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)
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article summary, it sounds like they used multiple private video records. That is not the same as government-owned, gov
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: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: (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 fr
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or until he's finished, whichever comes first.
Whichever comes first! That's a two-fer!
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same as always (Score:4, 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: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: (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 incide
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]
Re:Same as always (Score:5, 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.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
In your mind, it wasn't possible before, but now that it is, it's something completely different! The difference is only one of semantics. What "you believe" and what "is constitutional" appear not to be the same.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a huge difference between an invasive search and simply looking at / filming someone.
Re:Here is the reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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) o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it doesn't. 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.
The thing you keep missing is that no one has an expectation of privacy in a public place. What is the difference
Re: (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 wish
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Interesting)
- Richard Kemph
Do not underestimate the power of the dark side of famous quotes.
- Bill Austin
No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture.
- Learned Hand
I like this whole quote thing!
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.
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.
The question is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure a camera network could be used by an oppressive government to help control a civilian populace...but so could a police force, and no one argues against the police on the grounds that they take away your right to privacy.
Regardless of our feelings about the subject, cameras are getting better, cheaper, and smaller. This sort of thing is only going to get more common, and it's hard to form a cogent argument against it since the privacy you lose is intangible, whereas serial killers being caught based on camera data is pretty tangible.
Re:Same as always (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: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.)
Suicide statistics and sources (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm [cdc.gov]
"Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001 (CDC 2004)."
"In 2001, 55% of suicides were committed with a firearm (Anderson and Smith 2003)."
30622x55%=16842 deaths
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The source is the same as before, the CDC har a handy death-o-matic, where you can see who died from what each year: (You can also get newer data than 2001 - up to 2004 at the moment, it seems)
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.h tml [cdc.gov]
This means that roughly 57% of all gun deaths were accidental in 2001.
802 cases, or 2,7% of firearms related deaths, were accidental. (2001)
11 348 cases, or 38% were homicides. (2001)
In 231 case
Re:Same as always (Score:5, Interesting)
Murder rates do not correlate with the availability of handguns. For an enlightening look at the history of gun control in the UK, read Fear and Loathing in Whitehall: Bolshevism and the Firearms Act of 1920 [dvc.org.uk] (PDF).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is also worth noting that even in the USA, the general public are not allowed armour piercing weapons (eg - P90)
This is not quite correct. The ability to pierce body armor is more a function of the cartridge than the firearm itself, and the P90 fires a 5.7x28mm cartidge. In the US I can purchase a pistol over the counter chambered for 5.7x28 with nothing more than the standard background check and without any waiting period.
The ammunition I can buy in the same shop as the pistol is a hollow point version of the fully jacketed round usually used in the P90, but both can pierce Level II body armor. Level III bod
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 publi
Re: (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 n
Last Post! (Score:2, Funny)
When I get out, I hope there won't be any cameras anymore!
I don't have a problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm intrigued to hear from someone to explain why they don't want these cameras around. Privacy concerns is what I usually hear but as you're in a public place surrounded by the public who can watch you using their eyes, what's the difference between a policeman watching you in person and a policeman watching you by camera?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershir
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh boy...
*Goes to fetch cricket bat*
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You are not allowed to use cricket bats to hit policemen in Britain.
The reasoning behind this law is that "it just wouldn't be cricket".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not round here. The local authority watch the screens, and call the police only when there's something they need to attend to. (The operatives can, but don't have to be, retired police officers.)
The main advantages of the camera system in the UK are:
(1) It makes things a lot cheaper and quicker. The perp is far less likely to put in a lying "not guilty" plea when they've seen themselves doing it on the screen.
(2) People who didn't do it, but just happened to be standing rather t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the UK we have seen the development of the APNR system (which may or may not be illegal [theregister.co.uk]) which was used to track down the killer of a policewoman. This is planned to be extended throughout the country. This will allow people's movements to be reviewed historically.
We aren't too far away from having the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments throughout the world, throughout history, have shown repeatedly that they are subject to corruption, so keeping the required bala
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...
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:5, Informative)
The kind of slippery slope argument you're using here works both ways. Yes, cameras can be abused. But what if they aren't being abused and never will be?
Because in the end we are dealing with humans. In the netherlands we have a policy that if there hasn't happened anything within X time then all the material needs to be destroyed.
The material can only be accessed by police officers.
I would say there is little to no corruption in the netherlands but after investigating 30 cities it turned out that the above 2 rules in most of them were not followed.
Next to that there are some more disadvantages:
* Crime does not disappear, it just moves to where there are no camera's
* When there are camera's everywhere, why should you care about crime, somebody else is taking care of it.
* What about the future with face recognition, etc. You are standing too long in one place, etc.
