sehlat writes "From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 165 public surveillance cameras are being set up to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition' of volunteers. The usual suspects, including 'the innocent have nothing to fear' are being trotted out to justify this, and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention: 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
Uh, I read the article and it sounds like 10 self-appointed people running the show with 12 volunteers. How in the hell is that crowdsourcing?
Don't even get me started on a who will watch the watchmen rant. Such a monitoring activity operating at all upsets me... one operating outside my elected official's jurisdiction would be a true horror show.
'the innocent have nothing to fear'.... What the hell is that crap? When did that become the rally flag for the loss of freedoms?
Next they will tell us that if they don't get these cameras, the terrorist win....
Oh wait!
"'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'""
Sheize: Ugly things are happening across the earth.
4:01 Jack walks around the store 3 times, idly touching various merchandise along the way.
4:02 Homeless man wanders in and goes into the bathroom
4:07 Teenager with long hair reeking of patchouli and weed buys entire stock of Twinkies and 3 bags of Cheetos
4:25 Jack idly flips through latest issue of Penthouse
4:28 Jack kicks homeless man out of the bathroom, sprays Lysol and reminds himself to get the new kid to clean up that mess when he gets in.
4:32 Jack dozes off behind the register
4:43 Door chime wakes Jack, man in dirty flannel and backwards baseball cap buys a pack of Marlboro Lights.
4:52 Jack holds lottery tickets up to light looking for a winner
4:59 Jack dozes off again.
I'm sure it's not hard to find volunteers for this sort of thing. Anyone who is nosy/power-seeking/voyeuristic would enjoy watching these cams without pay.
How much more freedom do we have to lose before we do something about it?
"How much more freedom do we have to lose before we do something about it?"
As long as people have enough to eat and are sufficiently entertained they will willingly relinquish freedom. Fast food restaurants and television are killing this country.
Histories greatest struggles have been about men doing things that their societies thought they didn't have the right and freedom to do. See the founding of america, women getting the vote, and on and on.
People don't see eye to eye on principles (see: copyright infringement vs theft), and the idea that there is one superior model to all others is a bunch of BS.
Principles are guidelines only and are subject to change as the environment, people and culture change around them. For instance, many of us can't imagine owning slaves or being able to legally mistreat slaves today as a *right* and a principle of *freedom for the owner*.
What is a right and what is a freedom is determined by people themselves.
'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
The ends don't always justify the means, Jack. How many people have to be tortured to death during an interrogation before you realise that.
Why is the surveillance done only by "a private nonprofit group?" In a truly transparent society [wikipedia.org] such an array of cameras would be accessible by anyone, not just a select few.
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised (assuming the kids live in a nearby neighborhood). i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid, and i'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.
they ought to make the feeds publicly available, so parents could watch what is going on, as well as allow for residents to watch parades, public gatherings and other things from home.
people who get all pissy about this stuff make no sense to me.
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
Actually, I have to agree, but I also think that the camera feeds should be made public. Absolutely public. Publish them on the Web, local cable, anywhere people can get to them. The more people watching, the better.
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
I wonder about that. I really do.
Why is it that photographs and videos taken of models need copyright consent forms in order to be used, but my images can be snapped by thousands of cameras and copied about servers until doomsday without me even being informed?
Why is it that if I followed someone around every day, taking pictures and recording their movements, I would be convicted or stalking or have a restraining order put on me, yet it's OK for any old group to set up a nationwide system of cameras to track and record forever the movements of every single person in the state?
Why is it OK for them to record me, but it's not OK for me to see the footage?
I think Jack Bauer's comment really says it all. This system is not about protecting people. It's about intimidating them. It's about instilling fear. It's about the watchers gaining power over the watched. That is the systems primary purpose.
Who do you think will be manning these cameras? College students and libertarians? Not a chance. Think prudes and gossips, closet authoritarians and morality police, the perpetually offended and those who long for a society in which people know their place. And that place will be certainly be on camera instead of behind it.
