Cameras Help Cops Catch a Killer 754
CrazedWalrus writes "Philadelphia police recently captured a serial killer with the help of a combination of Homeland Security and private surveillance cameras. Police examined video from 50 different cameras and pieced together relevant footage from 12 of them, and eventually were able to identify the murderer. Once caught, he confessed to several other murders spanning the past eight years. Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?"
Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)
It is always a tradeoff (Score:5, Insightful)
I never understand the comment "with such a good result, can we argue against X?".
The point is, you can always justify any intrusive technology by pointing to the good results. "If we lock everyone up, there would be no crime! Can you argue against that?"
We always have to look at the tradeoff between the intrusion on our freedoms and the the results that the technology brings. As for cameras, I think that in some cases/locations they make sense, but that (for example) the UK has gone way overboard. But that is just my opinion.
Stop the hysteria... (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is asking the right question (Score:3, Insightful)
The superficial issue here is whether or not mass surveillance is acceptable, in that one on hand it can be used to defeat unethical crime, on the other hand, it can be used by the State to defeat ethical crime.
But the real issue, the underlying issue, is *why do people perform unethical crimes?*
I see no one asking this question or wondering how to fix it - and if this problem was fixed or largely fixed, there wouldn't be a need for cameras at all.
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
A policeman watching over camera is just a reviewr for britains worst police movies 74.
I would rather the money be spent on real policemen doing a real job at policing.
Why not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut (Score:2, Insightful)
With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?
With arguments like that, is there really a good opportunity for a reasoned, proportionate, discussion?
(Not saying cameras are always wrong, just not saying they're always right just because they occasionally give a benefit)
Public Vs. Private (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the cameras (and personally identifiable data in general) are hard enough to access that they will only be used to prosecute major crimes, most people would be perfectly happy. After all, since the beginning of time, officials could interview other witnesses and find out who was doing what, and when.
The privacy concerns really come into play when the cameras are online, and easily accessible. Then it's a force multiplier for the authorities, allowing them to track hundreds and hundreds of people with only trivial effort, as well as prosecuting every trivial violation of the law the cameras see.
In other words, it's not the cameras, it's the databases.
what a troll.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Just because some multimillion dollar network of cameras was able to help nail 0.2 percent of the killers
does not mean living in a surveillance society is a great thing. Besides, the criminals will just learn
where the cameras are and move two blocks away into someone else's frontyard.
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments throughout the world, throughout history, have shown repeatedly that they are subject to corruption, so keeping the required balance so that peoples can overthrow their corrupt governments is paramount.
Re:get your priorities straight, dumbass (Score:3, Insightful)
? says who?
Ah, the actual link 'http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/news.asp?ID=117'
Which explains either
a) cameras deliberately/ randomly cause accidents
b) more accidents are reported/ detected when there are cameras present.
Which do you think is the more probable?
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is one of quantity and duration. The "policeman watching you in person" will quickly forget if you aren't doing anything out of the ordinary. The camera (potentially) results in a permanent record.
"But why is a permanent record bad, when I'm doing nothing wrong?". You aren't doing anything wrong today, but what about under the laws of tomorrow? What about if you later become a public figure, and they have tapes of you picking your nose? Is it suddenly a privacy intrusion then?
Also, with better and better computer processing, ALL of the cameras can be watched ALL of the time. This is a quantum leap above what "the policeman on the corner" is capable of. What if the police had officers on every corner, and were taking notes 24 hours a day of everything that happened, everyone who passed by, etc. Would that make you pause to think? That is where we are headed...
this is sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiots. They don't realize what they are losing because their fredoms and rights are being nibbled away a little at a time, all in the name of personal safety.
Did you know, if you toss a live frog into a boiling pot of water he jumps right out, that's no surprise. But put him in a pot of room temperature water and he stays there, even while you are slowly turning up the burner. An hour later you have one dead frog. It's amazing how similar this is to how the sheep behave.
The proponants of things like this try to present it as a choice, you either do as we say or you deal with the consequences. You can either be safe OR you can live in a cage. They don't discuss the possibility of being safe without living in a cage. This issue is a small one, but that's how it works, your fredoms are chipped away a little at a time over a long term, and leaves you staring back at 20 years ago wondering who let it happen.
You did.