* Also new laws/city ordanances are introduced like you are not allowed to wear a mask, else the camera system will not work, i.e. you cannot be recognised. However since you have done nothing wrong why do you have to identified? In the netherlands we are required to carry identification but we only have to show it when we are suspect of something with a clear reason!!!
Re:I don't have a problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
Correrct, but to continue the silly example... if they passed a law against picking your nose in public, and folks later saw video of you doing it, even though it was before the law went went into effect, there might easily still be consequences. You might not be arrested, but you rneighbors might watch you more closely now, and now that you're known to be "bad", that time you accidentally tripped into their Azaleas now looks like an intentional act. With just one largely irrelevant piece of info, alot of local damage can happen.
> These cameras aren't there to catch public figures picking their noses. Straw man, anyone?
Just because it's not intended to catch the nosepicker now, doesn't mean it won't come in handy later.
The poster's point is that while it is a privacy intrusion now, it doesn't feel like it; though it very well might feel like one in a later circumstance in a different light, so it will feel more like one later if you are the "lucky" one.
And yes, nosepicking isn't the greatest example, but it really doesn't matter. You can pick any action that could be looked upon poorly in some light at some point in the future.
> How does having better computers provide the manpower to watch more cameras?
The computer could recognize the person on film, and learn to recognize certain sorts of questionable activities. Now the computer only brings up a screen when something potentially fishy is going on. You've greatly amplified the usefulness of one human with the power of computing.
> What if the cameras are only there to watch for criminal activity? What if all other activity is disregarded? Does it make you pause to think that maybe you're a tad paranoid?
I ended up spending over $50k defending myself against a lawsuit whose only reason for fingering me was that I showed up on a nearby camera. Since judges often give wide latitude when deciding whether a plaintiff's case is frivolous, it was decided that I had to pay my own defense bills. Even if I was awarded the costs it wouldn't have mattered since the plaintiff couldn't afford it. (She's a paralegal, and thinks herself an attorney so she just filed and filed and delayed and delayed and demanded and demanded, etc.)
Had that camera not been there, or had she not have been able to illegally obtain the evidence (which turned out not to be used officially, but she used my location and time to find people who had seen me there and got them to say I was around... so throwing out the evidence didn't matter), I might still have some savings, and not have as much debt at the moment.
Was the camera setup to catch me? no
Was the camera setup to to allow her to watch surroundings? no
After the fact, she found out I might have been in the area, she was harmed in that area (and I am friends with her ex), so therefore I must have caused that harm. Did I do it? no
Did it cost me greatly? yes
Was law enforcemnt involved? no
Would existing laws preventing law enforcement from using these cameras for any purpose have protected me? no
It even cost my dad around $5k to defend a suit against him, since someone called her office within a few days that remotely sounded like him. (and since the camera "proved" that I harmed her, he must have been in on it)
And it cost my friend(roommate at the time) over $10k to keep custody of his kid, because since he was still friends with me, he must have orchestrated the whole thing, and therefore the child was in danger.
And neither of them even appeared on the recording... they were tagged just because they knew me.
Am I a little paranoid? Hell yes!
Does that mean someone's not out to get me? Hell no!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There was no assault. I never threatened her ever for anything.
The damage (can't give details) she supposedly suffered fell entirely under civil laws, which is why the police were never involved in the firstplace.
This is entirely a case of a sociopathic person who is entirely comfortable working within the court system and using every possible angle to cause harm. And since historically, the man is the clear abuser and the richer and gets free because of it, I, the innoce
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is, you've assholes and idiots who regularly change the definition of "wrong".
If wrong were a fixed known quantity, then this might not be so bad. But we have everything from religious bigots to corporate goliaths trying to redefine "wrong" on a continuous basis. This is a bad thing.
~X~
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in the UK, and I'm strongly opposed to the level of camera surveillance we have. Yes, they do potentially help cut crime, but at what cost? I'd rather have a slightly higher level of crime than live in our current Big Brother culture. Most others would probably agree with me, were the facts presented in an unbiased manner.
I also live in the UK and personally I disagree with you.
I don't agree that most people would rather have a higher level of crime than we live in now - especially with regard to violent street crime (a major concern of most people here in urban areas, from London to Inverness). I for one would rather have more street cameras and feel safer (having been mugged / assault several times - including by youths with weapons - *just* out of range of existing cameras), though I would also like greater transparency
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Seriously
Could you give an explanation to the people who take the color-coded terror alerts seriously?
Who are your neighbors...who is the voting majority..
get your priorities straight, dumbass (Score:5, Interesting)
In 2005, there were 16,692 murders in the United States. (link) [disastercenter.com]
In 2005, there were 43,200 deaths due to car accidents. (link) [edgarsnyder.com]
It has been shown that cameras increase car accident rates by between 7 and 24 percent. (link) [techdirt.com].
