/2013/12/04/columbus-to-install-high-tech-crime-fighting-cameras

[protectionist]

Approximately 130 video cameras have been installed in various places in The Hague. The police view the video images 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from the Integrated Monitoring Centre (GMC). The pictures are ‘live’ so that the police can respond immediately when they spot an incident. Often the incidents involve serious violence in the form of fights, drug trafficking and anti-social behaviour.

A number of rules safeguard the privacy of the people captured on video:


The videotapes are secure and only a small group of police officials is allowed to view the images.
The images may be kept for a maximum of 28 days. Images where serious incidents can be seen will be transferred to an investigation unit.
The police are allowed to use the pictures for only a limited number of purposes, including maintaining public order.
Any person appearing in the video pictures is allowed to see them.

http://www.denhaag.nl/en/residents/relocation-and-settling/to/Camera-surveillance.htm

[protectionist]

For those who have a trauma about govt and "big brother", 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.

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=2071

[protectionist]

In the 18 months since they've watched over the city, surveillance cameras have resulted in almost 2,000 officer dispatches -- assisting Allentown, PA detectives, patrolmen, crash investigators and parking authority officers -- and have resulted in at least 29 arrests, some of them for felonies,

http://articles.mcall.com/2009-05-09/news/4370403_1_dispatchers-surveillance-cameras-city-s-eye

[protectionist]

Surveillance Cameras Become Mainstream Crime Fighting Tools
http://www.wset.com/story/25268668/surveillance-cameras-become-mainstream-crime-fighting-tools

[protectionist]

A widespread crime fighting effort is underway in the Mid-City neighborhood of New Orleans. Area businesses are partnering to pay for Project NOLA crime cameras (https://connect.clickandpledge.com/Organization/projectnola).
An uptick in violent crime in Mid-City has both residents and business owners concerned. It’s why The Greater Mid-City Business Association (http://midcitybusinessassociation.wordpress.com/) has launched efforts to add more surveillance cameras to the neighborhood.

http://wgno.com/2014/04/14/mid-city-businesses-partner-to-buy-crime-cameras/#ixzz3ApUPQzYp (http://wgno.com/2014/04/14/mid-city-businesses-partner-to-buy-crime-cameras/#ixzz3ApUPQzYp)

[protectionist]

A great many municipalities already have deployed a fixed video surveillance solution. This solution can record everything from bridges, roadways and dangerous intersections to remote locations such as parking lots and utility infrastructure. These systems integrate with technologies like remote sensors and video analytics -- such as gunshot detection, intrusion alarms and facial recognition -- to trigger alerts and add to enhanced situational awareness.

Deploying this type of solution pays dividends: 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.

http://www.hstoday.us/blogs/guest-commentaries/blog/a-powerful-combination-for-intelligent-crime-fighting-video-surveillance-analytics-and-broadband-communications/a314c9342b69674f309cf7c525975812.html

[protectionist]

Thirty-seven surveillance cameras now sit atop traffic poles along a 4-mile stretch of Las Vegas Boulevard, part of an effort to boost safety in the tourist-heavy corridor. The concept isn’t new to Las Vegas. Several years ago, similar cameras were installed near 15th and Fremont streets as a way to curb crime in that area. Other cities with high visitor volumes, such as Chicago, Virginia Beach and Los Angeles, also have surveillance cameras, said. Lt. Jim Seebock of the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center (http://www.lvmpd.com/Sections/HomelandSecurity/tabid/173/Default.aspx). Authorities consider the cameras both a crime-prevention and investigative tool, giving law-enforcers the opportunity to spot suspicious activity and go back in time to view footage if an emergency event occurs.

The surveillance cameras along Las Vegas Boulevard will pan, tilt, zoom and record 14 days of footage, Seebock said. After each two-week period, the cameras will do an “automatic purge” and start recording anew.Their debut comes in the wake of surveillance footage from Boston businesses proving crucial (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/apr/17/source-arrest-imminent-boston-marathon-bombings/) in identifying the suspects in the April 15 marathon bombing (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/apr/15/two-explosions-boston-marathon-finish-line/) that killed three people and injured 260.
“That was just a great example of how important having video evidence can be,” Seebock said. “That really broke the case wide open.”