Surveillance systems like this are getting implemented, everywhere, and their effect on society will be colossal. I believe it will be uniformly negative. We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society. It's coming. In many ways, it's already here. You're only hope is that such systems have legal restrictions placed on them before they run completely rampant.
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
tell that to all the police who arrest people photographing them...
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 22, @02:14PM (#28426795)
So strange to see my hometown on the front page of Slashdot...
The Los Angeles Times article states:
"Perhaps most surprising, the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate about whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy."
I've lived in Lancaster for years and haven't heard a thing about this. I just searched our local newspaper with no results.
There's no public debate because as far as I know this is the first time it's even been mentioned. I saw the cameras go up, now I know the story behind them... thanks to a random mention on a tech news site linking an article from a newspaper on the other side of the country.
I LIVE in Lancaster, and I had no idea! They said 'the people didn't object' hell I didn't even KNOW! This is such a horribly bad idea... I thought Britain was Orwellian with their surveillance camera system, but to have put this in place and for most ppl to not even KNOW about it.. that by definition is a police state! Outsourcing it to some agency is monumentally wrong. I think I need a pocket jammer system just to go to the public library...
"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief. "It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues."
I am not sure "funny" is the term I would use to describe the change.
But then again, I for one welcome our new...actually I don't, screw them and the fear they rode in on!
I all for public surveillance only if we, the private citizen also get to have cameras on those who are doing the surveillance. Only then is it completely fair. Public surveillance is inevitable, just like we see in the UK...we might as well get used to it and make sure that the playing field is equal, that the government doesn't have a leg up over its citizens.
This seems to mirror the spiel before cameras were put up in the central city park called "the square" here in a medium city in New Zealand. The Square had problems with violence at nights, and really did become a place not to walk thru at night. It was intended cameras would be put in The Square and the police would monitor them at trouble times at night, and the city council would pay(hence it needed selling to the ratepayers).
The ratepayers fell into line very quickly and funding was given, helped by the robbery of an employee leaving working at just 6:30pm.
The first camera was installed at an intersection well away from The Square, not in it. The next camera was similar. More were installed. Then there was a headline, drunk drivers were being caught. It turns out they were turning the cameras to the streets surrounding The Square and watching up to 400m down side streets for patrons to leave taverns and pubs and directing police cars if "staggering patrons got into a car".
When asked 6 months later why crime wasn't being reduced in the square the council said "oh, the ones there do not work, they havent been wired up."
We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.
I don't know about the rest of Slashdot (I haven't really seen that rhetoric but if you do, I won't argue) but I am certainly against all meddling. I hate the fact that the state that I live in has seat belt laws now, Blue Laws, and the fact that some intersections still have cameras on the street lights (red light cameras were declared unconstitutional in Minneapolis).
If a private business wants to have cameras which only view their own private/personal property, that's fine. As soon as it's opened up to a group outside of that private business or they are viewing public property then it's not acceptable. No, I don't believe in the whole "if you can be seen by a private citizen then it's the same thing." Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault, then I'll consider it the same damn thing.
I too was against seatbelt laws, but after being busted and attending a seatbelt education class, I have modified my position. If you are alone in your car, then you should have every right to endanger yourselves. However, if there are any other people in your car, then you may become a projectile that can harm the other occupants of the vehicle in a collision. Therefore, you should be required to be belted to avoid the possibility of hurting others.
As far as the "no expectation of privacy in a public place" argument, I would say it is now, "If a passerby with a cell phone could have recorded the same video, then it is the same thing." One should never assume their actions outside of their own home are private. The addition of a few cameras doesn't change that principle. That being said, the video from public cameras should be available for everyone's use; they should not be able to suppress video of official wrongdoing while using other video to prosecute less powerful civilians. I also believe all interactions between police and civilians should be recorded, because an unbiased recording of events protects the police and the civilians equally. Granted, police would quickly learn how to do things "off camera", but if both the police and the suspect are recording, then it becomes much more difficult to hide wrongdoing.
