Surveillance Cameras Win Broad Support: Majority of Americans Favor Extra Safety Factor of Cameras




Questions for Debate:

1) Do you support an increased level of video surveillance in major US cities?

2) Is a decrease in the crime rate worth any possible civil liberty infractions?

3) Would you feel safer walking city streets at night knowing that there is increased surveillance?

1) Do you support an increased level of video surveillance in major US cities?
No, I do not. First thing, the video quality of the camera must be so good that you guarantee a positive identification. Once the City Officials guarantee the video quality of these cameras, then any would-be criminals could outsmart the system by using more sophisticated technology known as the hat and sunglasses. Then what do you do?

2) Is a decrease in the crime rate worth any possible civil liberty infractions?
This is a false choice. You could decrease the crime rate without infringing upon our civil liberties. Heck, you give all the money away that you would spend on these cameras and reduce the crime rate. Not to mention that the number of people that would be affected by a reduction in civil liberties would be far greater than the number of criminals that would be put behind bars. What is the criminal element of our society? Based on our prison population it is between 2% and 5%, both in and out of jail. So you think 95% of our society is supposed to make concessions because of this minority? I don't agree.

3) Would you feel safer walking city streets at night knowing that there is increased surveillance?
This is another false choice. Some guy comes up behind me and cracks my head open with a metal pipe and takes my wallet. I'm supposed to feel safe because it is caught on video? I don't think so. The possibility of someone robbing me makes me feel unsafe regardless. Downtown St. Louis has a gas station with homeless people swarming about it every night. I can't walk across the street and buy a soda without being propositioned for change. Each one of these people is desperate enough to be a potential mugger. Get them a job and they won't be begging for change. They won't be so desperate. If you think about it, a homeless person starving every night on the street could mug someone get caught and have a bed to sleep in, a shower to use, and 3 meals to eat everyday. Those are tax payer's dollars too, so why not forego the incarceration and enable this person to provide a living for themselves? We go about crime all wrong in this country which is why we have the highest prison population in the world. And we're supposed to be the most civilized...Right.

Do you support an increased level of video surveillance in major US cities?
I do support it.

Is a decrease in the crime rate worth any possible civil liberty infractions?
I believe so. I mean, how is it really an infraction of one's civil liberties to be videotaped walking down the street or whatever else one might be doing in public. It is public domain and I see no problem with such a measure being implemented.

Would you feel safer walking city streets at night knowing that there is increased surveillance?
Of course. I think that the majority of women will probably support such a measure. In fact, I do not really see a down side. It's not like they are putting cameras in public restrooms or other semi-private public places. IT would seem to me that the only people who might be adamantly opposed are criminals.

1. No. I distrust anyone who says less privacy means more safety. There isn't a shortage of cameras watching and monitoring us as we go about our daily routines. If you walk into a store, run a red light or visit a sick aunt in the hospital, you're being spied upon. It is relentless and the more we meekly submit to the spread of survelliance devices and cameras the more they will spread into every corner of our life.

I refer you to an ACLU report about the proliferation of cameras in New York City.

A 1998 study conducted by the NYCLU identified 2,397 video surveillance cameras visible from street level in Manhattan. Seven years later nearly that same number of surveillance cameras was counted in just one area of lower Manhattan that comprises Greenwich Village and SoHo. The 2005 survey found 4176 cameras below Fourteenth Street, more than five times the 769 cameras counted in that area in 1998. Two hundred and ninety-two surveillance cameras were spotted in central Harlem, where cameras literally line 125th Street.

Mission creep—the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals—is well-documented in the government’s handling of sensitive
personal information. History has shown that databases created for one purpose are almost inevitably used for other, not always legitimate,
purposes. In the absence of legal constraints, the illicit purposes for which video images may be used are limited only by the imagination.
Police officials could create a video archive of anti-war protestors. An NYPD video unit might target black or Latino youth who enter a majority-white neighborhood. A security professional could use video records to stalk someone.

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/surveillance_cam...port_121306.pdf

2. The NYCLU report indicates an increase in cameras does not necessarily lead to a decrease in crime.

In testimony before the New York City Council in 2006, the commanding officer of the police department’s Technical Assistance Response
Unit claimed that the department’s Video Interactive Patrol Enhancement Response (VIPER) program offered proof that cameras deter crime.

The numbers the officer cited look very convincing. The VIPER program, a collaboration between the NYPD and the New York City Housing
Authority, operates 3,100 monitored cameras in fifteen public housing buildings. The cameras were installed in 1997; during the following
year, the officer asserted, the monitored buildings experienced 36 percent less crime on average than in the year before installation

But close examination shows that these numbers do not prove what the NYPD would like them to prove. In fact, crime decreased steadily throughout the city during the decade of the ’90s, when these cameras were installed. The expansion of the police force and the NYPD’s introduction of Compstat, a computer system that facilitated more effective allocation of police resources, are widely credited with contributing to a decline in the city’s crime rate—from approximately 5,000 crimes per 100,000 residents in 1994 to approximately 3,000 per 100,000 residents in 2000. Thus the decrease in crime in the VIPER buildings, social scientists say, was to be expected—cameras or no cameras. In fact, no researcher has produced conclusive evidence that cameras deter crime.

It isn’t for lack of trying. During the 1990s, after a member of Congress demanded a comprehensive investigation into the surveillance of federal property in Washington D.C., the federal government initiated a study that sought to evaluate the efficacy of video surveillance. Researchers from the government’s General Accounting Office interviewed public officials, analyzed documents from four American cities that used video surveillance, and toured CCTV control rooms and law enforcement offices in England. The final report of the General Accounting Office, published in June 2003, concluded that there was simply not enough evidence to determine whether cameras were preventing crime.