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
We've got at most couple of years' grace period while there simply isn't enough bandwidth and processing power for the deployed cameras to be actively monitored at all times. There's a presumptive freedom that comes with that, and we're going to lose it. With a lot of luck, we might eventually get it back.
not so fast, smart guy (Score:4, Insightful)
So your statement that "more accidents are reported when there are cameras present" is a nonargument, because when people are injured in an accident, the accident gets reported anyway.
Regulation for the use. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the (in some places like the USofA) complete lack of of privacy assurances for the use of the resulting footage that are cause for strong concern.
As long as strong national legal demands are in place about the use of the pictures this system can be of benefit.
Presently such laws are all but missing and abuse is just waiting to happen.
Re:No one is asking the right question (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is that I and many other bystanders can watch the policeman in person, whereas if the policeman is watching me on camera nobody gets to watch h(im/er) aside possibly from other policemen.
The issue I have with most surveillance technology is the information gap it creates. If they get to watch me, I should get to watch them too.
Clarity Through Regular Expressions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cameras are tool, what matters is how it's used (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. If you mean all new technologies must have laws then what you're saying is before any innovation is allowed the politicians must have their own interests met first... I don't care to subject the pace of innovation and the growth of the economy to a bunch of politicos out for themselves or their single consituency.
If you mean only technologies used by the government... then you need overriding laws that can be applied to various situation. Otherwise, if a police force used technology in a new and innovative and non-intrusive way they'd be subject to have having the case tossed out of court because they used the technology without governing laws.
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)
Best Troll '07 (Score:3, Insightful)
The award for "Best Troll" in 2007 is going to be a tough competition.
-Tommy
Re:Same as always (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:this is sickening (Score:3, Insightful)
At the rate things are going now, ten years from now we will live in a society of 0% crime and 0% fredom.
You're wrong about that--there won't be 0% crime. In our new 1984 society, everything beyond eating, sleeping, and drinking will be a crime...
Re:Public Vs. Private (Score:5, Insightful)
Define major crime. What is legal today may be a 'major crime' tomorrow. For instance, if the RIAA had its way, IP theft would be a major crime.
Don't get me wrong. I like cameras watching the streets. It forces the crime into the poor neighborhoods, where I don't go. Wait... Did I say that out loud?
Whew... I gotta be careful... I almost made a point there. It's a good thing sarcasm is easily identifiable over the internet.
Re:Same as always (Score:2, Insightful)
Without that handgun the woman would probably be walking the streets of Philadelphia today. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against banning handguns?
Personally, I think there is an excellent case for banning handguns, but I'm not an American, and fortunately they're already banned where I live.
Who's stalking whom? (Score:1, Insightful)
And with these cameras the police are stalking the streets of Philadelphia every day.
This is a step toward the "ubiquitous enforcement of petty laws" as it's sometimes called. Is this the type of society you really want to live in?
Finally, who is watching the watchers?
Re:Same as always (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would cameras only provide temporary safety? If this crime had happened in 2050, would the cameras have somehow stopped working?
And how does having cameras in public places sacrifice liberties? Which liberties, exactly? At the moment, if you kill someone but no-one sees it, and you leave no evidence (drive by shooting, for instance) you've got a good chance of getting away with it. If you're caught on film then your liberty is at risk of being sacrificed.
It's been the case, in the UK at least, that police have been caught abusing people thanks to cameras, so it works both ways.
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
And with all that footage of you, it would be a simple matter to fabricate video "evidence" of you being some place you were not.
Re:Same as always (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK is a great example of what I DON'T want to happen in the US when it comes to surveillance. It is disturbing.
-matthew
Re:Same as always (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the number is less than 30K annually, so your "tens of thousands" can be miscontrued. And over half of them are suicides. In a country with as many folks as the US has, I would be interested to see what the statistical relationship is between gun crime and population size in the two countries.
Your right about enforcement being the issue. The mechanism is 'trust' - it's what society is based on. Unfortunately most folks talk about adding gun laws instead of enforcing the ones we have. You have a gun illegally? Spend 2 years in the poke. Fine with me.
Threaten someone with a gun? Tell them you'll be back at work in a few years.
But stop penalizing the law abiding citizens. Just 'making it illegal' doesn't work.
