Houston Police Chief Wants Cameras in Homes 804
An anonymous reader writes "In one of the most blatant and frightening statements made on privacy, the Associated Press reports that Houston's police chief wants surveillance cameras in apartment buildings and even private homes. Chief Harold Hurtt wants building permits to require cameras in shopping malls and large apartment complexes. He also wants them in private homes if the homeowner has called the police repeatedly. So, if you're in Houston, don't call the cops too much, or they might install a camera the next time they show up. And what does Hurtt have to say about privacy concerns? 'I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?'"
unreal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:unreal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:unreal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:unreal (Score:3, Funny)
* ie. Marion Barry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry [wikipedia.org]
first test (Score:4, Funny)
An alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
This idea is constitutional and is permitted by US constitution in that the the citizens have a right to monitor the government.
As far as am concerned, THAT is a true use of my money. I get to exactly note how my money is spent.
What do you say Mr.Policeman?
Don't forget a live feed from (Score:3, Interesting)
Live streaming of in-car audio and all police radio transmissions could be next.
Re:An alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember the garbage guy..from a few years back? (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a congressman...or was it a police chief...who favored the position that once garbage was placed at the curb, it was considered abandoned by the owner, and was not subject to search by warrant. The police could just pick up any given bag of trash and search for evidence...no privacy concerns.
All was well until a local paper picked through his trash and publised the contents...unread magazines and solicitation letters... food boxes...that's what I remember.
Man, was he pissed...and suddenly his view didn't apply to him.
So, hell yes, let's put publicly accessable GPS devices in police cars, let's have webcams in police stations...in every room. Let's watch the watchers.
Also reminds me of that sherrif in Arizona who had webcams in his jail...the man was ahead of his time.
Re:Remember the garbage guy..from a few years back (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the GOP has been doing more to violate civil rights than the Democratic Party has been recently?
Re:unreal (Score:5, Insightful)
Install the first camera(s) in this Police Chief's house - in every room, then wire it up to the public access channel.
Install the 2nd set of camera(s) in the Mayor's house.
Finally, the Police Chief's and Mayor's office.
Simply claim, if you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you mind being monitored 24x7, and since you both are in public office, your lives are now 100% public.
not "IN homes" (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't, of course. The submitter (or perhaps Zonk) made that up. He never said "IN homes". he said "in large apartment complexes", meaning the public areas, and the exact words for honmes: "if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property". Which means the OUTSIDE of a property, unless the police chief is a raving lunatic. The lack of emphasis on this in TFA indicats this was understood to be the meaning. Not to say there are no problems with the idea, but argue about what he actually proposed.
Re:See it from the police (station) perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:See it from the police (station) perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you know what this is? I'll tell you... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're hacking us people. They are hacking our minds. They know exactly what they're doing. This isn't tinfoil hat stuff, they have highly paid strategists that study how to pull shit like this off. We're in deep doo doo if we, as a people, don't begin to recognize the nature of this social "matrix".
Re:No, you know what this is? I'll tell you... (Score:5, Informative)
"I'm going to raise taxes 10 percent"
US:"BOOOO!!!!"
"OK, you're right. I'm only going to raise it 5 percent."
US:"Whew! That's a relief!"
My high-school band director would do the same thing for our band trips every year. He would go to the school board (which had to approve the trip) and tell them he wanted to take us to London or Sydney, etc., and let them think about it. He'd come back a month later and propose Orlando, Quebec, etc. The school board would invariably rubber-stamp the second less-dramatic proposal.
To a lesser extent my boss does this, but in reverse, by under-promising and over-delivering, which makes our department look good. He calls it "managing expectations".
Scottie (Score:3, Funny)
Re:See it from the police (station) perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:See it from the police (station) perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
Its ridiculous to assume any human being can be without bias. So the key here is FULL DISCLOSURE, not attempting to sound unbiased. Most European press have figured this out. They openly declare support for this candidate or that, so its pretty obvious who's side they are on. THey present the story in their fashion, and you know what you are getting. The opposite side presents in their fasion, and you know what you get. You get both sides, including the bias,
Re:unreal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:unreal (Score:3, Insightful)
Good god (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good god (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good god (Score:4, Interesting)
Then fire the dumbass. Some people just don't understand that crap will not be tolerated.