Law enforcement agencies are like all bureauracies. They want more money for more exotic and expensive toys. Each and every one is promised to be utilized in the fight against crime, but there is no guarantee that filming and videotaping citizens won't be used for the wrong reasons.

Two examples:

The VIPER program was little known, except perhaps to residents of public housing, until the spring of 2004, when the videotaped suicide
of twenty-two-year-old Paris Lane in the lobby of the Morris Houses in the Bronx found its way onto Consumption Junction, an Internet site
devoted to pornography and violence.30 The video of Lane’s death was labeled "Introducing: The Self-Cleansing Housing Project." News of
the video’s presence on the Internet site reached Lane’s foster mother, Martha Williams, just after she had returned to work following Lane’s
death. "I started healing, and this kicked me backwards," Williams said. "My whole body was shaking."

A man and woman who shared an intimate moment on a dark and secluded rooftop in August 2004 learned later that they had been secretly watched by police officers charged with conducting surveillance of nearby protest rallies. From a custom-built $9.8 million helicopter equipped with optical equipment capable of displaying a license plate 1,000 feet away, police officers tracked bicycle riders moving through the streets of the Lower East Side. Then, using the camera’s night vision capability, one officer shifted the focus away from the protestors and recorded nearly four minutes of the couple’s activities on the terrace of their Second Avenue apartment. "When you watch the tape, it makes you feel kind of ill," said Jeffrey Rosner, 51, one of the two who were taped. " had no idea they were filming me. Who would ever have an idea like that?"

How is the public safety protected by exploiting a young man's suicide on the Internet or some bored cops spying on an amorous couple engaged in sexual activity? Short answer: not at all.

3. I'd rather have more police officers on foot and in cars patrolling the streets than the false security that comes with a unblinking camera.



Actually doomed planet, they ARE putting cameras in public restrooms and other semi-private public places. The word "private" doesn't quite mean what it used to.

(2005) A Jasper County mother says her 8th grade son found a video camera taping in the school bathroom this week. But now, he is the one in trouble.

Cindy Champion says her son, Mac Bedor, and a few of his friends took the camera out of the ceiling because they felt it violated their privacy. Champion says her son brought the camera home to show her that afternoon. She says when she contacted the Jasper County Comprehensive School, she found out high school principal, Howard Fore, put the camera there. She says Fore told her he put the camera in the boys' bathroom to catch students vandalizing. Champion says her son is now suspended for taking school property. link 1

(2007) They're watching while you shop, but they are not supposed to be watching while you dress.

Wal-Mart security keeps an eye out for shoplifters from video cameras inside darkened half globes that dot the ceiling at the Butler Plaza store. Apparently, some of the plastic bubbles do not have cameras.

That is the case, store officials say, with the globe a woman noticed from the women's dressing room recently.

According to her husband, the 54-year-old Hernando County woman, who asked not to be identified, was trying on loose-fitting cotton tops the week of June 20 when she noticed the reflection in one of the globes in the dressing room mirror. He said it had a line of sight from about her torso up.

She was already sensitive, he said, because she was in town for breast cancer radiation treatment and had temporary tattoos on her skin to aim the machines.

"She was really upset to think that someone was watching her or even filming her," her husband said. "Women shouldn't have to put up with cameras in the dressing room." link2

COOKEVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A jury awarded $40,000 each to 32 students who were taped by security cameras in a middle school's locker rooms.

The cameras, which could be accessed remotely through the Internet, were inside girls and boys locker rooms for visiting sports teams at Livingston Middle School. The cameras taped students undressing between August 2002 and January 2003.

After a four-week trial, a jury on Tuesday found the Overton County School Board and the security company Edutech Inc. guilty of civil negligence.

"The families are grateful to the jury for holding the defendants responsible," said Kathryn Barnett, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

School officials said in court documents that the dressing rooms were converted from storage rooms after the cameras were installed and the cameras were intended to monitor an outside door and hallway. link3

(2006) Houston's police chief is suggesting putting surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets and even private homes.

Chief Harold Hurtt today said it's another way of combatting crime amid a shortage of officers.

Houston Mayor Bill White hasn't talked with Hurtt about his idea, but sees it as more of a "brainstorm" than a "decision."

link4

As long as you've got nothing to hide how could anyone be opposed to having cameras everywhere you go? Watching every step you take and every move you make. Sounds like a great idea.

But supppose a camera spots you going into a strip club or a gay bar or an adult bookstore? Suppose the camera catches you spanking an unruly child in public? What if you spit on the sidewalk or throw your trash at a garbage can and miss? How mundane are we going to get before it becomes obvious we've gone too far and given up too much?

A friend of mine warned me the government wants to put tracking devices in our bodies to monitor our movements. I said that was nonsense.

Did I speak too soon?

Well, I am obviously not in agreement with the above situation.



That's also not a good scenario and supports your argument very well.



Like I alluded to in my first post, I am in support of cameras in public areas and that would exclude any place where a degree of privacy is assumed.




Within reason, it is a great idea. If strict perimeters were implemented, whereby citizen's are not being exploited as you have pointed out in the above stories, it could be a way to prevent crime.



I'm all for catching spitters and strip club vistitors. Are we talking about a slippery slope argument or is there real cause for concern. As you have pointed out, perhaps there is real cause. I don't know the right answer on that one.

Do you support an increased level of video surveillance in major US cities?
Yes/no/maybe.

Is a decrease in the crime rate worth any possible civil liberty infractions?
No decrease in crime rate. Boys are taking pictures of gang rape on their cell phones. Cameras are supposed to make a difference? Maybe things will change once we address socioeconomic causes of crime and rely less on technology to affect future human behavior. We're stuck in a James Bond time warp where little gadgets save the day. Besides, mounting cheap, portable cameras everywhere is so much cheaper than training and retaining police, social workers, etc.