What nobody talks about is that this dude was on a killing rampage for almost a decade and Philly police couldn't close the loop. That's what happens when you fire John Timoney [wikipedia.org] and bring in Sylvester Johnson who's more interested in protecting the mayor from Federal probes [mastalk.com] than curtailing crime.
(And thanks to the asshole mod who tagged my GP post as 'flamebait'. I bet you're fucking French.)
Consistency Check (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is the reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Filming in public does not go against the Fourth Amendment. Your proposal does. That is the difference.
A few disadvantages (Score:3, Insightful)
Other people will use the cameras as an excuse for not doing anything themselves. Instead of helping the victim of a robbery, or trying to memorise the face of the robber, they assume that the cameras will take care of it.
A third disadvantage is that cameras only provide evidence of crimes allready committed. They will not step forward to stop a crime, like a real cop would do. They can only help in catching the criminal, if you are lucky. The story above shows that actually getting any evidence from the cameras is not a given fact either.
Finally, if the government turns mad, or we get some kind of dictator, I don't want them to learn that I protested for freedom in the past. They might hold it against me.
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)
Given current search capabilities I'm not personally too worried about public cameras. The sheer volumn of footage means that they will be used primarily after the fact around a time and location of interest. However, I do believe in fairness. If criminal activity is detected then it should be made available no matter who is the culprit; including the police.
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same as always (Score:3, Insightful)
Guns are the answer. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, this may sound radical, but I think guns are the answer. Bear with me. If every citizen, crimial or not, were packing heat, I think it would make someone think twice before trying to rob, rape or murder. Consider this, "53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S.,
I echo the thoughts of the writer of that article (which is a very interesting read), In that I believe all humans do fear death or injury, and if it can be avoided it would be. Now, I'm not suggesting that arming all of society will end crime, but what I do think it will do is reduce violent crime significantly, leaving only the most violent criminals, which will slowly be phased out either through the justice system or self-defense.
Re:Same as always (Score:1, Insightful)
How is poxy handgun a defense against tyranny? The AK47 is available for very little money the world over but we still have plenty of tyrannical regimes.
I know owning a handgun was considered a defense against tyranny when the US constitution was drawn up but that was over 100 years ago and things have changed. Technology has moved on to the extent that a handgun or rifle does not help you overthrow a tyrannical regime who are armed with tanks and apache helicopters.
It is also worth noting that even in the USA, the general public are not allowed armour piercing weapons (eg - P90) as these could be used to mount a serious challenge to police wearing body armour and hence would be slightly more usefull for overthrowing a tyrannical government.
So although the excuse the NRA use to try and keep firearms legal is that they are a defense against tyranny, the reality is that they are not an effective defense in a modern context. The reality is they want to keep firearms legal so they keep making money from selling them, regardless of how many innocent lives it costs.
Handguns were banned in Philly for over a decade and handgun violence still rose.
Banning handguns in Philly alone would not be very effective as there are no internal border controls to stop people carrying firearms in from a neighbouring state. A nationwide ban on the other hand would be alot more effective in the long run as bringing guns in from a neighbouring country would be alot more difficult.
In the short term however gun violence would be pretty much unchanged as most criminals who want a gun would probably get one before the ban came into force.
But I wonder, are you one of those countries we saved/freed in WWII?
This implies that the US singlehandedly won the 2nd World War. This is very far from true as without Russia the outcome of the war could have been very different.
Re:Surely they could have simply... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that's true. In the US, there's also no legal expectation of help from the government if someone decides they want to beat you to death in the middle of the street, and practically no legal recourse if the government knows that you're going to get beat to death and does nothing to prevent it.
Without some kind of legal guarantee that the government is going to do anything useful with the information, why give them the power to watch you in public 24x7? There is still the probability that the government will abuse that power at some point, and the gains are not likely to be worth it IMHO.
Re:this is sickening (Score:2, Insightful)
I find how much this incorrect "metaphor" has spread sickening. It sure makes for a nice story but it doesn't make it any truer. Let's change it to something more ridiculous.
Re:Surely they could have simply... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only "public" if, well, there's public around. There is (or should be) a perfectly reasonable expectation of privacy if there is no one around. Looking into someone's windows from the sidewalk is legal, looking into windows from behind a bush is being a "peeping tom." Hidden cameras are a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording people with non-obvious cameras goes well beyond any small loss of privacy which occurs when simply being observed by another person.