You're against seat belt laws? I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
Rhetoric aside, you should have a seat belt cutter in your car in case the seat belt suddenly becomes an irremovable hazard. In any case the seat belt may help, it may also become life threatening.
When playing the odds, I'd rather bet on the seat belt being helpful. Yes, some people have been trapped and died from seat belts, but a great deal more people have been saved by them. It's like fear of flying... flying is statistically much safer than driving by any metric you care to use (per mile traveled, number of passengers, whatever). But more people fear flying than driving. A seat belt cutter is not a bad idea to have accessible in a car, but you're an idiot if you refuse to wear a seat belt because there is no cutter or justify it by saying you might get trapped.
You're against seat belt laws? I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
"I should have the right to risk my own life, it doesn't affect anyone else"
"I would wear a seat belt anyway, so why have a law"
Aside from protecting the driver from himself...
If I hit you with my car, and you fly out of your windshield and splatter somewhere- I'll feel pretty bad. Maybe i'll go into therapy for it. If it was my fault, I'd probably feel worse. I really don't need that on my conscience...
I don't want to sound all 'think of the children' but these laws also motivate ignorant/stupid parents to force their children to 'buckle up' for safety (or fear of getting another ticket). I am glad my parents instilled in me the habit of buckling up...
Except for the fact that people continue to not wear seatbelts, no matter what the law says. Laws don't make people do something. If people are dumb enough to drive without a seat belt, then why should the rest of society care? Yeah you might need therapy if you hit someone without a seat belt and they splatter all over the road, but you're going to feel bad anyway even if you hit someone and it wasn't even your fault.
I care because if you become incapacitated in a collision because you were not wearing your seat belt, there is a period of time where you cannot have control over your car (because you're no longer in it) and you put the lives of anyone else around you at a greater risk. Not to mention that a 150-200 lb fleshy projectile is dangerous.
What a sociopathic attitude. There are countless things many of us don't do and don't approve of and would prefer not to have to pay for. But, we all live in a society.
I wish I didn't have to pay for idiots who talk on cellphones while driving, or for stupid people to have kids. I wish I didn't have to pay for health freaks living to 100 using up all that money on health care. If they had any sense and smoked, drank, and ate cheeseburgers they would die at 65 and save us 10 million dollars.
Do you want to be unapproved for health care or reproduction privileges because your DNA is more costly to maintain than some arbitrary level society sets? Do you want to live in a society where doctors run through extensive checklists, wasting precious time, to see if you did anything unapproved to disqualify you from receiving treatment for your heart attack, car crash, or bullet hole?
Plus, you are wrong. People who die in auto accidents stop being a drain. Those idiots that survive them with their seat belts cost big bucks to patch up and put back into active duty, only to tie up precious resources the next time something happens.
You can probably blame insurance companies for this one. Or whoever has to clean up after an accident.
No probably to it...you can blame insurance companies and lawyers who sue everyone in sight (note I'm not referring to all lawyers). Seat belt laws are about financial risk management nothing more. Just one more example of why the state must protect us from ourselves. Our founding fathers really should have writting "Life, LIberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as long as the money of the powerful isn't affected.
You can probably blame insurance companies for this one.
Actually, blame the government and car companies for it. It's actually kind of a fun story.
Way back when, the government mandated that the auto industry come up with some kind of "passive restraint system" for cars. Well, of course, the auto industry didn't like this. So the deal was made--the auto industry wouldn't have to have some kind of "passive restraint system" if the states that made up 80% passed a mandatory seatbelt law.
With that, auto industry lobbyists went to work getting all the states to pass a mandatory seatbelt law. The problem is that it actually was a pretty tough sell. The solution was to make it a "secondary enforcement"--the police cannot stop you for not wearing a seatbelt. But if they stop you for something else and notice you don't have a seatbelt on, they can give you a fine. There's usually no insurance issues, points on your license, or anything like that. So as long as you were a "good driver" (and remember that more than 50% of all Americans consider themselves 'above average drivers'), you didn't have much to fear. But it still fit the criteria of "seat belt law", so it counted.
