Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Privacy Your Rights Online

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cameras Help Cops Catch a Killer

Comments Filter:
  • Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jevring ( 618916 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:10AM (#17442436) Homepage
    Just because some intrusive technology was used for good at one occasion, doesn't mean that it completely turnes the tides on the discussion. it's still an intrusive technology.
    • by Fred_A ( 10934 ) <fred@fredsh o m> on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:15AM (#17442446) Homepage
      Just because some intrusive technology was used for good at one occasion, doesn't mean that it completely turnes the tides on the discussion.
      Of course it does, you do realise it's the first time ever they caught a serial killer. Or a criminal for that matter. It's a major progress !
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mr_mischief ( 456295 )
        Obviously you've never watched an episode of the TV shows that make fun of dumb criminals. Guys holding up liquor stores and gas stations get caught and convicted precisely because they were caught on tape all the time, apparently. That, and because some of them try to use a candy bar inside a sweatshirt pocket to look like a pistol. After all, the shows are about stupid criminals.

        From the article summary, it sounds like they used multiple private video records. That is not the same as government-owned, gov
    • by Joebert ( 946227 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:33AM (#17442620) Homepage
      One time Bill stumbled in on me and the old lady during a party & scared off a peeping Tom at the window, now we just have Bill stand there & watch us every time for safety.
    • Re:Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Triggnus ( 738288 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:51AM (#17442758) Homepage
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin Smart man.
      • Re:Same as always (Score:4, Insightful)

        by darkmeridian ( 119044 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (gnauhc.mailliw)> on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @10:46AM (#17443990) Homepage
        How much privacy are you giving up? The law has never protected privacy in public, nor should it. No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy once they are outdoors. If these cameras are being installed in homes, then there would be legitimate complaints. But if the cameras are in the street, or the shopping mall, then how much privacy are we giving up?
    • The question is... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <.Satanicpuppy. .at.> on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @10:50AM (#17444054) Journal
      The question is, do the benefits outweigh the costs? Since all the cameras were in public areas, and since there is a lot of precedent supporting the idea that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, I'm not sure what the legal objection could be...

      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.
  • Last Post! (Score:2, Funny)

    by killa62 ( 828317 )
    Well, I'm going off to federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison!

    When I get out, I hope there won't be any cameras anymore!
  • by Macthorpe ( 960048 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:15AM (#17442448) Journal
    As long as this is the way they're used, yes. Then again, I live in the UK and these kinds of cameras are pretty prevalent.

    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?
    • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:21AM (#17442488) Homepage Journal
      A real policeman watching the criminals with his eyes can also grab hold of said criminal and stop them from doing the misdeed.
      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)

        by Ingolfke ( 515826 )
        How about the money be spent on tools to allow police to quickly apprehend criminals and deter them from committing crimes knowing that there is a fair chance video evidence will be available?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tim Ward ( 514198 )
        Police watching the screens??

        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)

      by odyrithm ( 461343 )
      People seem to have the impression the cameras are watching *you*. Well sorry to burst the bubble that is your vanity but that is not the case. The cameras are looking out for trouble. i.e when the crowd starts to run about chanting "Hit him Reg!" during chuck out time.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MrMickS ( 568778 )
        The cameras aren't watching for anything, yet. The cameras are either passive and simply record to tape for later review should something untoward happen or active, in that they have a human controller.

        In the UK we have seen the development of the APNR system (which may or may not be illegal []) 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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Essentially the main problem is that it tilts the balance too far in favour of the government forces. There is a delicate balance between personal freedom and government control, which means that if the government should become corrupt, the people will still be able to overthrow it. If you allow all-pervasive control by the government, this becomes much more difficult.

      Governments throughout the world, throughout history, have shown repeatedly that they are subject to corruption, so keeping the required bala
    • by YouTalkinToMe ( 559217 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:26AM (#17442552)

      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...