Of course, the actual point, which seems to have gone over people's heads, is that the argument "the end justifies the means" is easily invalidated by reductio ad adsurdum.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Re:Then ends do not (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, yes you do. If a member of the public decides to follow me around everywhere, then they can be prosecuted for stalking. Are the cameras subject to the same rules ? Or the camera operators ? What about in the middle of the night, when everybody is asleep ? I would have some expectation of privacy then. Or do you suggest we have a curfew between 6pm to 6am ? That way, anybody outside after dark is a criminal. That's the way it's going. If you are caught on camera, then you are part of the data they use to monitor everyone, whether you were committing a crime or not. They have no right to keep my image in a database for just being in a certain place at a certain time. So far that in itself is not illegal.
Freedom to break the law is the whole basis of freedom.
Without that freedom, there is no such thing as "society". Society depends on people behaving in a certain way because they *want to* not because they fear the consequences. Without that freedom, we are all just drones, subject to the whims of our masters.
Where I live, some little assholes think it's clever to break car door mirrors. They often do the whole street. Even if the police were to catch them they would not get any punishment, because they are usually under the age of responsibility. I would like the "privacy" to go out and give them a slap, make the consequences a bit more real and immediate. But I can't do that because I would get prosecuted for assault. Will cameras fix this ? No, they just maintain the status quo. And therefore society suffers.
You seem to be forgetting that the police have a vested interest in catching people doing something wrong. So they are all in favour of using whatever means to watch people as much as possible with as little effort. This is wrong. The way society used to deal with it was within the family. Due to the growth of the nanny culture, parents feel no responsibility for their kids actions anymore. And no-one else should need to feel responsible for those kids actions either. Hence, no-one cares, and the problem grows, then we need more police and more cameras ! It's time to reverse the trend and go back to the way it used to be.
When I was a kid, we all used to get into trouble frequently, riding motorbikes, trespassing, even stealing from shops. We nearly always got caught, and it wasn't the police that were the worry, it was the actions of our parents when we got taken home. After a while, it wasn't worth the hassle anymore so we started acting responsibly. These days, the parents will lie outright to protect a child from the consequences of their own actions. So who is teaching the responsibility now ?
</RANT>
I just don't like an effectively unelected body having control on what I do and when. I don't like being told what to do at the best of times. Especially when I have a need to pursue a certain course of action, and some little hitler says I can't do it. Example - On a flight from LA to Seattle, I have been in the bar at LAX for a couple of hours, after flying in from New Zealand. Consequently while I was waiting for the plane to take off, I felt the need to take a leak. I figured I could wait a few minutes until we were in the air, but as we taxied and slowly starting climbing, the urge became too great. So I got up and went to the rear of the plane to use the toilet. Immediately, the steward started complaining, and said "You have to sit down until the seatbelt light goes out". I explained I needed the toilet, and he just said "Sir, I'm here to tell you that you must remain in your seat until the seatbelt light goes out !". So, I replied, "Well I'm here to tell you that the seat is going to be a bit wet if I don't get into the toilet NOW". He made a face and let me use the toilet. So why all the fuss ? Just the assumption that he was in charge and I was going against his commands. I can imagine doing that these days - I would probably get shot by an air marshal just for needing a piss !
Re:Here is the reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you've invented some sort of magic camera that frisks you as you walk through the park, this isn't the same thing at all.
If a police officer sees you commit a crime, he can arrest you. If a camera, installed in public, aimed at public places, records your commission of a crime, it can be used as evidence to issue a warrant.
Why are you claiming a right not to be observed in public? It doesn't exist.
Re:Same as always (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article summary, it sounds like they used multiple private video records. That is not the same as government-owned, government controlled cameras just monitoring everyone for no good reason. I have a right to video my property for security, and I have the right to assist the police in an investigation of a murderer in my neighborhood. The courts could issue a subpoena for this type of record if the police are aware of it and file for such an order.
Now, whether it's right or legal or should be legal to turn over, without a warrant or subpoena, a video record to the police when there has been no crime committed on the property the camera is installed to protect is another matter. I'm of mixed feelings on that.