Our country was not founded on this crap. Hell, if anyone reads the writing of our Founding Fathers, Documents such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance, they might just learn we're taught to overthrow the government when they abuse the people. If this crap goes unchecked then what alternative do we have?
I know it sounds bad but then again, it IS their words and hope we protect the country from idiots like him.
reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do you think he got his ideas from? Seriously. Most people read 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, and are either frightened, or mildly disturbed ("That'd never happen. People would be outraged!")
People like him read 1984 and think, "I wouldn't use those cameras like that...", missing the point completely.
Police these days are so far removed from reality, it's not even funny. I recently read an article about police stepping up speeding enforcement on "the most deadly road" in a particular county in (I believe) Ohio. The officers bragged about writing 40+ speeding tickets in two hours, using a LIDAR gun ($2k-$4k each, often paid for by Geico), one officer clocking vehicles, and 4-5 motorcycle units pulling people over. They talked about how they really want to get one patrol car to spend one day each week sitting out pulling over speeders, and they were makin' the roads safe.
Except the reason that the highway is so deadly is because it's a single lane highway with nothing but a double yellow line between you and oncoming traffic; the fatalities are from head-on collisions.
So instead of patrolling the road and pulling over anyone who tries to pass on a double-yellow, they write speeding tickets, making more people drive EXACTLY the speed limit, which is only bound to result in more idiots trying to pass the "law abiding" "safer" drivers. Not to mention, they're pulling people over on a single-lane highway, where all those flashing lights and whatnot are a major distraction.
Way to go, guys!
Re:reality (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really look at traffic laws, saftey is not the top priority. Money is. Most people don't weave in and out of lanes for the fun of it. They do it because cops don't enforce the keep to the right policy. Try that on the Autobahn in German. In fact, the unrestricted speed parts of the Autobahn are one of, if not the, safest stretches of highways. Why? 1) Good design 2) strict enforcement of driving habits that actually yield accidents. Speed doesn't kill - the accident does. Speed just makes it more likely you'll be sorry after that accident. Road rage is one thing, but has anyone spent some time investigating why people are getting this rage? Are we all nuts or just sick of other inconsiderate drivers?
How about those seat belt check points? If I don't wear my seat belt, who am I going to hurt? Ok fine, parents can be more responsible for their children. I guess there's a finite chance you could become a missle in an accident and hurt someone else with your flying body. In reality, this is just another cash cow. A few years ago a State trooper was killed in NJ when he was hit at a toll booth checking for seat belts (fell into on coming traffic). Try explaining that one to his family.
...and don't get me started about GEICO (or auto insurance in general).
Re:reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Mom Arm (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I feel seat belt regulations for drivers should be in force only if it can be shown that driving without one endangers people OUTSIDE the car (i
Re:Mom Arm (Score:3, Interesting)
I say, if my fellow 2-wheel
Re:reality (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a crack in the engine block of my old 1989 Toyota Celica. The car was beaten up, and wouldn't accelerate quickly. In city traffic, I had a hard time breaking 35 miles an hour. I didn't want to invest any more money in the car, and so let it die peacefully of old age while looking around at Camaros.
I was driving around in Maryland, I forget the name of the town, and there's a stretch of road, that goes something like 35 to 25 to 35 again, in a stretch of only a couple blocks. There's an old, closed gas station, there. I'm driving in to work one morning on a business trip that had me commuting from Waldorf to Lexington Park. Driving... not fast, since my car couldn't, at this time, go fast.
So, a police officer, no lie... walks out in front of my car, holds his hand up, and stops me, waves me in to the gas station, and writes me a speeding ticket, 19 miles per hour over so I don't have to show up in court. I go, "but officer, I can't have been speeding," (and to this day, I know that I can't have been), and he just gives me this sharp tone that says he's going to make it a lot worse on me if I don't just pay the fine. I paid it, driving another 200 miles to fight the ticket didn't sound like it made an ouce of sense.
Essentially, according to him, he walked out in front of a vehicle going 45 miles per hour in order to pull it over. Additionally, my vehicle that was highly unlikely to be going 45 miles per hour at all in stop and go traffic would have had to have been going that fast less than a half-mile or so in front of where he decide to slowly walk out in front of my car in order to bring it to a stop.