[protectionist]

The US Department of Homeland Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security) is funding networks of surveillance cameras in cities and towns as part of its efforts to combat terrorism. Cities that have moved forward on plans for surveillance networks financed by the Homeland Security Department include St. Paul, which got a $1.2 million grant for 60 cameras for downtown; Madison, Wis., which is buying a 32-camera network with a $388,000 grant; and Pittsburgh, which is adding 83 cameras to its downtown with a $2.58 million grant.

Small towns are also getting their share of the federal money for surveillance to thwart crime and terrorism.
Recent examples include Liberty, Kan. (population 95), which accepted a federal grant to install a $5,000 G2 Sentinel camera in its park, and Scottsbluff, Neb. (population 14,000), where police used a $180,000 Homeland Security Department grant to purchase four closed-circuit digital cameras and two monitors, a system originally designed for Times Square in New York City.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/12/us_doles_out_millions_for_street_cameras/?page=full

[protectionist]

Stationary cameras are mounted on light poles at five of Highland's busiest intersections, photographing license plates 24 hours a day and comparing them to a database of thousands of California vehicles being sought in connection with felonies.
"People will assume they are red-light cameras" like those operating at two Highland intersections, San Bernardino County station commander, Capt. Dave Williams said. "We are not going to use them for any kind of traffic enforcement whatsoever."
"People tend to appreciate this type of technology if it's used to catch criminals, which is absolutely our goal," he said. "They don't appreciate the technology if it is used for parking tickets and traffic enforcement. There is a lot more resistance."

http://www.pe.com/articles/cameras-629284-cars-plate.html

[protectionist]

Queenstown police believe up to 90% of bars in the resort now have closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras - and they are already coming in handy combating thefts and assaults.
Alcohol harm reduction officer Sergeant Keith Newell says the private cameras are providing good footage, helping police deal with early-morning crime.

Senior Sergeant John Fookes earlier this year said Queenstown's bar cameras were "very useful" and also praised the Queenstown Lakes District Council's proposed CCTV network for the CBD.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown-lakes/176547/tv-cameras-bars-fighting-crime

[protectionist]

Caught on Camera.

Man, this one is really interesting. Check it out.

http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/camera-alerts/caught-on-camera

[protectionist]

In a San Pedro, CA there was a rash of home burglaries. The residentws got together and installed stree cameras outside their homes.

Result ? “Major crime is down 57 percent in this area from last year. Last year there were 21 cars broken into compared to 10 vehicles to date this year, there were 10 cars stolen compared to five this year and 14 burglaries compared to five this year.

http://www.sanpedrotoday.com/2013/09/11/fighting-back/

[protectionist]

Once upon a time, East Orange, New Jersey was one of the highest-crime cities in the United States. The town of 65,000 people was once known as a haven for drug dealers, violent criminals and gangs, but thanks to an impressive catalog of high-tech crime-fighting gadgets (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37809374/ns/technology_and_science-innovation) the city is cleaning up its image and its streets.

http://gajitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/east-orange-nj-anti-crime.jpg

The city’s police chief is Jose Cordero, who previously held the position of NYPD anti-gang czar. Cordero has steered East Orange toward a more technology-focused crime-fighting approach with surveillance cameras equipped with trainable sensors that detect abnormal behavior in people on the street. An abnormal action could be an assault, a robbery or vandalism; once the sensors detect such behavior once they are trained to recognize it when it happens again.

http://gajitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/gunshot-sensor.jpg

The sensors and cameras alert police officers in a command center, who can then use the cameras to zoom in on the incident and determine if there’s a crime in progress. If there is, the command center can direct the nearest patrol car to respond to the scene. In addition to the sensors and cameras, the city has also implemented a police force-wide wireless computer system for patrol cars and a system of gunshot detectors that senses where shots have come from.

http://gajitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/cctv-cameras.jpg

http://gajitz.com/crime-fighting-future-towns-high-tech-anti-crime-system/

[Captain Obvious]

Here's the irony - some people say we need more surveillance, some militantly oppose it.

In some jurisdictions it's a crime to record a video of police from your phone.

It's all stupid.

[donttread]

Do you really trust digital cameras? Don't you think the cops have photoshop?