Now the courts eventually threw out this "deal" and said the auto industry had to provide a passive restraint system anyway. Of course, the laws were already passed and it's tough to get a law repealed--especially a law that "saves lives."
I wear my seat belt and require them to be used by others when I drive. I'm not against that but I am against the police having the authority to pull someone over for the offense (it hasn't come to that in MN yet but it will eventually). I can't always tell when my wife has her belt on in the car when I'm sitting next to her (it blends in with the color of clothing she wears most frequently), how the fuck is the cop going to do so from afar?
I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
"I should have the right to risk my own life, it doesn't affect anyone else".. If I hit you with my car, and you fly out of your windshield and splatter somewhere- I'll feel pretty bad. Maybe i'll go into therapy for it. If it was my fault, I'd probably feel worse. I really don't need that on my conscience...
Protecting you from something unpleasant, possibly unpleasant enough to go into therapy, is not a good reason for a law. Hate to sound callous, but those are your issues for you to deal with.
I don't want to sound all 'think of the children' but these laws also motivate ignorant/stupid parents to force their children to 'buckle up' for safety (or fear of getting another ticket).
I don't want to sound like I'm saying "You sound like you're saying that because you are" but that would be hypocritical. Overreaching laws cannot make for responsible parenting.
Anyway you missed the most important reason for getting rid of seatbelt laws: there's no reason TO do it. Not wearing a seatbelt is
shortening the length of the yellow light leads to more tickets and increased revenues for the camera company and for the locality.
if the goal is to reduce the number of accidents caused by people driving through red lights, then installing the cameras and lengthening the yellow would be the optimal solution.
however, the stories I've read/heard on the subject all seem to involve these cameras being installed and the yellow duration being shortened. And the camera's end up generating a good amount of money, but the number of accidents stays about the same.
1. Because tickets are sent to the wrong people? 2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car? 3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?
These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.
In MD at least, the ticket does go to the car owner, and not the driver. The red light camera ticket I saw had only a picture of the rear of the car, and you could in no way identify the driver.
4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras? Citation needed.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 22, @02:29PM (#28427067)
How does being watched in public spaces restrict your freedom?
Because you are not free to do things that are not illegal, but may be frowned upon by your community.
Meeting your mistress. Attending AA. Organizing a protest rally. Attending a meeting of an unpopular political group. Going to a fertility clinic. Going to an abortion clinic. Not resting on the sabbath. Going to the wrong church. Going on a date with a woman of a different race. Going to a gay bar. Going to a strip club. Purchasing alcohol. Looking at a child or married woman for too long or in the wrong way. Checking the wrong book out of the library. Stopping to offer condolences to the last victim of wholesale surveillance.
The embarrassment factor isn't a problem. The blackmail factor is a problem. "Oh, councilman Smith. How are you planning on voting on Proposition 32? Really, that's too bad. I'd hate to see this tape of you and your mistress going into a room of that sleazy motel get out into the public view.... So you've changed your mind on your vote? Wonderful news."
If there were clear rules on when and why people could get access to the camera footage (only after a crime has been committed, only the footage that covers the area where the evidence indicates the crime took place, and only for official police use in investigation of a specific crime) then that would be one thing. Taping all public property 24/7/365 with little to no control over who can access the footage... that worries me. Power corrupts, and absolute (surveillance) power corrupts absolutely.
Historically, the two have had high correlation. See Persians, Romans, British, American, etc.
While they weren't perfectly free nations, they each had quite progressive legal systems that provided relatively good degrees of equality and freedom to its citizens compared to other major powers of the world at the time.
How Is This Crowdsourcing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Crowdsourcing Big Brother in Lancaster, PA
Uh, I read the article and it sounds like 10 self-appointed people running the show with 12 volunteers. How in the hell is that crowdsourcing?
... one operating outside my elected official's jurisdiction would be a true horror show.