    • by Crouty ( 912387 )
      It is not policemen watching monitors anymore but increasingly image recognition software that can track subjects and even analyzes behaviour. Take the field of view of all cameras in London combined plus lots of image recognition and you have the equivalent of 100 policemen for every block. I would not feel comfortable under that kind of surveillance. Because cameras are less conspicious people tend to accept surveillance in this form rather than running into a bobby every few steps.
    • by RegularFry ( 137639 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:28AM (#17442574)
      If that policeman was watching me all the time, following me everywhere I went without any evidence that I might be up to anything naughty, then there wouldn't be any difference.

      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.
    • by Omnifarious ( 11933 ) * <eric-slash@omnif ... .org minus berry> on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:38AM (#17442660) Homepage Journal

      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)

      by Xyrus ( 755017 )
      This equates to "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about."

      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.

  • by YouTalkinToMe ( 559217 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:17AM (#17442458)

    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.

    • by RLiegh ( 247921 ) *
      >We always have to look at the tradeoff between the intrusion on our freedoms and the the results that the technology brings.

      Why? Seriously ..why? Can you answer that question why we 'have to'...and could you answer that question to your friends and neighbors who do not follow the news and the privacy issues surrounding the recent changes in the last few years?

      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..
  • by macadamia_harold ( 947445 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:18AM (#17442460) Homepage
    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?

    In 2005, there were 16,692 murders in the United States. (link) []

    In 2005, there were 43,200 deaths due to car accidents. (link) []

    It has been shown that cameras increase car accident rates by between 7 and 24 percent. (link) [].

    So, you tell me. With results like these, is there really a good basis for argument FOR these cameras?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      'It has been shown that cameras increase car accident rates by between 7 and 24 percent.'

      ? says who?

      Ah, the actual link ''

      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?

      • by macadamia_harold ( 947445 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:32AM (#17442608) Homepage
        Actually, if you're going to be pedantic, the exact quote is "The cameras are correlated with an increase in total injury crashes, with the increase being between 7% and 24%."

        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.
    • by arakon ( 97351 )
      I would mod you up, but alas I am mod-point free.
  • by RLiegh ( 247921 ) * on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:20AM (#17442476) Homepage Journal
    Hey, I'm sold! The government may at will monitor every call, every email, examine my credit history in minute detail, access my library lending habits and even do a physical search of my home (neither without telling me)...but if by doing so one child's life is saved then by gum -it's worth it!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Ingolfke ( 515826 )
      Dear sir,

      I am please to inform you that we already do. Rest assured your government is doing everything it can to protect you.

      Your Government
  • by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:20AM (#17442484) Journal
    The cameras that were used were a combination of private cameras and security cameras put up around a post office. This is not about a sophisticated government network of cameras used to track people (although those do exist in Philidelphia). It's about a resourceful police department. It's good to see a story about the cops doing some good.
  • by Toby The Economist ( 811138 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:21AM (#17442486)
    We're loosing sight of the real question.

    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.
  • 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)

  • were they able to zoom in and reconstruct a recognizable face from a 9-pixel block?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      No, but they did manage to find out which pharmacy he used by looking at the reflection on the windscreen of a car 3 miles down the road.
  • Public Vs. Private (Score:5, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:23AM (#17442508) Journal
    Most people don't object to privately operated security cameras.

    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.
    • by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @09:15AM (#17442996)
      "will only be used to prosecute major crimes"

      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)

    by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:23AM (#17442522)
    I have no problems with the police obtaining (possibly via a court order) tapes from privately operated cameras.

    It's when the state and/or the police operate the cameras that the problems arise.

  • by Marcos Eliziario ( 969923 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:24AM (#17442528) Homepage Journal
    " Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today."
    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)

    by Denial93 ( 773403 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:25AM (#17442542)
    Numbers of active serial killers, wild guesses that they are, are usually estimated so high a single one found does not make a significant difference. According to the wiki [], the FBI offered the number of circa 35 at large at any given time during the eighties. Finding a single one of them is hardly impressive.