Would you feel safer walking city streets at night knowing that there is increased surveillance?
There could be a camera everywhere and I'd still look over my shoulder. Rape/theft is a crime of opportunity that has never, and will never, be mitigated by an eye in the sky. It may help police capture a suspect, even clear a suspect of committing a crime, but it won't stop crime. We've run out of time once a crime is in process.

As for privacy concerns, I would apply the same rule journos go by. If it's in the street, in public, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However there's no reason for cities to mount a camera right outside your home or at busy intersections to take a picture of your face instead of your license plate. There's no justification for any school, or WalMart or any retailer to mount a camera inside a bathroom or a dressing room. They may certainly think they're justified, but people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom and a dressing room and that privacy trumps property concerns.

1) Do you support an increased level of video surveillance in major US cities?

I am very much against an Orwellian measure such as this. It is quite fascinating how quickly we have fallen into this mindset that our civil liberties should be disregarded in order to promote safety. This surveillance society where you cannot go from one place to another without being seen by Big Brother is right in line with many of the dystopian nightmares that are predicted for the future. I like to think of myself as a somewhat reasonable person who doesnt jump to irrational conclusions. But i must say that recent events have really made me nervous. Increased surveillance, increased size of the federal government, the power of the federal reserve, and other things really make you think about the state of this country.

Is a decrease in the crime rate worth any possible civil liberty infractions?

I think nighttimer and others have provided ample evidence to show that cameras do not deter crime. The fact is that unless a crime is committed on the street, any evidence gathered (where a person is between X and Y) is circumstantial. Unless the cameras have xray. The loss of civil liberties are not even close to worth the supposed added protection.



I keep hearing this argument and I really wanted to tackle it because I believe it is based on false premises. Yes, going outside into the daylight means that you have a reasonable expectation that somebody who is also outside may see you by pure coincidence. But when did it become reasonable to expect that someone, using a camera, would be able to watch your every move? The right to privacy, although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is a check on the power of government. The state should not be able to violate it. Being outside doesnt mean that I expect someone to be surveilling me constantly. It really takes a giant leap in logic to say that being in the public sphere means that the government can give you your own personal satellite.

1) Do you support an increased level of video surveillance in major US cities?
I liked Lesly's answer, "yes/no/maybe". The answer really depends on the context. In the NYC example, the answer is no. As others have already testified, the benefit is fleeting at best, and nonexistent at worst.

2) Is a decrease in the crime rate worth any possible civil liberty infractions?
The long answer here is, "it depends", but the default answer is "probably not". Giving up liberty for the sake of security usually means that you wind up with less of both (thanks to Ben Franklin for that one). That's what people didn't get with the Patriot Act. We didn't actually need a new set of government regulations for surveillance. What we needed to do was better use the information we already had. We had all the intel we needed to prevent 9/11, we simply lacked the communications and processes to account for the threats properly and act on them. But people wanted to see "action" in response to 9-11, and the reduction of our civil liberties was the result.

3) Would you feel safer walking city streets at night knowing that there is increased surveillance?
Not one bit. First, because it would require someone to be actively watching those screens. Second, it would require sufficient detail of the assailant to make it worthwhile, and that likely won't be funded.

1) Do you support an increased level of video surveillance in major US cities?

No. In my opinion, the surveillance currently in use is already too intrusive. I have no desire to live in a world where every movement is monitored and every word uttered is recorded. Far too Orwellian for my comfort.

Speaking of Orwell, here is an irony for you: within 200 yards of Orwell’s former home, there are 32 surveillance cameras.

2) Is a decrease in the crime rate worth any possible civil liberty infractions?

I agree with barnaby2341 in that this is a false premise.

Criminals aren’t usually the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, and surveillance cameras haven’t deterred the determined criminal from committing a crime so far; so what’s the point of more cameras?

We have become far too willing to give up our rights for what amounts to the mere possibility of a boogie man hiding under our beds.

3) Would you feel safer walking city streets at night knowing that there is increased surveillance?

No. Why would I? If someone is determined to commit a crime, cameras aren’t going to make a hill of beans’ worth of difference. A hat or a hoodie is all it takes to foil a camera.

This isn't the impression I want to give. In privacy tort a hostage running out of a house doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy with police, gawkers, and the media waiting outside. It may be tacky to take a picture and publish it, but exceptional circumstances don't create a temporary zone of privacy. Municipal, state and federal governments can't offer a legitimate public concern to mount cameras in the examples I gave, but they may want to use cameras around known congested highways—cameras that can't zoom in and count the freckles on your face—for traffic control purposes.

I see little point in arguing there shouldn't be government operated cameras at all without also arguing there shouldn't be privately operated cameras. Getting a warrant for recorded evidence on private property is laughably easy. The problem isn't using cameras when it serves a purpose other than surveilling your population. The problem is the public and private sectors' propensity to encroach on our reasonable expectations of privacy to the point where it's restricted to our residence for "crime prevention" and commercial related purposes.

Unfortunately, I had to vote "No", because there was no option for "Hell No And The Horse It Rode In On".

When it comes to privacy infractions like this, people keep missing the point over and over again. It's not about how much a particular individual might be "harmed" by having his picture taken. It's about giving government too much information over us. That shifts the balance of power between them and us to an unacceptable degree. They do not need to know where we're going, what we're doing, whom we're meeting with, etc., etc., at all times. They just don't.

Questions for Debate:

1) Do you support an increased level of video surveillance in major US cities?

I know from watching television that every ATM has a camera monitoring its environment, whether that location is a gas station, a Seven-Eleven or, according to this evening's news, coming soon to a church near you to make it easier to donate and get a tax receipt.