Re:Same as always (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
I just got through a similar case, similar in "I done nothing wrong but ended up in court defending myself from a lawsuit", placed by a celebrity. The police did not find the offender, but she wanted to sue someone anyway, just for the exposure, so she picked the first guy that had any connection with the happenings, no matter how faint it was.
I'm still waiting for my attorney's bill, but it already cost me my health (two clinical depressions), three years in college ruined, unwanted media attention that ended up being defamatory (since whatever the tv and newspapers say it must be true...). At least the court decided she had to pay for the legal fees...
So if you want to fuck up someone and you have money to burn, just start a lawsuit against that person and do whatever you can to delay and keep the lawsuit up.
Re:Same as always (Score:4, Insightful)
Note also that surveillance was not the major factor in 1984. A much bigger issue, one taken from Nazi Germany, was the idea that good citizens (especially children; contrast with the Hitler Youth) would inform on each other for violating arbitrary rules.
here's a clue for you, since you don't have one (Score:4, Insightful)
MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310)
Maybe you need more explanation than that elegant quote provides and you couldn't follow it, so here goes.
I'm not saying we definitely shouldn't have the cameras - in fact, in most cases I'm pro public-cameras but anti-wiretapping. But I am saying that anyone who thinks the topic doesn't deserve continued discussion or doesn't think that quote is relevant doesn't understand the issue.
Liberty:
In some hypothetical selfish dictatorship you might decide to execute 100 people if it's guaranteed to stop that serial killer, because your goal is not weighed against the good for the people.
In some hypothetical benevolent dictatorship you might decide to execute* 2 people even though only one of them is the serial killer - if you think the killer will kill more than 1 more person, the benefit DOES outweigh the cost when viewed across all people.
In the United States as envisioned by our forefathers we value PERSONAL liberties. So the benefits must not merely outweigh the costs but must _massively_ outweigh the costs to the individual. Under their model, the government wouldn't execute 2 people unless it would save not merely 2 but at least tens of other people, or more... This is the principle upon which we have the freedom of one person to speak when no one else wants it and one person to practice a religion everyone else might hate.
Taking away the ability for someone to walk from one house to another without being recorded is definitely a liberty that has largely been removed. Perhaps the benefits do massively outweigh the costs, but that calculation depends on factors such as how much oversight is placed on the camera operators.
Murder:
The only other point I want to note is that some people have said that since death is more or less the ultimate penalty, 1 death = infinite anything less than death. That's simply not the way the world works. If you want to know how much death is worth, perhaps calculate how much it would cost to reduce the average number of traffic deaths by one by improving cars - or more effectively by improving driver's education classes. Even better, simply strengthen the currently idiot-proof tests to get your license. That would cost the governments very little and put the responsibility on the driver to learn how to drive better. (Naturally a nationwide program would cost a lot and reduce deaths by alot - you'd need to divide to find a unit cost.)
Or the costs for better medical accountability to reduce needless deaths during medical procedures. Or the costs to stop someone in the US from dying of hunger. (Not to mention the much-lower costs to reduce some kinds of death in other parts of the world.) Or the costs for meat-safety inspections that are more independent of the meat-packing industry that cause deaths through foodborne illnesses. Or the economic impact of improving the health quality of foods and dividing by the reduced number of deaths from heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer.
The numbers will vary, but they're all lower than you'd think.
*Obviously if you can actually arrest them you could put both of them in jail and hope it sorts itself out - and there are a zillion other tricky police things to do, like letting them go and watching both of them really carefully. That's why this is a hypothetical. Maybe the killer is flying away in a little stealth plane with a hostage and you only have this opportunity to reliably shoot him down.
Whole lotta pro-police state stories gonna come (Score:3, Insightful)
Where are the stories about how an executive was caught using cameras? Doubt there will be many, because cameras will be scarce in executive board rooms. About how many anti-Bush protesters lost their jobs because of the copcams? It'll always be little people caught, not the big thieves and killers.A lot of little crimes, marginal ones, will be found, pumping up the safety meme. Kill one man, big story, kill hundreds of thousands, and they cover your state dinner.
And finally, when will we hear the stories about how some innocent person was arrested and imprisoned using circumstantial evidence from Complete Surveillance, USA? I don't think the American Secret Police will be publicizing those stories. I don't think we'll ever hear about those.