Don't even get me started on a who will watch the watchmen rant. Such a monitoring activity operating at all upsets me
'the innocent have nothing to fear' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:'the innocent have nothing to fear' (Score:5, Funny)
The innocent don't have anything to fear. What are you hiding?
No then, where can I sign up to monitor Jessica Alba's shower to make sure she's not abusing little kids there?
Parent
Whoda Thunk It (Score:5, Funny)
Really, Jack Bauer? (Score:3, Insightful)
"'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'""
Sheize: Ugly things are happening across the earth.
Re:Really, Jack Bauer? (Score:4, Funny)
I bet his store is open 24-hours-a-day.
Parent
Re:Really, Jack Bauer? (Score:5, Funny)
4 A.M. to 5 A.M.
4:01 Jack walks around the store 3 times, idly touching various merchandise along the way.
4:02 Homeless man wanders in and goes into the bathroom
4:07 Teenager with long hair reeking of patchouli and weed buys entire stock of Twinkies and 3 bags of Cheetos
4:25 Jack idly flips through latest issue of Penthouse
4:28 Jack kicks homeless man out of the bathroom, sprays Lysol and reminds himself to get the new kid to clean up that mess when he gets in.
4:32 Jack dozes off behind the register
4:43 Door chime wakes Jack, man in dirty flannel and backwards baseball cap buys a pack of Marlboro Lights.
4:52 Jack holds lottery tickets up to light looking for a winner
4:59 Jack dozes off again.
Riveting stuff!
Parent
Following the UK's lead... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure it's not hard to find volunteers for this sort of thing. Anyone who is nosy/power-seeking/voyeuristic would enjoy watching these cams without pay.
How much more freedom do we have to lose before we do something about it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As long as people have enough to eat and are sufficiently entertained they will willingly relinquish freedom. Fast food restaurants and television are killing this country.
Re:Following the UK's lead... (Score:4, Interesting)
"you don't have the right or freedom to do."
Histories greatest struggles have been about men doing things that their societies thought they didn't have the right and freedom to do. See the founding of america, women getting the vote, and on and on.
People don't see eye to eye on principles (see: copyright infringement vs theft), and the idea that there is one superior model to all others is a bunch of BS.
Principles are guidelines only and are subject to change as the environment, people and culture change around them. For instance, many of us can't imagine owning slaves or being able to legally mistreat slaves today as a *right* and a principle of *freedom for the owner*.
What is a right and what is a freedom is determined by people themselves.
Parent
Ends and means (Score:4, Funny)
'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
The ends don't always justify the means, Jack. How many people have to be tortured to death during an interrogation before you realise that.
Neighborhood watch? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what's the difference between this and a neighborhood watch? No, seriously, I'm asking.
Re:Neighborhood watch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neighborhood Watch is actually the neighborhood. Cameras being recorded by who knows, for who knows...
Dangerous Amish Gangs? (Score:3, Funny)
You've got to keep an eye on those Amish. You don't want all your quilts and "As Seen on TV" fireplaces to go missing now, do you?
Transparency (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is the surveillance done only by "a private nonprofit group?" In a truly transparent society [wikipedia.org] such an array of cameras would be accessible by anyone, not just a select few.
big effing deal (Score:3, Insightful)
it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised (assuming the kids live in a nearby neighborhood). i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid, and i'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.
they ought to make the feeds publicly available, so parents could watch what is going on, as well as allow for residents to watch parades, public gatherings and other things from home.
people who get all pissy about this stuff make no sense to me.
Re:big effing deal (Score:5, Insightful)
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
Actually, I have to agree, but I also think that the camera feeds should be made public. Absolutely public. Publish them on the Web, local cable, anywhere people can get to them. The more people watching, the better.
Parent
Re:big effing deal (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder about that. I really do.
Why is it that photographs and videos taken of models need copyright consent forms in order to be used, but my images can be snapped by thousands of cameras and copied about servers until doomsday without me even being informed?
Why is it that if I followed someone around every day, taking pictures and recording their movements, I would be convicted or stalking or have a restraining order put on me, yet it's OK for any old group to set up a nationwide system of cameras to track and record forever the movements of every single person in the state?