My guess is, since there were 3 other police cars pulled in at the same gas station, all writing tickets for other cars, that this is a common offense in that town.
Cops removed from reality (Score:5, Interesting)
A great deal of police think that if you were clocked at 45, you were going 45 and you are just lying. There's this attitude that if you were pulled over or arrested, you are guilty (even before trial). If not, that would mean the police are wrong (oh my, god forbid that!).
What happened to you is actually a common police tactic. Not ticketing you for the primary accused charge, but some made up lesser charge (seat belt, tail light, reduced speeding ticket). Most people won't fight it because they are scared if they get in court the officer might bring up the original charge and have a huge ticket. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. Which is sad, because a lot of people pay for tickets they should fight because they are scared. The police are very aware of this and use it as a common tactic to make a ticket stick.
And that's the sad state of many police departments in the united states. Making the world safe and fair for us by upholding the law is only about 10% of their motivation anymore. Revenue and power through selective accusations seems to really trump that these days.
I can't even tell you how many times I've seen the police flick on their lights just to run a red light. Or let off their friends when they pull them over. The clincher? I'm at a crowded restaurant one night (30 minute wait time). Cop walks in with two chicks, looks at the line. Walks right past everyone and finds a recently vacant table. Asks them to clean it and sits right down. And no one said anything because he was a cop. That really sums up their attitude right there.
Re:Cops removed from reality (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cops removed from reality (Score:5, Insightful)
In 25+ years of driving I've been let off exactly one time because I'm not the kind of driver that gets let off with a warning. Just because you've can recall more times than I've ever experienced doesn't make you a better driver or mean that police don't abuse their power. In fact, it's evidence of it.
Re:Cops removed from reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cops removed from reality (Score:3, Funny)
Oh c'mon, Mr. porkThreeWays, you may as well admit that this was you and this is your MO. : p
Re:Cops removed from reality (Score:3, Interesting)
This became so irritating, that he had one of hi
Cops protect and serve other interests, not yours. (Score:3, Insightful)
In spite of the best intentions of many police officers to "stay honest" (whatever that means to them), their masters are the politicians who make the rules, civil servants trying to in
Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:5, Informative)
You can't even refuse the tow and in the case of a flat tire where you're on the shoulder you better get it changed before a wrecker pulls up or they'll shove you out of the way and hook your car up. It's hard to beat the wreckers because they have cameras covering just about every inch of the freeway system here and they dispatch one to you the moment you pull out of the main lanes.
It's not surprising that they're angling for more cameras. They've been talking for a few months about putting cameras in the downtown district for our "protection".
I think that this new proposal needs a pilot program before we adopt it. The Police chief should have to live with a camera in his house for a year or so before he can put one in anyone elses house. I'd like to see how he likes it.
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:5, Insightful)
Get a group of, say, 20 people together who dislike this policy (should not be too difficult). Get all 20 in their cars on different parts of the road system. At a predetermined time, all of the pull over, sit on the shoulder for 60 seconds, and start moving again.
Repeat two or three times a day, during a week or two, change it to no longer all do it at the same time, but in 15 minute intervals.
See if the policy survives...
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:3, Interesting)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:3, Interesting)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-53665520
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't think anyone has a reasonble right to privacy while out in public. The fact that your city abuses it in such a retarded way notwithstanding, cameras in public I have no problem with. Privacy in public makes no sense, and unless it's being abused (which, in your case, it is), I would have no complaints.
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:4, Insightful)
Long before Mayor White was elected those cameras were put in place. He's the first one who decided that Houston needed a "Safe-Clear" towing policy to make sure that nobody got hurt on the freeway and that the traffic kept flowing. In the past they would clear your vehicle if it was obstructing traffic. Now they make bank on towing you if you're on the shoulder of the road. Since the plan was implemented more people have been killed and injured on Houston freeways than were before the wreckers began making mad dashes for stalls and flat tires.