[PolWatch]

'fraid the note that some places have volunteers to monitor the feeds just makes me more opposed. Just what we need, more nosy Nellie's given a chance to spy & report on their neighbors. I don't like the invasion of my privacy and I sure don't want some gossip spreading all the info around the area. No.....thank......you. Let the gossips find something to talk about on their own...not using my tax $$$.

[Captain Obvious]

Do you really trust digital cameras? Don't you think the cops have photoshop?

There are ways to maintain surveillance data integrity.

[birddog]

Ah, the blacks would just figure out some way to steal the cameras!

[del]

You don't think he was dumb ? Committing crimes in front of a security camera/recorder ?

you said:The cameras are only reviewed after a crime has occured (sp)

i said: according to whom?

try again

[del]

It gets recorded, stays for a brief time (as long as needed) and gets recorded over, and over, and over, etc.

how do you know how long is needed?

you haven't thought this through very well.

[donttread]

There are ways to maintain surveillance data integrity.

And who does said maintaining?

[del]

is it your intent to show us all 30,000,000 cameras, one at a time?

[Captain Obvious]

And who does said maintaining?

Probably the vendor supporting the surveillance system.

Have them audited by a third-party reputable firm.

It's not that hard. You probably don't see it from the disadvantage point under that rock.

[Common Sense]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wgjRoAozzNI/Ur2KRrPUcGI/AAAAAAAAJtU/rUTGSMyy7pg/s1600/san_spy_madrid_spain-4.jpg

[Captain Obvious]

photoshopped

[Common Sense]

photoshopped

Nope...art installation.

[donttread]

Probably the vendor supporting the surveillance system.

Have them audited by a third-party reputable firm.

It's not that hard. You probably don't see it from the disadvantage point under that rock.

There's a fine line between a writing style utilizing sarcasm and a writing system using assholeism

[Captain Obvious]

There's a fine line between a writing style utilizing sarcasm and a writing system using assholeism

It was neither - I was dead serious. All this isn't anything new in industry.

Sensitive areas are subject to operational audit to ensure operational integrity.

Seize the fish for a change.

:biglaugh:

[texan]

Totally disagree I am tired of the invasiveness of our government.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips (http://www.libertystory.net/LSACTIONPHILLIPS.htm), (1811-1884),

[Codename Section]

Couldn't sleep. Got up and watched World War II in Color for a while. That gets old quick. So I have to guess that you're a criminal. I could be wrong. But that's my guess. I see no one else who would have any motivation to oppose harmless street cameras, that can save lives like the poor little 11 year old girl Carlie Brucia, who was killed by the worthless turd in the OP video, Joseph Smith.

All this yammering about big brother, and some devious people in the govt, and cameras that can look into one's bedroom, and 1984, ......it's all a big ruse. Smoke and mirrors to cover up the real motivation. To keep street cameras off the street, so criminals can keep on going out and doing their dirty work. And for anyone to battle against this harmless, worthwhile, protective thing is ludicrous UNLESS > they're a criminal, to whom street cameras are a threat to the only occupation they have > crime. That's the only motivation to oppose it there could be.

So no, you're not teasing, you're not cool, you're a stupid jerk criminal failure in life, who's incapable of supporting yourself in any legitimate work, or doing anything other than robbing people, burglarizing homes, stealing cars, etc. and PRETEND as much as you like. You know that you've tried very hard for a long time to discredit an obvious good proposal, and in return, I've handed you your ass here, and YOU KNOW it.


Stop with personal attacks. Note that if I find any others in this thread you'll be threadbanned.

[Peter1469]

And who does said maintaining? contractors.

[protectionist]

how do you know how long is needed?

you haven't thought this through very well.

HA HA. I've been reviewing security cameras for 38 years in security work. Generally, you keep a recording for about 2 weeks. There isn't any set rule on it, but if someone doesn't come foward and report a crime against them, for over 2 weeks, then they're not too concerned about it. Most crimes are reported the same day or the next day. Lots of security people feel that 3 days is probably long enough.

PS - some of the links in the posts between Post # 189 and 209 have this information. If one reads the thread, one gets information they need, and doesn't wind up asking questions that have already been answered in earlier posts. :wink:
(Example > Post # 203 > "The surveillance cameras along Las Vegas Boulevard will pan, tilt, zoom and record 14 days of footage, Seebock said. After each two-week period, the cameras will do an “automatic purge” and start recording anew.")