Americans. So terrified of crime, so sold on their helplessness. The safest country in the world, and the most terrified through the agency of their own government and a news media turned into the Nancy Grace Anger Hour.
The cameras are not worth the cost. They will be used against those who protest the mounting abuses of the same cameras. It's what police states always do; turn against the very people they insisted they were protecting.
Re:Here is the reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Equal opportunities for reviewing evidence (Score:2, Insightful)
Also a key point in you subpoena reasoning is that you need to know there is a camera. I don't know where all the cameras are, and most likely neither will anyone but the police.
Finally, a public camera can easily document your whereabouts - in a public or private place. If the crime took place across town from your appartment and a camera records you entering your appartment 2 minutes before the crime was committed you are home free... if you have the recording, or know it exists.
Re:here's a clue for you, since you don't have one (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of ways to go about inexpensively dealing with many problems. Kidnapping used to be considered an expensive, manpower-intensive investigation. However, the advent of the Amber Alert has resulted in an inexpensive way of getting critical information to the public, allowing thousands more eyes on the roads looking for the vehicle and limiting the avenues of escape for the kidnapper. It doesn't work in all cases, of course, but I expect that when studies are done, it will be shown to be one of the more cost-effective methods of reducing at least the harm from kidnapping as well as the interception time, if not the kidnapping crime rate itself.
Similarly, there are ways in hospitals that (when carefully done to protect patient privacy) can allow barcode readers and wireless devices to help ensure patients are prescribed and treated with the correct medications. These are becoming more common and have been shown to help save lives at a per-patient cost of only a few dollars over the life of the equipment.
However, there are ways that look inexpensive and effective at first, and yet end up costing far more than expected. I don't think most people (even the skeptics) thought that the TSA would turn out to be such a bureaucratic nightmare draining off billions for security theater. However, it turns out that the least-expensive and most effective security measure thus far is simply passengers not wanting to be idle participants [www.cbc.ca] in another disaster.
Even the simple solutions need to be examined carefully, because they can easily balloon into something unexpected.
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh good grief! There are plenty of stories around about the misuse of all kinds of things, from broomsticks to basketballs. Should we ban them all?
Thinking you can control behavior by controlling access to technology is just absurd. The concept of "privacy through obscurity" doesn't work any better than "security through obscurity" does. A lack of security cameras sure kept Hoover from building dossiers on all sorts of private citizens, didn't it?
Try these concepts:
It shows no such thing. The cameras involved weren't put there to catch serial killers. Catching this monster was nothing but a happy accident. In fact, TFA only mentions one set of government owned cameras involved: the ones at the scene of the murder. Those images, while helpful, were inadequate. The cameras involved in catching the guy were primarily those of private businesses. I'm sure those businesses could have refused the police requests to view the footage on the moral grounds of protecting privacy rights.
In fact, the final identification came from a bus company employee. Do we ban eyes next? After all, they've been used to violate privacy too.
Re:Same as always (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a huge difference between having cameras monitoring public places, as is happening here, and having cameras in every home monitoring everything you do.
There is a difference in the quantity but qualitatively it is not very different at all. They are both a consolidation of power to the central government. Make no mistake, knowledge is power. Knowledge of every place a person ever goes may not always be useful power, but sometimes it is. This power can be used to do good things (catch a killer) or bad things (blackmail political figures). One of the fundamental principals of our government was making sure the government only had the power it absolutely needed to minimize the risks of abuse.
In public, however, everything you do is, by definition, public.
It is not so simple. My expectation of privacy from the average citizen is different from my expectation of privacy from agents of the state. In principal and in law, there is nothing wrong with my neighbor paying attention to the titles one the books I carry home from the library. If I'm carrying them in the open, I have no expectation that my neighbor won't read those titles. I have a different expectation of privacy from the government. It is empowered to use my tax dollars only in certain ways, that do not include posting people outside my house to watch and see if any of my books fit in a certain category. For example, while it is fine for a private detective to watch with a camera to see if I check out books on gun control, it is not fine if that same private detective takes that same action, while on the payroll of the city, unless there is a reason for that behavior that fits with the actions the state is empowered to take.
There is no difference between cameras monitoring what you do in public and people watching you other than the quality of the record.