The little plastic domes hanging from the ceilings in so many stores are already monitoring customers and thieves alike.

Most cell phones, I gather, have the ability to make short video clips.

Why should we spend tax dollars on a system like London's? I think the news reported that they have millions of cameras in place. How can they effectively monitor that much data input?

2) Is a decrease in the crime rate worth any possible civil liberty infractions?

Locally we have watched as the police posted signs saying that they were enforcing seat belt laws, reported it in the newspaper and on television, placed about a dozen patrols cars prominently in the enforcement zones, and had officers standing watching the traffic. Most of the patrol cars were prominent because their lights were flashing.

In a local Wal-Mart a few years back, one of the employees was working his way through college in a course designed to prepare him for police work. His job involved among other things, monitoring their cameras. He was arrested for shoplifting from Wal-Mart.

I am not convinced that someone who intends to commit a crime will necessarily take into account the idea that s/he might get caught.

3) Would you feel safer walking city streets at night knowing that there is increased surveillance?

While walking city streets at night, it has been my experience that I am most likely to be harrassed by the police. If they have cameras in place to spot me, as well as the occasional frightened citizen, I feel that I would be far more likely to be stopped and hassled by the city's finest.

I disagree. It is in fact only a very small step, and one that technology makes simply inevitable. What really is the difference between being seen by the police (or other government agency) walking a beat, or being seen on video? Nothing, really. In fact, there's more separation with the video camera, since it can't directly take any action against you.

Again, they're not watching your every move. They're not, in fact, watching your moves at all. They are surveilling a place, not a person. Such activity became reasonable to expect when technology and cost made it feasible. If you disagree, please elaborate on why exactly such an expectation is not reasonable (note: not why you don't like it, but why you wouldn't expect it).

I further disagree with the 'own personal satellite' concept. Installing a video camera somewhere places that camera in a fixed position. It's no one's 'own personal satellite'. In fact, all it does it take a picture of the street, sidewalk, whereever it is installed. As such, it doesn't target anyone at all. No one would object to having a policeman stand watch there. What is the difference between having a camera there, and having a policeman standing at that corner? Nothing, other than expense. This is simply technology making something cheaper. Is having such a policeman not avert their eyes when we (not others, naturally, but just us ) walk by an invasion of privacy? Certainly not. Somehow the fact that it is a camera creates the invasion? Again, certainly not--if watching in person is not a violation, then why would watching via any other means become one? In fact, as the article states, there are hundreds of such cameras already in place, and those obviously weren't violating anyone's rights, or this argument wouldn't be occurring. Tell me, then, EXACTLY which additional one created the violation? The 961st? The 1,412th? The 2,679th? Which one? If you can't answer that, then there is no argument to be held.

1) Do you support an increased level of video surveillance in major US cities?

Sure. I don't feel it is a violation of my rights at all. Which right, exactly? The right to walk around town without anyone seeing you? Help me out here, I forget which Amendment that one was. Such surveillance is simply inevitable. The only reason it wasn't being done before is technology and expense limitations. What are we all doing that we don't want police to see, anyway?

2) Is a decrease in the crime rate worth any possible civil liberty infractions? I disagree with the premise of this question. Installing video cameras in public places doesn't bring about any civil liberty violations. So, the question simply becomes 'Is a decrease in crime good?'. I would think the answer to that is obvious.

3) Would you feel safer walking city streets at night knowing that there is increased surveillance?

Yes. Even if it has no bearing on a crime committed against me, it makes it more likely the culprit will be caught. That will decrease the number of such culprits, both physically and because word will get around that if you commit crimes there you'll be caught. Why do you think they install cameras in banks, etc? More importantly, how come no one feels that violates anyone's right to go into a bank? Cameras disincent crime, that's why they're installed. Disincenting crime is not a bad thing.

Dude... I could care less. This thinking is interesting to me. If someone parks in a lot or on the street on Greenville ave in Dallas, and their truck is broken into... who do they call? I bet the camera would've been GREAT!

I'd think if there were cameras in higher crime areas (i.e. Deep Ellum) in Dallas, people would pay 2x-3x for those parking spots.

It's a deterrent. It's not going into your home or office. I personally don't like the red light cameras in Dallas because I usually am burning through Yellow Lights. Guess that says something doesn't it.



Know what else? Having a camera gives an objective account. No more of that "police harassment" jazz. No more subjectiveness. Oh- and did you mention it's cheap? Durable? Doesn't mind the heat or rain?

I actually had something to that effect included in my post, but didn't like the way I had it worded, so I took it out. The point being that many of the issues people are concerned with regarding potential violations are worse without the cameras than they are with them. I would indeed often prefer video surveillance to having a policeman there for the reasons you mention--the camera is objective, whereas the policeman is sometimes not. Also, the camera records the event for review later, and is indeed reviewed by multiple people. Therefore, it disincents police from violating your rights, as well as criminals.

It's a much more effective tool for taking action against people. The more information the government has over people, the better able it is to control them. As I'm sure I'll keep having to explain, it's not the "violation" of a particular individual that's at stake when it comes to camera surveillance. It's the overall balance of power between government and people. Totalitarian societies are all premised on broad surveillance.

I would say, as Aevans pointed out, that it is a much more objective means. It is in fact less effective, since the camera can't take any action against you at all, whereas a policeman there could. If a policeman were there instead of a camera, he could take direct action against you, and you'd have no evidence to refute his claims of your activity. With a camera, you would. Cameras therefore prevent the very issues you're concerned about, not cause them. If it's information the government has that worries you, this should be like item # 96,513 on the list of things to be concerned about. The are countless other areas where the government already accesses information that shold be far more concerning. I don't really see installing a video camera to surveil a parking lot as tilting the balance of power between government and the people. It does, however, sgnificantly alter the relationship between police and criminals in that area.