[protectionist]

And who does said maintaining?

WHO does anything that is important to us ? WHO prepares foods we buy in the supermarket ? Or in restaurants ? Who makes up medical prescriptions for us ? WHO manages your water treatment plant ? Got any names ?

[protectionist]

'fraid the note that some places have volunteers to monitor the feeds just makes me more opposed. Just what we need, more nosy Nellie's given a chance to spy & report on their neighbors. I don't like the invasion of my privacy and I sure don't want some gossip spreading all the info around the area. No.....thank......you. Let the gossips find something to talk about on their own...not using my tax $$$.

If your neighbors are burglarizing or vandalizing your other neighbors (and maybe you too) then they SHOULD be observed and reported, and THANK YOU to all the volunteers who (without pay) are doing just that.

[del]

HA HA. I've been reviewing security cameras for 38 years in security work. Generally, you keep a recording for about 2 weeks. There isn't any set rule on it, but if someone doesn't come foward and report a crime against them, for over 2 weeks, then they're not too concerned about it. Most crimes are reported the same day or the next day. Lots of security people feel that 3 days is probably long enough.

PS - some of the links in the posts between Post # 188 and 209 have this information. If one reads the thread, one gets information they need. :wink:

well, who am i to argue with mall cops?

it's a brilliant idea

[protectionist]

well, who am i to argue with mall cops?

it's a brilliant idea

I don't know. I don't know any mall cops, and I don't think there is any such thing as a "mall cop".. There are mall security guards, but that's quite different. In any case, of course, street cameras are a brilliant idea. If they weren't, they wouldn't be installed in dozens of cities all across America, like all those listed in Post #s 189 - 209, where they're reducing crime significantly. :grin:

[protectionist]

Tonight on Fox News, a radio talk show host, McGraw Millhaven, said various people in Ferguson, MO are posturing in front of the cameras in an effort to get elected mayor. And in the meantime, a teenager is dead, and a cop is being accused (by some) of murder. And the fact is, we don't know what happened.

Well folks, if there was a street camera on the street of the shooting, we'd have a video of the whole thing, and we WOULD know what happened. http://www.usmessageboard.com/styles/default/xenforo/clear.png

[Chris]

Follow up: Ferguson Cops Get Body Cameras After Michael Brown Shooting (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-cops-get-body-cameras-after-michael-brown-shooting-n193196)


Police officers in Ferguson, Missouri, have started wearing body cameras weeks after a cop shot dead an unarmed teenager during a confrontation. The recording devices were first used at a Saturday march protesting the death of Michael Brown, and training for the entire police force is nearly complete, officials told NBC affiliate KSDK. Two private security firms donated the cameras amid an uproar over police tactics in the St. Louis suburb.

More than 1,000 police departments around the country use similar cameras. Despite some privacy concerns, the gadgets have won the support of law-enforcement officials and civil libertarians. In Celina, Texas, which began equipping officers with the $300 devices nine months ago, police brass say it's a crucial tool because it captures exactly what the officer sees when interacting with a suspect. "Documentation, accountability, transparency is part of what we do now, and it should be," Chief Mark Metdker told NBC News.

Video at link.

[Peter1469]

I wonder how long they store the footage. Or if they only store it if there is an issue.

[Redrose]

I would love to see cameras all along our streets and shops. I guarantee in less than two years of use, the ACLU and other Civil Liberties organizations would be declaring them racist and demanding they be removed or at the very least ruled unacceptable in court.

[Private Pickle]

I wonder how long they store the footage. Or if they only store it if there is an issue.

Typically 3 months but retention times vary.

[Dr. Who]

I would love to see cameras all along our streets and shops. I guarantee in less than two years of use, the ACLU and other Civil Liberties organizations would be declaring them racist and demanding they be removed or at the very least ruled unacceptable in court.
The ACLU could only declare them racist if they were only placed in minority neighborhoods. If they were placed everywhere, then civil libertarians would try to make a case for violation of privacy.