I think I explained above why it is not just a matter of individuals versus cameras but a matter of private citizens versus government agents. There is, however, a difference between cameras and people. People have rights. The government does not. People have the right to view anything they wish unless that right comes in conflict with the rights of someone else. Government agents and cameras do not have those rights. Cameras can consolidate information and mechanically create a map of information about a person's whereabouts and activities. Individuals cannot, unless they are very, very well organized and dedicated. It is impractical for the government to hire enough people to provide enough information on everyone. It is practical for them to use cameras and computers to obtain that same power without hiring people.
Now I'm not some wacky conspiracy theorist, but I understand the principal that consolidating power is dangerous and leads to abuse. For that reason, there needs to be some real, serious need for power to be centralized in the government before I'll support that. Catching a few serial killers is frankly not enough justification for the risk of all the abuse that could result from constant surveillance. Also, this promotes centralization of power in another way. The wealthy can afford big walls and lasers that stop cameras from recording, and limousines, and to rent out large private establishments to protect their privacy from cameras. The people in general cannot. Should surveillance cameras in public become ubiquitous this information will be used for political purposes. It is human nature. This simply further reduces the chances of someone without a lot of wealth being elected to a public office, further promoting our existing consolidation of government among the ultra wealthy. And what is the gain again?
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you don't stop corner stores from using cameras, nor do you stop someone from filming their own property, but IMHO, there should never be a time when walking down the street means that you're caught on multiple public and privite video feeds. There's no reason to document my life in that fashion, no matter how many serial murderers you hold up as examples. A serial murderer can only kill so many people... unless they control the military. Serial murderers who controled militaries litter history, and will litter future history books as well. THEY are the primary concern. Any move that prevents the smaller problem by enabling the larger one is NOT a solution.
Re:Same as always (Score:3, Insightful)
Bear in mind that I used to be a an EMT on an ambulance in fort collins, colorado. I witnessed what happens when you have a crocked cops was able to break the law and be backed by the cops. For example, Ernie Telez, who after numerous incidents was finally taken to court by another cop. But I saw that constantly lied, other cops lied for him, and several times, evidence was changed by other cops. In addition, I know of one individual who assisted a suicide and then had the cops alter the evidence to be able to get their murder conviction.
Yes, This will be used to catch crooks. Sadly, it will also catch innocent ppl because cops will lie.
Re:Same as always (Score:4, Insightful)
No, thanks for asking.
Handguns were banned in Philly for over a decade and handgun violence still rose.
Well, duh. That's like giving up drinking, except on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Besides, the right to arm oneself is a defense against tyranny.
Well, if it works for you. We just vote every three or four years. Maybe you could try democracy rather than code duello?
But I wonder, are you one of those countries we saved/freed in WWII?
The War we were fighting for two years before you decided to turn up? The war my uncle fought in the jungles on New Guinea? And WTF has that to do with the subject?
But I'm sure we owe you a lot. Our prime minister thinks we do, our troops are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for you at this moment.
Re:Same as always (Score:3, Insightful)
"The law defines who is a criminal. A criminal is one who breaks the law. The government and the people make the laws. If you don't like the laws, change the laws and/or the government. We are a nation of laws, not men.
that is an innocent view of reality. The reality is that the law is malleable in the hands of those who wish it to be, an who have enough money and influence to get their way. If the GOP ruled Congress today, and they wished to declare it illegal to blow your nose in public, there is very little you do to protest and stop it. The last 6 years have shown this, via such travesties as the Patriot Act. In these times, rule of law has been perverted to rule by checkbook for whichever lobbyist or PAC can buy the most representation. In a time when electronic voting has been subverted by hidden code that has been found to be biased, the concept of changing the government has been perverted from clean ideals. So I'm sorry, what you say is ideal but not real in these times.
Re:These cameras ARE Constitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
These cameras ARE Constitutional
Your title is an assertion. The constitution has been interpreted by the courts such that the right to be secure in our persons is a right to privacy to some, unspecified, degree. Further, the right to privacy is regarded as a basic human right by most of the civilized world. The constitutionality and the ethics of these cameras are very, very questionable.