As for increased surveillance, it is simply inevitable as technology makes is available. An argument against installing a particular camera can only really be made if there would be an objection to having a policeman watch that same area. As long as it is a public place, that objection won't be valid, and so cameras will be installed. As I pointed out earlier, does installing cameras at banks (where they've been for quite some time) infringe on anyone's right to go to the bank? No, of course not.

I DO understand the more generic issue you are concerned about. However, given the inevitability of the increased surveillance, I feel we should be addressing that concern by strengthening laws against using such information inappropriately--not by resisting the surveillance. Doing the former still allows the cameras to be used for their real purpose, to disincent crime, while still addressing the concern about illegitimate uses. In fact, I don't think existing laws would probably need to be strengthened at all--there are laws currently in place restricting such behaviour. Again, tens of thousands of these cameras are already in place, with no issues. Clearly, then, they're not being abused. Big brother may indeed be watching, but he's looking for criminals, not trying to subvert the public.

No one action makes the difference between day and night. You asked earlier which specific camera crossed the unacceptable threshold, and then declared that inability to answer that question negates one's whole position. But that's a totally specious argument. Can you tell me the exact point in the intestine the jejunum ends and the ileum begins? Or how about the precise wavelength that marks the boundary between the ultraviolet spectrum and the X-ray spectrum? There's no scientific answer in either case, yet scientists distinguish between the two all the time. Likewise, there's no exact point where day becomes dusk, and dusk becomes night. What we do know is that there is a point beyond which it is night.


When the people charged with enforcing those laws are the ones conducting the surveillance, good luck trying to get that to stick. There's only one way to ensure that the information won't be misused by the authorities, and that's by not letting them collect it in the first place.

I don't like it but it wouldn't change my day any.
What's the issue? Don't break the law, you're good to go. Don't cheat on your spouse, you're good to go. Just be normal. Upthread NT posted some thoughts by the ACLU... if they're against it then it must be bad for criminals so I'm for it.
I'm 6'2", I run around 200lbs, I hold belts in multiple disciplines, some days I walk around with my iPod out just hoping some little... Seriously though, no. The cameras won't protect me just make it possible to ID the guy who shot me.

Eloquent means of completely avoiding the question.

I would say that in fact adding these cameras brings criminals into the daylight. If you look at the spectrum of what information COULD be available (and probably will sooner rather than later), then the sun is barely up, and we're just entering dawn. If you feel this is indeed night, then see below....



Then we are all doomed to be subverted, then, because it WILL become available, and they WILL collect it, and in fact they WILL be getting access to more and more and more of it all the time. In fact, as I said, this particular item is WAY down the list of things the government already has access to that we should be concerned about. Keep in mind, that with our entire judicial system, it is the ones charged with enforcing the laws that are conducting the surveillance. So, might as well run for the hills now, as following this line of reasoning, all is already lost. You might get mugged on the way, though, as no camera's would be in place on your route to disincent the act.

Logical and reasoned as always, Hobbes, but I think you're giving "Big Brother" too much credit. Left to their own devices government and law enforcement officials want more information, not less and we are told it is for our own good. However, when the powers-that-be withhold information from us, is that for our own good as well?

For example, the Oklahoma City bombing happened 12 years ago. Timothy McVeigh is dead and gone. But according to critics of the government's investigation of the terrorist act, they are refusing to divulge what images were captured from the surveillance cameras in the proximity of the Murrah Building.

Disinformation: There were a couple of surveillance cameras right out side the Murrah Building that would have caught everything on tape that morning--they would have shown who pulled the Ryder truck up to the building, and how the building came down. The FBI confiscated the film from those cameras and they're not releasing it. If the FBI would just release those tapes, then we could see exactly what happened, couldn't we? The film would show who drove the Ryder truck up to the building.

Charles Key: Yes, they could prove real easily with those tapes and with some others across the street that they also will not release whether or not people like me are a bunch of conspiracy theorists or not, you know. They could prove finally whether or not McVeigh really was alone, and whether there really was another car, other vehicles across the street, that were working in conjunction with his activities.

Disinformation: They won't release those?

Charles Key: They will not release them. Recently we had a Freedom of Information Act trial here in an attempt to get the government to release the tapes. They stonewalled it. They won't release them.

disinformation? (I freely admit Disinformation.com is not an unbiased source, but despite the political slant of the site, the facts are facts.)

As recently as 2005 Fox News and CNN reported the surveillance camera footage has still not been released.

A number of eyewitnesses said they saw McVeigh with other men at a variety of locations in Oklahoma and Kansas before the attack. Some accounts put McVeigh with other men on the morning of the bombing — but the FBI has ruled them out.

Pictures made from surveillance video at the Regency Tower Apartments are the only images related to the attack that have been released to the public.

Oklahoma City attorney Michael Johnston said the FBI was not given all the tapes from as many as twenty-five cameras that he says were in and around the Murrah Building.

“If they're really non-consequential, it wouldn't hurt anything. If indeed they show something I think the American public, after a decade, has the right to know,” he said.

Johnston, on behalf of twenty-five victims’ families, filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for all of the surveillance videos. FOX News also filed a FOI request. The FBI has denied both cases on account that the case is still open.

"We can’t expect to get that footage until after that case is closed and then I think you will," said FBI agent Jon Hersley.

Fox News

So...like, what's the hold up?

I disagree that the continuing expansion and usage of cameras is "inevitable." It will be as long as we buy into the idea that to increase our security we have to diminish our privacy. That is how we go down the road to Big Brother watching every step we take and every move we make. Protecting ourselves from ourselves is always the rationalization.