It's not the cameras on the freeway. It's how this particular mayor (and police chief) think they should be used and where they want to go next (evidenced by this story). I feel like this is just the beginning and while I live outside of Houston I work in it. Outside of that M-F commute I never enter the city.
wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
and on and on..how much more evidence is really needed? Then you have fascist gangsters like this pig chief saying what he did, in all seriousness. Any one of them...hmmm, ALL OF THESE THINGS and it isn't even close to stopping yet??
Nope, it's way past time to roll it back and JUST SAY NO to ALL of it. They crossed the line years ago, any defence of them is illogical and unwarranted, it's a pure slow speed fascist takeover, perfectly clear, nothing different from any third world fascist takeover except these boys are a little slicker how they are doing it, and having you on candid camera 24/7 and RFID tagged and working for their pig corporations as a second world serf slave is EXACTLY their goal. Look back 20 years. Now look at right now. Now turn around and look forward 20 years. Watcha see? How are things doing? Really, is it going to get magically better somehow unless there's a firm line that they have to go back and stand behind? They sure as hell aren't going to do it voluntarily!
You have to look at the big picture to get the full grasp of this.
NOW is the time to get scared, concerned then angry and change this stuff. We still have 10% of a chance, your kids won't have any.
Re:wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is more than a single picture [abovetopsecret.com]
It also includes a really grainy picture of what could be a 757. The picture doesn't show it is a plane, it only shows that it could be one, contrary to conspiracy theorists claims that its too small.
On the subject of conspiracy theories, another good one is the theory that the "no plane at the pentagon" and the "pods on planes in NYC" are actually on government controlle
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong, according to whom? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong, according to whom? You? The mormon manning the camera who thinks drinking is against God's law? The Jewish officer next to the Mormon who has a problem with my delight in cooking pork?
Everybody sees the world through their own lenses of right and wrong. If I am being observed by somoene with a radically different belief structure than my own, it stands to reason that in their eyes I very well may be doing something wrong. It is completely the right decision to want to hide my behaviors from such people, allowing them to navigate through the world with their own peculiar perceptions without slapping their personal prejudices against me.
We do not live in a homogenous society. We live in a society of great diversity where people are offended on a reasonably consistent basis by the behavior of others in society. Offense and prejudice breed harassment and worse. It is absolutely critical that people hide their personal lives from each other, and especially those who have the authority to act on their prejudices. Anyone who thinks differently - well, those are the ones who have the most dangerous prejudices of all - the ones who think they have the authority and RIGHT to force their view of the world on others.
Jew-pork is a strawman (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Jew-pork is a strawman (Score:3, Insightful)
Last argument of the moral cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the most cliched argument that any law enformcemnt officer could ever give. the answer to it is that it's none of my business what you're doing, and that it's not your place to decide what's right or wrong. That's what we have legislators for. There are very good reasons for resisting the erosion of privacy, and one of them is to keep assholes like this out of our lives.
Hunters (Score:5, Insightful)
Bonus goodie points to the person who actually names the logical fallacy behind "if you have nothing to hide" etc. If possible, please include a link. More people need to know how to intelligently refute arguments such as these.
Re:Hunters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hunters (Score:3, Insightful)
Additional reasons: (Score:5, Insightful)
1. People have an annoying habit of abusing their power. Statistically, there are just as many criminal police officers as there are criminal normal citizens. I certainly wouldn't give an average citizen, for example, decryption keys to the password file on my computer. I don't want to give an entire police department a video feed entering credit card numbers into websites. Or plans for protest marches at the RNC. Or meetings, for example, of a group trying to get a new police chief elected. The police and other information gathering organizations have in the past most definitely not been bastions of holyness when it comes to ethical management of valuable information.
2. There are secrets people have that aren't illegal. Maybe you're seeing a psychological councelor, and the stigma attached with that could lose your job if that slips out. Maybe you got really drunk and made a mistake that you don't want to break up your family. Maybe J Edgar Hoover just doesn't want people to know that he wears women's underwear. Why should people know any of that? Why take the risk of telling that to people, and just pray that it doesn't 'slip out'.