Why is it OK for them to record me, but it's not OK for me to see the footage?
I think Jack Bauer's comment really says it all. This system is not about protecting people. It's about intimidating them. It's about instilling fear. It's about the watchers gaining power over the watched. That is the systems primary purpose.
Who do you think will be manning these cameras? College students and libertarians? Not a chance. Think prudes and gossips, closet authoritarians and morality police, the perpetually offended and those who long for a society in which people know their place. And that place will be certainly be on camera instead of behind it.
Surveillance systems like this are getting implemented, everywhere, and their effect on society will be colossal. I believe it will be uniformly negative. We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society. It's coming. In many ways, it's already here. You're only hope is that such systems have legal restrictions placed on them before they run completely rampant.
Parent
Re:big effing deal (Score:4, Insightful)
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
tell that to all the police who arrest people photographing them...
Parent
Lived here for years... (Score:5, Informative)
So strange to see my hometown on the front page of Slashdot...
The Los Angeles Times article states:
"Perhaps most surprising, the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate about whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy."
I've lived in Lancaster for years and haven't heard a thing about this. I just searched our local newspaper with no results.
There's no public debate because as far as I know this is the first time it's even been mentioned. I saw the cameras go up, now I know the story behind them... thanks to a random mention on a tech news site linking an article from a newspaper on the other side of the country.
I LIVE in Lancaster and I didn't know! (Score:5, Informative)
I LIVE in Lancaster, and I had no idea! They said 'the people didn't object' hell I didn't even KNOW! This is such a horribly bad idea... I thought Britain was Orwellian with their surveillance camera system, but to have put this in place and for most ppl to not even KNOW about it.. that by definition is a police state! Outsourcing it to some agency is monumentally wrong. I think I need a pocket jammer system just to go to the public library...
A town gone "funny' (Score:5, Insightful)
A chilling quote:
"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief. "It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues."
I am not sure "funny" is the term I would use to describe the change.
But then again, I for one welcome our new...actually I don't, screw them and the fear they rode in on!
Nobody expects . . . "The Lancaster Inquisition!" (Score:3, Funny)
"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
"Fear . . . and surprise!"
I'm all for this if... (Score:3, Interesting)
I all for public surveillance only if we, the private citizen also get to have cameras on those who are doing the surveillance. Only then is it completely fair. Public surveillance is inevitable, just like we see in the UK...we might as well get used to it and make sure that the playing field is equal, that the government doesn't have a leg up over its citizens.
An example of cameras in our town (Score:5, Interesting)
The ratepayers fell into line very quickly and funding was given, helped by the robbery of an employee leaving working at just 6:30pm.
The first camera was installed at an intersection well away from The Square, not in it. The next camera was similar. More were installed. Then there was a headline, drunk drivers were being caught. It turns out they were turning the cameras to the streets surrounding The Square and watching up to 400m down side streets for patrons to leave taverns and pubs and directing police cars if "staggering patrons got into a car". When asked 6 months later why crime wasn't being reduced in the square the council said "oh, the ones there do not work, they havent been wired up."
A real snow job
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is this "we" you talk about?
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.
I don't know about the rest of Slashdot (I haven't really seen that rhetoric but if you do, I won't argue) but I am certainly against all meddling. I hate the fact that the state that I live in has seat belt laws now, Blue Laws, and the fact that some intersections still have cameras on the street lights (red light cameras were declared unconstitutional in Minneapolis).
If a private business wants to have cameras which only view their own private/personal property, that's fine. As soon as it's opened up to a group outside of that private business or they are viewing public property then it's not acceptable. No, I don't believe in the whole "if you can be seen by a private citizen then it's the same thing." Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault, then I'll consider it the same damn thing.