[Chris]

The ACLU could only declare them racist if they were only placed in minority neighborhoods. If they were placed everywhere, then civil libertarians would try to make a case for violation of privacy.

It's not up to the ACLU to declare anything.

Civil libertarians generally support police wearing body cameras.

[Matty]

If you are committing a crime I have no problem with your loss of privacy.

[PolWatch]

This issue really highlights the situation citizens are now facing. Do we submit to constant filming of our every activity (which I think is a violation of our right to privacy). Do we admit that without filming, we have few protections from an increasingly military-like police force who seem determined to treat citizens like an invading army? I would have never believed that our country would arrive at this point.....

[Chris]

This issue really highlights the situation citizens are now facing. Do we submit to constant filming of our every activity (which I think is a violation of our right to privacy). Do we admit that without filming, we have few protections from an increasingly military-like police force who seem determined to treat citizens like an invading army? I would have never believed that our country would arrive at this point.....

I like the idea of police wearing cameras, not sure about cameras everywhere--sure didn't like the camera catching me right turn rolling through at 2 mph as the traffic light turned red. Then again not sure you can stop as many of the cameras are private, I have them inside and outside my house.

[donttread]

I like the idea of police wearing cameras, not sure about cameras everywhere--sure didn't like the camera catching me right turn rolling through at 2 mph as the traffic light turned red. Then again not sure you can stop as many of the cameras are private, I have them inside and outside my house.


We need to apply some 4th amendment rights to all this video

[Chris]

We need to apply some 4th amendment rights to all this video

I think body cams on police protect our rights. Same with in-car vid cams. Traffic cams are pure laziness.

But the 4th only restricts government, not my right to video tape my property.

[Mainecoons]

I agree that having the cops use and wear cams is more about protecting us than them.

[Cigar]

Here's what happens thousands of times every day in America. A crime is committed out in broad daylight, but nobody was there to see it. Or if/whenever somebody says they were, nobody knows if that's true. Result ? No charges placed becasue of insufficient evidence.

At the same time, an innocent person could get caught up in something when in the aftermath, it appears like he might have done a crime. He gets arrested wrongly.

All this could be avoided by having street cameras, hooked into recorders.

I am a big fan of the TV show "Forensic Files". It is amazing how many criminals would have gone scott free had it not been for the forensic science investigation. But many criminals ARE going free right now, only because of the lack of street cameras which could catch criminals in the act, before the cops even arrive at the scene.

The Brown case is a perfect example. Had a street camera been on in the street where the shooting occured we could simple play back the video and know exactly what happened. There was no camera, so we can't. Contrast that with the camera/recorder of the convenience store which WAS operating, and DID catch thug boy Brown right in his tracks. And without that video, we would be seeing this Brown case quite differently right now.

Another example is the Carlie Brucia murder case. Killer Joseph Smith was convicted killing 11 year old Carlie. But would he have been even arrested, if not for a video which showed him and little Carlie Brucia walking together through a car wash, where Smith picked her up ? Probably not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgd0I77Rao


Chicago is littered with street cameras ... all they do is hand out tickets for not coming to a full stop before turning right. :laugh:

No money in actually stopping Game-Banges

[Chris]

Chicago is littered with street cameras ... all they do is hand out tickets for not coming to a full stop before turning right. :laugh:

No money in actually stopping Game-Banges

My ticket for that here in San Antone pissed me off, the light had been red only a fraction of a second when I rolled through. All the data was there on the ticket they mailed out. They get away with it because they know most people aren't going to fight it. Damned police state!

[donttread]

I think body cams on police protect our rights. Same with in-car vid cams. Traffic cams are pure laziness.

But the 4th only restricts government, not my right to video tape my property.

Correct but I question the legitimacy of traffic infraction by camera cop

[Chris]

Correct but I question the legitimacy of traffic infraction by camera cop

I don't like that either.

And it's error prone. A couple years ago I got a ticket for running a tollbooth, 200 miles aways from where I live, up in Austin, I was not there. The ticket photo though showed my licence plate number. Looked closer and the plates were from out of state. They dropped it.

[PolWatch]

I agree the cops wearing cameras is more for the safety of the public and I'm ok with that use, but I'm still torn about the increasing use of cameras... Private property is the owner's business, its just the idea of being filmed all the time that creeps me out.