3. Because there are lots of little things we do every day that break the rules. These include: j-walking, downloading MP3's, subletting without telling your landlord, recording sporting events without express written concent, undocumented domestic help, recreational drug use, stealing cable, logging on to other people's wireless networks, "leaking" company information to your girlfriend, anything besides the missionary position (in many states), cheating on your wife (in many states), rolling stops on empty streets, u-turns in the middle of empty streets, locking your bicycle to the handrailing, lying about your age to get into movies, lying about your age to get senior citizens discounts, lying about your age to avoid getting senior citizens discounts, telling your company that you're "sick" when you really mean you're "sick and tired of this crappy job," not reporting e-bay sales as taxable income, grabbing an extra newspaper when someone else buys one from the machine, putting chairs in the street to save your parking spot, stealing office supplies, stealing the towels, littering, loitering, the office NCAA pool, etc etc. All of these are necessary for the functioning of our society in some way or another, but are illegal. Yet we would go batshit insane without a few personal pet vices.
And the system has been built with this in mind: nobody wants to stop your weekly 5$ poker match, they wanted to stop the gambling houses where people lost their rent money. Enforce the letter of the law, and the intent of the law gets lost.
4. Because there is a big difference between serving the public interest and fascism.
Re:Additional reasons: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello, Trooper Harris! How is your wife, Brandy? Really? She sure has been buying a lot of birth control recently. Surprising considering how great Timmy and Candy are turning out. Why, Timmy hasn't been sent to the pricipal's office in over two weeks! Have Brandy say hi to Trooper Mbesi for me. He's a great guy- if you had his shift you could see Brandy as much as he does. Still, that shift differential helps pay your $14,111.48 in credit card debt and your $121,998.62 mortgage on 123 Stee
No one will be happy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No one will be happy... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, you miserable idiot, that's not the point. The point is the right to privacy, the point is the state minding its own business, not the citizen's.
Does this happen in the same country where people don't want an id card because of privacy concerns? Amazing.
Re:Oh please... (Score:3, Funny)
Put yourself in your neighbor's shoes, and ask yourself if having a camera in your house would really strike you as a reasonable solution.
I don't want other people watching me while I'm in my own house. It's not because I'm doing anything illegal. Maybe I just don't like the idea of some yokel staring at me while I sit on my couch masturbating and eating Cheetos. If I wanted someone to see
Re:Oh please... (Score:3, Insightful)
Would it be okay to put the cameras in your house, then?
By counter-example (Score:5, Interesting)
Try telling that to Shi Tao http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0909/p01s03-woap.ht
Anyway, doesn't the fourth amendment protect against unreasonable search and seizure? I'm pretty sure this would count as an unreasonable search.
Re:By counter-example (Score:5, Insightful)
Chief Hurtt is an African American. In the sixties, Martin Luther King was the victim of illegal wiretapping by Hoover's FBI. How would he respond to an assertion that 'If Dr. King is doing nothing worng, why should he worry about our wiretapping.'
You'll install a camera in my house over my dead body.
Not with a bang (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not with a bang (Score:4, Informative)
coming from what state again? (Score:2)
Culture War (Score:2)
Hey, dipshit cop... (Score:2)
What should I worry about? (Score:4, Insightful)
But I have to say that I can't always trust police. They are only human, too.
Re:What should I worry about? (Score:3, Funny)
"It's all fun and games until they discover your collection of hamster porn."
Just spare a thought for the the sweaty cop watching when you get intimate with your right hand/wife/girlfriend/mistress/boyfriend/pet-spide
Brainstorm? (Score:5, Funny)
"He (Houston Mayor Bill White) called the chief's proposal a 'brainstorm' rather than a decision."
I'd call it a brainfart, myself. This is something so creepifying I almost want to say it's a bogus article.
Idiot Texas Overlords? (Score:4, Funny)
Not a bad idea... (Score:4, Funny)
I have the perfect place for that new bookshelf! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I have the perfect place for that new bookshelf (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I have the perfect place for that new bookshelf (Score:3, Interesting)
1984, George Orwell
Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Terrorism 101: A How-To Guide, Anonymous
The Armchair Anarchist's Almanac, Mike Harding
Why I should worry about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I want to scratch my balls while watching hockey naked, fart while making nachos in the kitchen, and have passionate sex with my wife on the couch and dining room table.
And here's the kicker... I DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
Re:Why I should worry about it. (Score:5, Funny)
And neither does any other sane person, thank you very much.