Parent
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as the "no expectation of privacy in a public place" argument, I would say it is now, "If a passerby with a cell phone could have recorded the same video, then it is the same thing." One should never assume their actions outside of their own home are private. The addition of a few cameras doesn't change that principle. That being said, the video from public cameras should be available for everyone's use; they should not be able to suppress video of official wrongdoing while using other video to prosecute less powerful civilians. I also believe all interactions between police and civilians should be recorded, because an unbiased recording of events protects the police and the civilians equally. Granted, police would quickly learn how to do things "off camera", but if both the police and the suspect are recording, then it becomes much more difficult to hide wrongdoing.
Parent
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
You're against seat belt laws? I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
Rhetoric aside, you should have a seat belt cutter in your car in case the seat belt suddenly becomes an irremovable hazard. In any case the seat belt may help, it may also become life threatening.
Parent
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're against seat belt laws? I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
"I should have the right to risk my own life, it doesn't affect anyone else"
"I would wear a seat belt anyway, so why have a law"
Aside from protecting the driver from himself...
If I hit you with my car, and you fly out of your windshield and splatter somewhere- I'll feel pretty bad. Maybe i'll go into therapy for it. If it was my fault, I'd probably feel worse. I really don't need that on my conscience...
I don't want to sound all 'think of the children' but these laws also motivate ignorant/stupid parents to force their children to 'buckle up' for safety (or fear of getting another ticket). I am glad my parents instilled in me the habit of buckling up...
Except for the fact that people continue to not wear seatbelts, no matter what the law says. Laws don't make people do something. If people are dumb enough to drive without a seat belt, then why should the rest of society care? Yeah you might need therapy if you hit someone without a seat belt and they splatter all over the road, but you're going to feel bad anyway even if you hit someone and it wasn't even your fault.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I didn't have to pay for idiots who talk on cellphones while driving, or for stupid people to have kids. I wish I didn't have to pay for health freaks living to 100 using up all that money on health care. If they had any sense and smoked, drank, and ate cheeseburgers they would die at 65 and save us 10 million dollars.
Do you want to be unapproved for health care or reproduction privileges because your DNA is more costly to maintain than some arbitrary level society sets? Do you want to live in a society where doctors run through extensive checklists, wasting precious time, to see if you did anything unapproved to disqualify you from receiving treatment for your heart attack, car crash, or bullet hole?
Plus, you are wrong. People who die in auto accidents stop being a drain. Those idiots that survive them with their seat belts cost big bucks to patch up and put back into active duty, only to tie up precious resources the next time something happens.
Parent
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
You can probably blame insurance companies for this one. Or whoever has to clean up after an accident.
No probably to it...you can blame insurance companies and lawyers who sue everyone in sight (note I'm not referring to all lawyers). Seat belt laws are about financial risk management nothing more. Just one more example of why the state must protect us from ourselves. Our founding fathers really should have writting "Life, LIberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as long as the money of the powerful isn't affected.
Parent
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
You can probably blame insurance companies for this one.
Actually, blame the government and car companies for it. It's actually kind of a fun story.
Way back when, the government mandated that the auto industry come up with some kind of "passive restraint system" for cars. Well, of course, the auto industry didn't like this. So the deal was made--the auto industry wouldn't have to have some kind of "passive restraint system" if the states that made up 80% passed a mandatory seatbelt law.
With that, auto industry lobbyists went to work getting all the states to pass a mandatory seatbelt law. The problem is that it actually was a pretty tough sell. The solution was to make it a "secondary enforcement"--the police cannot stop you for not wearing a seatbelt. But if they stop you for something else and notice you don't have a seatbelt on, they can give you a fine. There's usually no insurance issues, points on your license, or anything like that. So as long as you were a "good driver" (and remember that more than 50% of all Americans consider themselves 'above average drivers'), you didn't have much to fear. But it still fit the criteria of "seat belt law", so it counted.
Now the courts eventually threw out this "deal" and said the auto industry had to provide a passive restraint system anyway. Of course, the laws were already passed and it's tough to get a law repealed--especially a law that "saves lives."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wear my seat belt and require them to be used by others when I drive. I'm not against that but I am against the police having the authority to pull someone over for the offense (it hasn't come to that in MN yet but it will eventually). I can't always tell when my wife has her belt on in the car when I'm sitting next to her (it blends in with the color of clothing she wears most frequently), how the fuck is the cop going to do so from afar?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
"I should have the right to risk my own life, it doesn't affect anyone else" ..