Your arguments boil down to, cameras allow the government to protect the people from other people, so they are good. You don't address two important points. First, it is the job of every citizen to protect themselves, not the government. The government has never had the power to protect you and trying to consolidate that much power into so few hands in not without some very large risks. You completely ignore these risks. Mandatory gun registration in Germany reduced the number of illegal guns in circulation, preventing a crime. Does that mean it "worked." Sure, but it also made it easy for the Nazis to confiscate all those guns from the Jewish populace later on. Putting a given power into the hands of the government can have immediate benefits, but you must pay attention to the long term risks.
Consolidation of power to the government is, in principal, a dangerous thing and all such power will be abused eventually. Thus, you need some really, really strong benefits that cannot be accomplished in other ways before I'll support any such consolidation. I think if you want to reduce crime, you're a lot better off attacking the motivations for crime than trying to police everyone. Other countries have amazingly lower crime rates without surveillance. Britain with it's move towards a police state still has fairly high crime rates despite all the cameras and gun control. They also have instances of those cameras being abused by government agents. Why then would you think that they are a good way to deal with the problem?
Re:Same as always (Score:3, Insightful)
Thinking you can control behavior by controlling access to technology is just absurd. The concept of "privacy through obscurity" doesn't work any better than "security through obscurity" does.
Actually, security through obscurity does work for many people. It is simply that trusting obscurity presented by someone else when you're working in a homogenous, automated system is less useful. Hiding something is a time tested and very effective security procedure.
A lack of security cameras sure kept Hoover from building dossiers on all sorts of private citizens, didn't it?
Yes, it did. Hoover was only able compile dossiers on select people, instead of using cameras and computers to automatically generate dossiers on everyone and even more detailed dossiers on those select people.
So-called 'security' cameras should be banned because they can be used to invade privacy. So-called P2P file 'sharing' programs should be banned because they can be used to violate copyrights. So-called Web 'forums' should be banned because terrorists might use them to plot crimes.
Who argued security cameras should be banned? There is a difference between banning something and not empowering the government to spend huge amounts of tax dollars to do something. I don't support making it illegal for private citizens to tell lies on TV. I do support making it illegal for official representatives of the government to lie on TV. One is a private citizen with rights. One is an agent of a government with no rights, specifically limited in its actions to minimize the danger it presents to the people. The third and more murky issue is corporations, which are government created entities that currently enjoy many of the rights of citizens, despite not being citizens.
Now how this applies to the article under discussion is something else, but in principal I'm not in favor of granting the government additional power that may be abused, unless there are some enormous benefits that outweigh the potential danger of that abuse.
Re:Same as always (Score:2, Insightful)
You're confusing "public place" with "public action". A public place is a place the public has access to; a public action is an action done in the presense of the public. If the public isn't around, it's not a public action, regardless of the legal ownership of the place; likewise, if people are around and can see the site, it's a public action, regardless of the ownership of the place.
When the Pope stands on his balcony to address a throng of Catholics, it's a public appearance, even if he's standing on Vatican property; when I steal a kiss in a secluded area of the park, it's a private moment, regardless of who owns the land.
Fine with cameras everywhere but only if it's fair (Score:3, Insightful)
And that includes the politicians, the judges and the cops. Everyone gets to watch everyone else the same way, no more, no less.
If the politicians don't want to allow anyone and everyone to see the inside of their homes, then same goes for my home and everyone else.
If Mr Prime Minister/President doesn't want his journey through public areas recorded by cameras and viewable by everyone and anyone, then same for me and everyone else.
If you get to post embarassing videos of me on the internet, I get to do that too. Lets see if you never do anything embarassing or shameful or illegal or sinful in your life. I definitely won't be the first to "cast the stone" but here's to Mutually Assured Embarassment...
If you get to see me typing my passwords, then everyone should be able to see you watching me type my passwords
Not that most people would or should care. But if people think cams everywhere are such a great idea, this my opinion on how they should do them.
Re:Same as always (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that you mean: "if the cops shoot some Brazilian electrician in the head eight time in the London subway while he is on his way to work, then lie about virtually ever aspect of the shooting, do the cameras suddenly all go on the fritz?"
The answer is: yes.
Death in Stockwell: the unanswered questions [guardian.co.uk]
CCTV Cameras at Platform of Shooting 'Were Working' [arabnews.com]
Staff say Stockwell Tube shooting was caught on camera [timesonline.co.uk]
Tube CCTV: Was there a cover-up? [dailymail.co.uk]
Shot man not connected to bombing [bbc.co.uk]