I work with law enforcement... (Score:5, Interesting)
People have NO IDEA the type of assholes cops have to deal with.
Thats how it starts (Score:4, Insightful)
then later
2 times per month to the same house
then later
2 times per 6 monthes to the same street
then later
we are installing cameras because its the law
Any liberties violated are precursers to total enslavement you just have to wait long enough.
A camera in my home? No Problem ... (Score:5, Funny)
Tux2000
Reply, from the Best.Essay.Ever on privacy rights (Score:5, Interesting)
"If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free..."
"...If someone intrudes on our privacy - by peering into our home, going through the personal things in our office desk, reading over our shoulder on a bus or airplane, or eavesdropping on our conversation - we feel uncomfortable, even violated.
Imagine, then, how we will feel if it becomes routine for bureaucrats, police officers and other agents of the state to paw through all the details of our lives: where and when we travel, and with whom; who are the friends and acquaintances with whom we have telephone conversations or e-mail correspondence; what we are interested in reading or researching; where we like to go and what we like to do.
A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
By that reasoning, of course, we shouldn't mind if the police were free to come into our homes at any time just to look around, if all our telephone conversations were monitored, if all our mail were read, if all the protections developed over centuries were swept away. It's only a difference of degree from the intrusions already being implemented or considered.
The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will - indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves - is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.
If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.
But there also will be tangible, specific harm.
The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life. ...But if our privacy becomes ever more systematically invaded by the state for purposes of assessing our behavior and making judgments about us, wrong information and misinterpretations will have potential consequences.
If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect. By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm... [go ahead, read the rest [privcom.gc.ca], its well-worth it.]
Re:Reply, from the Best.Essay.Ever on privacy righ (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, moving into a small town or other community that has not had a lot of population turnover is the same w
Has it ever occured to anyone... (Score:3, Interesting)
That man, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That man, (Score:3, Insightful)
He's just taking his job seriously (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the job of the military to keep us safe from other countries. Good Generals therefore tell politians about the dangers of terrorism and spys and how we should kill everyone else just in case they are a threat to national security, and reduce the freedom of foreign nationals whilst they are in the country.. It's their job.
Its the job of the police to keep us safe from each other. Good Policeman, who are listened to by politians, say that the only way we can be kept safe from each other, is if our freeedoms are reduced and we are watched constantly. It's his job.
The real problem is the politions. Its their job to up hold our freedoms. If they listen to the experts, and let them 'do they're job', then they're not doing their job - and they're the ones who are in charge - this is a constitutional republic after all.
Never ask a barber if you need a haircut. He's always going to say "Yes". (I'm too tired t spell check)
Oral sex et al-Do you know if you're a criminal? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem I have with the whole "if you have nothing to hide..." argument is that it can be really hard to even know when/if you are doing something illegal! For a variety of reasons:
People have a hard time separating their personal judgement from what is law
A prime example is our history of sodomy law [wikipedia.org]. All it takes is one deeply religious person in power who is unable or unwilling to separate church from state before you have a problem.
From the current Florida lawbooks: [state.fl.us]
Are you living in Florida with your unmarried girlfriend or boyfriend right now? (Oh wait, this is Slashdot
People misinterpret things, especially when they don't understand
What happens when big brother misinterprets your repeated login attempts because you forgot your password as attempted illegal entry into a computer system?
Or how about when you open your e-mailbox and receive those "hot teens!" spam and you're mistaken for a pedophile because you "downloaded child porn" thanks to the attached jpeg?
There are plenty of silly, stupid and broad laws on the books
I won't even bother to comprehend how many silly, stupid and broad laws there are. Check out some of your state's dumb laws [nyud.net] (DumbLaws.com coral cached) and discover your true criminal identity.
And lets not forget about the growing issue of computer crimes created by politicians who have been bought or simply don't understand. If the RIAA/MPAA gets its way, it'll soon be illegal to put a DVD in your computer or record your favorite movie aired on TV to watch later.
... anyway
My point is that you are mistaken to think that you have nothing to worry about if you've supposedly done nothing wrong.