If I hit you with my car, and you fly out of your windshield and splatter somewhere- I'll feel pretty bad. Maybe i'll go into therapy for it. If it was my fault, I'd probably feel worse. I really don't need that on my conscience...
Protecting you from something unpleasant, possibly unpleasant enough to go into therapy, is not a good reason for a law. Hate to sound callous, but those are your issues for you to deal with.
I don't want to sound all 'think of the children' but these laws also motivate ignorant/stupid parents to force their children to 'buckle up' for safety (or fear of getting another ticket).
I don't want to sound like I'm saying "You sound like you're saying that because you are" but that would be hypocritical. Overreaching laws cannot make for responsible parenting.
Anyway you missed the most important reason for getting rid of seatbelt laws: there's no reason TO do it. Not wearing a seatbelt is
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
corruption.
shortening the length of the yellow light leads to more tickets and increased revenues for the camera company and for the locality.
if the goal is to reduce the number of accidents caused by people driving through red lights, then installing the cameras and lengthening the yellow would be the optimal solution.
however, the stories I've read/heard on the subject all seem to involve these cameras being installed and the yellow duration being shortened. And the camera's end up generating a good amount of money, but the number of accidents stays about the same.
Parent
You've bought the rhetoric. (Score:5, Informative)
Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?
Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?
Because you have no accuser to confront in court?
Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?
Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue?
Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement (government-only) fines?
Parent
Re:You've bought the rhetoric. (Score:4, Informative)
1. Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?
2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?
3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?
These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.
In MD at least, the ticket does go to the car owner, and not the driver. The red light camera ticket I saw had only a picture of the rear of the car, and you could in no way identify the driver.
4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?
Citation needed.
this page has 5 studies that conclude that accidents increase
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/ [motorists.org]
Parent
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
So basically, you want to be able to get away with a crime you would be successfully prosecuted for if there was camera evidence. No sympathy.
Parent
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws are not there to include that which is acceptable, but to exclude that which is unacceptable.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.
Hmm, don't find that I need protection from myself...
Re:No different (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No different (Score:5, Insightful)
How does being watched in public spaces restrict your freedom?
Because you are not free to do things that are not illegal, but may be frowned upon by your community.
Meeting your mistress. Attending AA. Organizing a protest rally. Attending a meeting of an unpopular political group. Going to a fertility clinic. Going to an abortion clinic. Not resting on the sabbath. Going to the wrong church. Going on a date with a woman of a different race. Going to a gay bar. Going to a strip club. Purchasing alcohol. Looking at a child or married woman for too long or in the wrong way. Checking the wrong book out of the library. Stopping to offer condolences to the last victim of wholesale surveillance.
See "chilling effect."
Parent
Re:No different (Score:4, Informative)
The embarrassment factor isn't a problem. The blackmail factor is a problem. "Oh, councilman Smith. How are you planning on voting on Proposition 32? Really, that's too bad. I'd hate to see this tape of you and your mistress going into a room of that sleazy motel get out into the public view. ... So you've changed your mind on your vote? Wonderful news."
If there were clear rules on when and why people could get access to the camera footage (only after a crime has been committed, only the footage that covers the area where the evidence indicates the crime took place, and only for official police use in investigation of a specific crime) then that would be one thing. Taping all public property 24/7/365 with little to no control over who can access the footage ... that worries me. Power corrupts, and absolute (surveillance) power corrupts absolutely.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Instilling fear? (Score:5, Insightful)
Historically, the two have had high correlation. See Persians, Romans, British, American, etc.
While they weren't perfectly free nations, they each had quite progressive legal systems that provided relatively good degrees of equality and freedom to its citizens compared to other major powers of the world at the time.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hell yeah. I would watch that. Bound to be more entertaining than "American Idol."