That's a bit simplistic, don't you think BA? You can hate on the ACLU if you want, but if you actually read some of the report you might not be so untroubled.

It's not just a matter of "don't break the law" because the law keeps changing and what's okay today may be illegal tomorrow. People peacefully demonstrating with a legal permit aren't breaking the law, but why are the police and other agencies filming them in the act?

First thing, your hypothetical doesn't address the hundreds of other cars that are parked in the lot that aren't broken into. Second, the breaking into of cars is done for a reason, because something of value is in there. Don't leave it out in the open. Who leaves their wallet, purse, camera, or cash laying on their dashboard? In a good neighborhood, much less a bad one. I'm living proof that this hypothetical is nonsense. I park every night on the street at an intersection that has homeless people wandering about, desperate and starving. My car is usually the only car on the street and in the last year it has been broken into zero times. I live in St. Louis and all metros are pretty much the same. So Dallas is no worse than St. Louis or Detroit, or wherever.

Finally, you are exactly the reason why the cops and gov't want those cameras, to catch people going through red and yellow lights. It's a way to generate revenue. These cameras aren't for safety, that's the lie told to the public. If you were told, that these cameras are going to be used to increase the number of traffic violations because the Court House needs repairs would you approve it? Hell no you wouldn't. That's exactly what's going on. This is just another way to collect taxes without directly raising your taxes. Have you ever noticed that on certain nights the police are pulling people over at a higher rate than usual? They do it all the time and it's not because people are driving especially bad on those days. It's because the department is under-budget. How many times a day do you think people run red lights? Probably in the thousands. The cops can fine those people running red lights by just sending them a citation in the mail. Do all people receive a citation? No, just enough to meet the needs of the budget. Besides, when the hell have the cops ever cared about your safety? Never.

No, it directly answers the question you asked above: "Tell me, then, EXACTLY which additional one created the violation? The 961st? The 1,412th? The 2,679th? Which one? If you can't answer that, then there is no argument to be held." What avoids the question is your assumption that this will be an inevitable development. Aside from the fact that it won't, it's not what the debate questions asked. It asked if we support the idea. If you consider it inevitable, then why did you even bother to reply to this thread? Apparently you don't consider it inevitable without a certain amount of advocacy.


That's right, because mugging was a constant problem all throughout U.S. history before there were cameras...

Blackstone, the point is that such thousands of such cameras are ALREADY in place, throughout the U.S. So, yes, indeed it is inevitable, since it's already been done. That's what makes the other question relevant--since we aren't having this discussion about the FIRST cameras, we're having this discussion some thousands of cameras down the road. If indeed this is a terrible, terrible thing...well, that cat's already out of the bag. If it's not a terrible, terrible thing (and I don't believe anyone on this thread has cited any actual abuses occurring from the thousands of cameras already in place), then there really isn't much of an argument against it. Also, if it is a terrible, terrible thing...which camera crossed that line, and why? Clearly, it wasn't the first thousands of them, otherwise there would be numerous citations for all the abuses that have occurred. So, what's so terrible then about these new ones?

All of which also ignores the question of why is having a camera in these places so bad when having a policeman physically there wouldn't even raise an eyebrow, and in fact would probably be commended? As aevans stated, cameras are more objective than a policeman would be, so if abuse is the issue, the camera would be better than the policeman. I guess this begs a question not asked in the debate: aren't such cameras more likely to protect our rights than they are to detract from them? Not only would they deter crime, they would also deter policeman in the area from acting inappropriately against us.



Touche'.

Again, it doesn't work that way. It's not: one camera=one abuse. It's that giving government too much information over the people's activities tips the balance of power between government and people to an extremely dangerous degree.

Until you address that point, this discussion will only keep going around in circles. (as night follows day...)

We are addressing that point. My question, given that thousands of such cameras are already out there (with no reported abuses), is which new one tips the balance? Until you address that question, this discussion won't even be going in circles, because it won't even be a discussion. I get the whole balance of power thing. I'm not one who readily gives the government any power at all (preferring to keep the balance firmly on my side ). So far, what we have is tens of thousands of cameras = no abuses. That's what brings my question into such sharp bearing. Unless there's some sound reasoning why a few more cameras suddenly then tips the balance so far towards the government, then there indeed isn't much reason for a discussion. Nighttimer did bring up a good point about the government refusing to release such tapes to the public, and I did grant that that is indeed a concern. Still, we've not seen one single mention on this thread of anyone suffering wrongly as a result of these cameras. Not one. That's pretty strong evidence in my favor, and so far all its countered by is this slippery slope argument. Granted, it may be a big pit at the end of that slippery slope, but a slippery slope it is, and one which I can stand at the top of, and proclaim that not one single person has yet slid into the pit.

How can you know if some one fell into the pit?

It seems to me as if this matter revolves around the intentions of the poeple in control of the camera's and you have to ask yourself (do you feel lucky punk?) ...if you trust human beings enough to take the risk that the paraphenalia of security is not going to become the means by which the 'secret police' monitor you.

The USA is after all nototious for eavesdropping. It operates hundreds, possibly thousands of systems to keep track of what is happening both within and beyond its terrestrial borders and this surveillance domination is one of the reasons why the USA is so often labelled as an 'evil empire'.

The current Bush administration is widely feared also because it has sought to extend its control over people's lives by keeping tabs on their movement. If I were to come visiting to the USA for example, I would be finger printed at the airport as if I were a criminal. I shall not be visiting the USA and this is one of the reasons why.

We don't yet have so many camera's in my country, but they are being debated. I personally would rather not have them outside busy commerical area's. I don't trust human beings. They are essentially corrupt and will abuse power if they feel they benefit sufficiently. The posibility that a camera will solve a crime (for they can't really prevent them) seems a small benefit to compensate for the loss of one's privacy which will certainly happen once camera's start popping up all over the place as they have done in London.