First, everyone in this country has probably broken or will eventually break a law or two unknowingly or willingly. And secondly, history has proven that whoever has the power to monitor the people will undoubtably abuse that power according to their beliefs and to their advantage -- whether it's in public locations or in the privacy of your own home.
Re:Oral sex et al-Do you know if you're a criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
To quote Ayn Rand (from Atlas Shrugged)
""Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.""
Innocent until? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok Chief, let me clue you in. In this country people are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. People should not be required to repeatedly prove their innocence to your satisfaction by being subjected to 24/7 monitoring.
It is your job as a police officer to respond to criminal complaints, protect the innocent, and arrest the persons reasonably suspected of committing those crimes. Police officers have been performing those tasks long before you came along and they did it without the benefit of modern investigative technology. And they also did it without subjecting the entire citizenry to invasive monitoring such as what you are proposing. If you and your officers are not up to the task, you may want to consider a career change because you are obviously not going to live up to the level of you predecessors.
The only other alternative I could suggest is a reeducation camp, with the purpose of instructing you and yours in the finer aspects of our US constitution and criminal investigation procedures. Perhaps Guantanamo is free for a few months?
Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:3, Informative)
What was stated, was that he wanted cameras watching the property. "And if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property, he said."
Cameras in malls and large apartment complexes are actually quite common. Having a camera watching the halls and lobbies should not affect normal people at all. A camera which is used for watching private property is not /too/ much different, as long as it is placed outside of the house (probably watching the road in front of it, the driveway and the walk up to the front door). To me, it sounds like that is all he's talking about. /inside/ the home is a totally different issue, and any who suggest it should be thrown from whichever office they currently hold.
Of course, having a camera
Creating a culture that lets the scum rise (Score:3, Interesting)
Where does it end up? History shows some examples.
The problem is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, who will pay for these cameras? Will the taxpayers pay more tax? If not, where will the money come from?
And, finally, which camera manufacturer left the big black suitcase full of unmarked bills in the police chiefs car in return for suggesting this?
Not knowing anything about Houston or Texas politics, I have no idea if this guy is just spouting his mouth off or if there is an actual chance that this will be implemented, any Texans want to enlighten me?
A little History (Score:4, Informative)
Disappointed about not having anyone to arrest they arrest everyone at K-Mart [kuro5hin.org]. They actually practiced at a Wendy's restraunt the week before. I believe with the mayor and police chief watching. They even arrested families that had a receipt showing that they were waiting for food, for tresspassing. In order to crack down on groups of youths collecting in high crime areas where they might cause trouble. They needed a scapegoat, and so after the backlash, it became the officer in charge at the scene decided to do it on his own. The test a Wendy's was determined to be an "unrelated" incident
And we can be sure that he would protect are constitution rights. Just like he would for his own officers. So why not put the cameras in. You can't talk to anyone if you criticize my department [azpolice.org]
But he just wants to make sure that everyone is not breaking the law. Unless they are an illegal immigrant [alipac.us]. The police chief has issued a direct order to police that they cannot enforce any immigration laws because it creates to much political conflict with city officals getting relected. I just have trouble with the police being told they cannot enforce a law. At this point the Police chief has become lawmaker & enforcer. If they want the illegal immigrants to stay, they need to change the laws, not give the police chief the right to do whatever he wants.
Being Watched (Score:4, Insightful)
My question is, if I'm not doing anything wrong, why do I need to be watched?
Frank
Houston, TX
Many already beat me to it...... (Score:3, Interesting)
People in general, are not so honest. Being a police officer is NOT an excuse or and exception to the facts.
I can think of a whole lot of situations that would open up a risk factor for cameras invading police departments, politicians and really anybody.
A country willing to sacrifice freedom in exchange for security, shall have neither nor deserve neither.
Ben Franklin and Rosevelt got it, how come the current administration doesn't?
Maybe they need a test run of these cameras on police and politicians....in order to learn why thats the way it works in reality.
simultaneous posts (Score:2, Offtopic)
sum.zero
Re:and i'm so sure (Score:2)
On a related note, I'd like to know what President Bush would say if we told him that we were going to let the Senate minority leader tape all of his phone conversations.
Re:Texas, the redneck state (Score:2)
Re:someone shove a camera in his rectum (Score:5, Funny)