So, you tell me. With results like these, is there really a good basis for argument FOR these cameras?
Re: (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?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"With results like that..." (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am please to inform you that we already do. Rest assured your government is doing everything it can to protect you.
Sincerly,
Your Government
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:No one is asking the right question (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Yes, but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
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.
Who watches who? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's when the state and/or the police operate the cameras that the problems arise.
Unwarranted certainty (Score:4, Interesting)
How can you be so sure. Did Serial Killers never were arrested before that cameras were invented?
Now, let's see the question from another angle:
As you might be aware, lots of serial killers have been proven to have perfectly normal lives, with jobs, wifes and kids. From the outside, a psycho looks, most of the time, just like your average joe: a good employee, a loving and caring husband and father.
Now, just for one moment, let's suppose your psycho joe works for law enforcement. What a wonder, isn't it? a psycho with lots of data and live footage of just about anyone he decided to chase. Over time, every psycho wannabe will pursue such kind of job. Now, add to this scenario:
Corrupt police officers watching possible informants of their misdeeds.
Blackmailers watching cheating husbands and wifes.
Corrupt elected officers using this data to watch their adversaries.
The IRS.
Isn't it too much power over our lives? are you really willing to give your freedom away for the illusion of security?
Exception (Score:3, Interesting)
Now don't get me wrong, a serial killer found is a good thing, and I congratulate the police. But that doesn't absolve the mass use of surveillance.
Plus, they probably wouldn't have got him for the previous killings if he hadn't confessed. To get confessions for crimes in the more distant past, surveillance is not useful.
Why do we need more cameras? (Score:2, Informative)
With results like these, again, is there really an argument for these cameras? Police seem to be doing just fine without them.
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: (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...
Cameras are tool, what matters is how it's used (Score:3, Interesting)
Law enforcement and politicians will use cameras(and eventually rfid) for control in the name of protecting children or antiterrorism, business will use them to make a buck.
In a truly free society new technologies must come with laws that require transparency, so the watched can watch the watchers(trust but verify).
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.
Argue ? (Score:5, Interesting)
He'll tell you where the bomb is if you let him fuck your daughter.
So he fucks her and the bomb doesn't go off at the Lakers game.
With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against pimping your daughter?
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.
Best Troll '07 (Score:3, Insightful)
The award for "Best Troll" in 2007 is going to be a tough competition.
-Tommy
50 cameras? (Score:4, Funny)
The Price of Security (Score:5, Interesting)
Being safe isn't a boolean true/false dichotomy. Safety, like security, is a matter of degrees, each degree costing us geometrically more than the last degree. At some point you are face-to-face with the Law of Diminishing Returns [wikipedia.org].
The problem with anything measured in degrees is that we won't always agree on when the limits are hit. Put differently, exactly how many lives must be quantifiably saved before it becomes worth it to see the government put a camera on every street corner? Everyone has a number. For me, the number is higher than that which I think this one serial killer would have killed. It's higher than the cost in lives of 9/11. It's not higher than the cost in lives of, say, WWII, however. Before I saw that many people kiled, I think I'd agree to the cameras. It's always a matter of degrees. My tolerance for risk is higher than most. I don't, for instance, see loss of our liberty worth it when traded for safety from terrorists. Perhaps it's becuase I underestimate what they are capable of. Perhaps not. Either way, the original question is a good one, but inevitably one that we can only answer for ourselves. I guess the beauty of our democracy is that in answering for ourselves we come to a jagged consensus that lets us make a communal decision and move on. It's worth noting that sometimes that consensus doesn't mesh well with our personal ethic (C.f., abortion, stem cell research, the war in Iraq, seat belt laws, and street corner government cameras). In the end, all we can do it make a personal decision and cast our vote. For my vote, I'll be pushing away from street corner cameras. If I'm on the losing side of the issue...well, it won't be the first time.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]
Consistency Check (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Nothing wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
2. Who guarantees me the cameras are not being used to spy me? once they are there, they can do everything they want.
3. Once you have those cameras, is just a matter of time until facial recognition software gets good enough to be able to pinpoint everyone and build huge databases of personal habits of just about everyone.
4. A private camera in a private space is another thing. A private space is, by definition, private. A street is a public place, and that means it's everyone's property. Just as I can object for being watched at my home, I surely can object being watched and tracked in a place that is just as mine as it's your's place also.
5. If a policeman starts following me, I have a reasonable chance to notice that take protective measures like going to the court. With a camera, what are my chances?
6. If the government wants to unjustly incriminates me (maybe because they *need* to arrest *someone*), what will block them from using carefully selected footage to use as an "evidence" against me?
Re:Treating us like kindergarteners (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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 i
Re: (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.