Of course, I am a social misfit. Almost a recluse. I do not like the idea of being watched by a malignent person. I feel at a disadvantage when ever I see a CCTV camera for I have no way of ever knowing who or what is watching me.

Not one reported incident of it so far. Not even any reports of screams in the area. Just signs stating 'potential pit ahead'.



...which is weighed against the intentions of criminals in the area. I KNOW I don't trust them.



Exactly why this particular issue is so far down the list of things to be concerned about. There are countless ways the government can intentionally target you to gather information. Looking through cameras in random locations in the hope you walk by and do something illicit is just not going to be on the evil empire's 'things to do today' list.



It's not so much that a camera WILL solve a crime, but the simple fact that criminals will think it might. If cameras are so useless for such deterrence (or crime solving), why do we see them in every bank in America? Because they just had thousands of dollars lying around with nothing important to spend it on? No, cameras are there because they are effective. Put some up on a random street, and you'll discover that street has less burglaries. If there aren't less burglaries, then the perps will be more likely to be caught, leading to.....less burglaries.

Also, I still disagree that this is any loss of privacy at all. Do those cameras in banks infringe on our right to go to the bank? No. They should be even more suspect there, as they could also be recording your financial transactions. But we don't mind them a bit. Why these, then? Further, no one would complain about a cop being in the same areas these cameras are installed. Yet a policeman alone would be more capable of infringing on your rights than the camera would, as he could say you were doing any number of things, and you'd have no evidence to contradict. But, no one complains about having more cops on patrol. All this is is a cost effective means of providing police with the ability to monitor an area. That's a good thing. Any bad thing that stems from it should be vigorously pursued. So far, no one here has provided any evidence that has happened yet. Hence, it is purely a slippery slope argument, and one that neglects the opposite slope, which allows criminals free reign to roam in these areas.

I don't believe it would be worth it. This is nothing more than a high tech fishing expedition that erases our given right of presumption of innocence. Everyone in public is immediately "suspect" and unjustifiably so.



I would feel safter with a stepped up police presence, not a camera presence. Cameras are a good way for cities to reduce payments, but they are worth nothing when it comes to preventing or stopping a crime, as opposed to a police officer who is nearby.


National Capital Area chapter of the ACLU news release

Here's the crux of the problem. You're referring to it as a "potential" pit, as though it's just one of several possibilities. In fact, it's an all but certain pit, just from knowing what we know about human nature, as well as the nature of governments that operate and have operated massive surveillance systems.

As for the opposite side of the slope, there are already ways of dealing with that problem. What was street crime like 50 years ago compared to today? Maybe we can get back to some of the ways they did things then.


You haven't at all explained why it's necessary to isolate which particular one it is. As I already explained, there is a point beyond which the balance is tipped. Since we don't know where that is, it's best not to err on the side of government - preferring as you do to keep the balance "firmly" on our side.

Ok. Then, given that there are already tens of thousands of such cameras out there, you shouldn't have any problem citing numerous examples where this has happened. So far, in this thread, there hasn't even been one. Until that evidence is presented, it is indeed 'potential pit ahead'.

That would require completely changing today's culture. If you have a plan for that, please share.



Which brings us back to 'potential pit ahead'.

That's kinda like driving full speed towards the edge of a cliff and remarking how nothing bad has happened yet.

No, it's like driving down the country side, noting that the people in the car in the next lane are freaking out over nothing, making some wild mumblings about some cliff that no one has ever seen.

Again, so far all we have are signs stating potential pit/cliff/<insert dark fate of your choosing>, when the simple fact that tens of thousands of these cameras are out there with so far not one incident brought up in this thread provides strong evidence that there is in fact no pit/cliff/<insert dark fate of your choosing>, or that at the very least that the rumours of such are grossly exaggerated. Do you ever go into a bank? If so, then you don't even believe the portentious signs yourself, as they've had cameras for decades, and could be recording your financial transactions as well while you were there--far more serious than the street cameras we're talking about here.

I'm really, really curious what everyone is doing while they're walking down these streets that they're so worried about the government getting their hands on? Maybe you should be worried . For me, if the government has everything else taken care of so well that watching me walk down the street has become their number 1 item of concern, then I'll figure we're well ahead of the game.

That's right, no one has ever seen a government use a massive domestic surveillance network for tyrannical purposes. What the hell was I thinking?

In seriousness, now, has anyone ever seen a government operate a massive domestic surveillance network without using it for nefarious purposes?


Of course they're recording my financial transactions. That's their freaking job. But the bank isn't the government.


Ah, the incompetence defense. Big fatal mistake. Governments like North Korea's are notoriously incompetent at providing services and a decent standard of living to their subjects, but they're quite competent at dealing with internal threats to their own power. Never assume that because a government is bad at doing what it's supposed to be doing, it therefore must be bad at doing what it's not supposed to be doing.

Questions for Debate:

1) Do you support an increased level of video surveillance in major US cities?
Yes, It will reduce crime including crimes against individuals such as rape and murder.

2) Is a decrease in the crime rate worth any possible civil liberty infractions?
What infractions. When you are in “public” you should not have an expectation of privacy. I see no issues.

3) Would you feel safer walking city streets at night knowing that there is increased surveillance?
Certainly. The evidence to support this is overwhelming.

What implication does that have for laws against stalking?


They've been raised pretty much throughout the thread.

Until you come up with an example of nefarious purpose from the tens of thousands of such cameras already in place, then yes, indeed, we do have an example, and it's us. Even one example would be nice, as there's really no argument at all without it. If there is just one, however, it's just that--just one example. Hardly indicative of massive nefarious purposes. But we haven't even seen one yet. Just that sign stating 'Potential pit ahead.'