    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.
  • And not only that, if you look at the U.S. Conviction rate for murder in the United States as compared to the United Kingdom, you'll see that the U.S. conviction rate is several times higher []. Even though the U.K. has more cameras.

    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)

    by v1 ( 525388 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:28AM (#17442564) Homepage Journal
    I am getting so disgusted with how people's fear, insecurity, and single-minded drive for personal safety is driving public opinion and laws toward a police state. At the rate things are going now, ten years from now we will live in a society of 0% crime and 0% fredom. Surely a state-monitored camera in every house would reduce crime? Think of the lives it would save! Lets do it!

    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)

      by vishbar ( 862440 )

      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...

  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:29AM (#17442588)
    Unfortunately the law of unintended consequences says that any technology that can be abused, will be abused.

    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).

    • by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:44AM (#17442710) Journal
      In a truly free society new technologies must come with laws that require transparency

      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)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:30AM (#17442594) Homepage Journal
    You have a guy in prison.

    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?

  • by Teun ( 17872 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @08:34AM (#17442630) Homepage
    It's not the cameras per sé that are bad.
    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)

    by tringstad ( 168599 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @09:02AM (#17442870)
    "...With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?"

    The award for "Best Troll" in 2007 is going to be a tough competition.


  • 50 cameras? (Score:4, Funny)

    by null etc. ( 524767 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @09:09AM (#17442926)
    I'm confused. I thought they only needed 1 camera and some really good software. You know, "zoom in on that reflection of the lamp post and enhance contrast, removing noise and distortion based on the shadow information and weather report".
  • by caudron ( 466327 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @09:24AM (#17443090) Homepage
    With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?

    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 [].

    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 []
  • Consistency Check (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Steve B ( 42864 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @09:58AM (#17443408)
    If one killer stopped by cameras is a sufficient argument for cameras, then one killer stopped by an armed citizen is a sufficient argument for repealing all gun control laws. I'm sure the Philadelphia city government will get right on that....

  • by CAPSLOCK2000 ( 27149 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @10:02AM (#17443456) Homepage
    One of the disadvantages of camera systems is that they create a false sense of security, that actually decreases security. Some people think they are safe because of the camera's, and therefore don't use their common sense and start playing hero (eg fight with a thug holding a knife, instead of just handing over your wallet) under the assumption that the police will arive shortly.
    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.

  • by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @11:19AM (#17444472) Homepage
    Yep. Lotsa stories about how a pursesnatcher got caught. Whatever. A steady stream of them, I predict. If cameras are placed on every piece of masonry, you'll find a whole lot of criminals.

    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.
  • Lets do this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by finkployd ( 12902 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @12:57PM (#17445990) Homepage
    I am cool with having cameras in all public places.

    However, lets do it right. First we need cameras on all police cruisers and even on the police themselves (I believe the UK is starting this). We also need cameras mounted in the police stations, holding cells, and interrogation cells. These videos need to be made available in their entirety and in a timely manner to the public over the Internet ( maybe?). Obviously some videos would be important to investigations to the police can petition a judge (after reviewing it) to hold it from publication for a specific period of time (renewed until the investigation is over and releasing it would no longer compromise anything). There needs to be absolutely NO time ever when a citizen is in contact with a police officer where it is not filmed and kept for record, any "missing time" should be cause for severe punishment. I don't want to hear anything about the privacy of the police, they have no privacy on the job. They are public servants who are given powers and authority above other citizens and need to be held to a much higher standard.

    Now that we can watch the watchers, let's roll out the public cameras. I have nothing to hide about how I go through my daily life in public, but first I want to ensure that those in power who request this do not either.

    (one can only dream about a day when elected public officials have to be similarly accountable in their public life)

  • by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @01:53PM (#17446874) Journal
    I'm fine with everyone getting to watch me and have recordings but ONLY if I get to watch _everyone_ else too and have access to the recordings. AND you should only have access to a recording if you are also being recorded and logged while accessing it ;).

    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.

Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.