Hmmm . What about monitoring our streets for criminals? Isn't that the police's freaking job. Or does the that's their freaking job argument only work one way? And do you really think government has no other access to your financial records?

Also...given the assumption of this big bad government looking for any way to control you...why is recording your financial transactions no big deal, whereas recording you walking down the street suddenly becomes completely out of the question? What is it that you're doing walking down the street that is so likely to be potentially incriminating, anyway?



Ahh, the compare us to North Korea defense. Big fatal mistake. If I even have to go into the thousands of things that differentiate us from North Korea, then clearly there's no point in doing so. If you really feel that's where we are--then, as I said previously, all is already lost, and a few cameras really makes no difference whatsoever. If we're not there, then this is a completely irrelevant point. Either way, it's a losing argument.

I disagree, Hobbes, the issue isn't that cameras are useless as a deterrence. Nobody keeps statistics about crimes that aren't committed. Maybe a guy planning to jack a bank or a 7-11 who needs to buy drugs isn't going to be stopped by a camera or the "clerk carries no more than $20" sign. Stick up enough stores and that $20 can quickly become $40, $60 or $100.

Plus, according to FBI statistics a bank is robbed EVERY hour.

A computation of UCR Summary data showed that a bank robbery occurred just under every 52 minutes in 2001, accounting for 2.4 percent of all robbery in the United States.4 This represented a total loss of approximately $70 million. link

A camera may deter the occasionally or easily frightened criminal, but the hardcore, committed and determined criminal will find a way to beat the camera. Now to be fair bankersonline.com has a 15-point Best Practices to prevent bank robbery and closed circuit TV and cameras are part of the security plan. Now most bank robbers are not John Dillinger or master criminals like Robert DeNiro in Heat. According to the book, "How Not to Rob A Bank" by Tim Clark, despite the presence of surveillance cameras 76 percent of all bank robbers use no disguise at all.

Cameras don't stop crime. They only stop people who are deterred by the possibility/likelihood of being caught. Otherwise, banks get ripped off all the time. The reality cop shows never run out of footage of some thug walking into a carry-out and shooting the cashier, cameras be damned.

What stops crime are more and better trained police officers on foot and patrolling neighborhoods. What stops crime is giving young men and specifically young minority men better alternatives than gangs, drugs, and turning to crime. What stops crime is attacking not just the symptoms with more prisons, more cops, harsher and longer sentences, but attacking the root causes as well and nobody needs a listing of them from me.

Cameras are cool if you want to catch some moron smashing some poor slob upside the head at the ATM, but it doesn't do squat in addressing what drives a moron to smash the poor slob upside the head at the ATM in the first place. How long are we going to be satisfied with patchwork "solutions" on the cheap? Fighting crime is a lot more complicated than merely catching criminals in the act.




Thanks for the one-liner. Where's the proof?



Thanks for the one liners. Why should your right to privacy vanish because you are "in public?" Are you saying you implicitly trust law enforcement and public officials will protect your privacy better than you will?



Thanks for the one liner. Would you care to offer some evidence to support your claim?

No, fortunately we're not there yet.


Not to be recording everybody on camera, it isn't.


I'm sure it has access to all kind of things it shouldn't be getting its hands on. This thread deals with only one in particular.


Nope, just citing an example to show that government incompetence provides no safety factor. The rest of your paragraph follows from that bad premise you just stated.

Interesting anecdote...was walking into the breakroom here, and there sat a policeman monitoring the parking lot for the Hyatt hotel across the street. Apparently, there was a convention going on there, and hotel parking lots are rife with crime, especially during such times. We talked a bit about this thread. He did state that, to my point, cameras are just a more efficient means of such monitoring--he could only monitor the one parking lot, whereas with surveillance cameras in place, one person could monitor multiple lots at the same time. Same monitoring as what he was doing, just being done more efficiently. He stated that there are 43 surveillance cameras here in Dallas, whereas there are 4 million such cameras in London. He said that if you drive around London during the day, you probably get photographed about 25-30 times. He indicated that Europe was far ahead of us in this regard (ie, they've had these systems deployed for a long time now, since back in the early 70's in many cases). Question, then - is there widespread abuse being reported there? Any of our European posters care to comment? To Nighttimer's point, it would also be worthwhile to see if indeed there has been a reduction in crime. I continue to believe that it would have to. I would think you wouldn't deploy 4 million cameras if they weren't being effective. Criminals don't like committing crimes when they know they're being watched. Does it STOP such crime? Absolutely not. Does it help solve crimes when they are committed in a monitored area? Again, I would think it would have to. Consider that in one scenario you have no visual identification of the perpetrator, whereas in the other you do, and actually in a form that is readily examined for detail, and easily conveyed to others (unlike an eye witness account, for example). Naturally, those cases where such evidence existed would have a higher chance of being resolved. Nighttimer's bank example seems to demonstrate this. There may be one bank robbed per hour, but I see videos on TV all the time where the robber is captured on tape, and therefore subsequently caught. Fewer of them would be caught without the tape--is there really disagreement on that? Maybe discussion on exactly how many fewer, but not that it helps. I also see police stands in many parking lots here. Police shacks on an elevated platform--with blacked out windows. Why blacked out? So no one can see if there's even anybody in there. Why would they do that? Because the mere threat of surveillance cuts down on crime.

South Africa: Crime rate halved

New Orlean's Surveillance Cameras Credited with Reducing Downtown violent crime rate

There are also studies indicating cameras are not effective. Why is that?

Can Surveillance Cameras be Effective in Preventing Crime and Deterring Anti-Social Behaviour (this is really a very good article, covering pros and cons in an objective manner. I urge anyone interested to read it.



This