Security cameras in public?

[Mokele]

I thought I'd toss this out and see if I can generate a bit of discussion on the sbject. Every so often, you see proposals to put security cameras up in this or that crime-ridden area or an area which has recently had an increase in crime. And the reaction is almost invariably "OMG WTF 1984!!1!!11!". This puzzles me immensely.

 

If I were a politician, and I said "I'll put a policeman on every corner", I'd be hailed as a heroic crusader against crime (Ok, and also asked how I'd pay for it, but let's leave that out for the moment). But I said "I'll put a camera on every corner", I'd be thrown out of office and called a fascist.

 

But what's the difference, really, aside from the fact that a real live cop costs more and can intervene? In *both* cases you have someone watching you, in *both* there's a level of trust involved (that the government won't misuse tapes and that the cop isn't crooked), and both are in public. Most of the objections I often hear is that the government is spying on you, but the cameras are in *public*. If you don't want to be seen doing something, don't do it in public at all, cameras or no cameras.

 

Basically, I'm wondering why people consider a cop on every corner great, but a camera on every corner is somehow evil or totalitarian?

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

Just to spark the discussion a bit (stopping short of adding my opinion for the moment), an excellent book that deals with this subject is David Brin's "The Transparent Society". This is something he discusses at great length, and he makes the issue a lot more two-sided than some privacy advocates make it out to be. He even points out that there sesem to be two kinds of privacy advocates.

 

One of the questions we need to be asking here is whether transparency can be stopped at all. It's almost like James Burke's point at the end of Connections, where he talks about how "going back to a simpler time" is no longer an option. We can ignore the issue, but that doesn't make it go away. If we pay attention to it, however, we can have some modicum of control over who gets to 'wach the watchers', so to speak.

 

I think our friends in England on this board may have some more direct experience and insight on this issue, by the way.

[ecoli]

It starts with public cameras on every corner. Once people get used to that, I'd be afriad that it would escalate. "You put a frog in a pot of boiling water, and the frog jumps out immediately. You put a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog dies without even realizing it."

[Sayonara]

In the UK we just put them up and don't tell anyone.

 

They fight crime.

[Pangloss]

A brief excerpt from Brin's book:

 

There was once a kingdom where most people could not see. Citizens coped with this cheerfully, for it was a gentle land where familiar chores changed little from day to day.

 

Furthermore, about one person in a hundred did have eyesight! These specialists took care of jobs like policing, shouting directions, or reporting when something new was going on. The sighted ones weren't superior. They acquired vision by eating a certain type of extremely bitter fruit. Everyone else thanked them for undergoing this sacrifice, and so left the task of seeing to professionals. They went on with their routines, confident in a popular old saying:

 

"A sighted person never lies."

 

One day a rumor spread across the kingdom. It suggested that some of the sighted were no longer faithfully telling the complete truth. Shouted directions sometimes sent normal blind people into ditches. Occasional harsh laughter was heard.

 

Several of the sighted came forward and confessed that things were worse than anyone feared. "Some of us appear to have been lying for quite a while. A few even think it's funny to lead normal blind people astray!

 

"This power is a terrible temptation. You will never be able to tell which of us is lying or telling the truth. Even the best of the sighted can no longer be trusted completely."

 

This news worried all the blind subjects of the kingdom. Some kept to their homes. Others banded together in groups, waving sticks and threatening the sighted, in hopes of ensuring correct information. But those who could see just started disguising their voices.

 

One faction suggested blinding everybody, permanently, in order to be sure of true equality -- or else setting fires to shroud the land in a smoky haze. "No one can bully anybody else, if we're all in the dark," these enthusiasts urged.

 

As time passed, more people tripped over unexpected objects, or slipped into gullies, or took a wrong path because some anonymous voice shouted "left!" instead of right.

 

Then, one day, a little blind girl had an idea. She called together everybody in the kingdom and made an announcement.

 

"I know what to do!" she said.

 

"Here," said the little girl, pushing a bitter fruit under the noses of her parents and friends, who squirmed and made sour faces.

 

"Eat it," she insisted. "Stop whining about liars and go see for yourselves."

[Sayonara]

Basically, I'm wondering why people consider a cop on every corner great, but a camera on every corner is somehow evil or totalitarian?

In fact, one would think the camera would be preferable, since the tapes are only reviewed when it is known that a crime was carried out within its field of view.

[H W Copeland]

A brief excerpt from Brin's book:

 

In reading this excerpt, I couldn't help thinking about "Animal Farm.":-)

 

I think because the political conotations are so obvious?

[Dak]

It starts with public cameras on every corner. Once people get used to that, I'd be afriad that it would escalate. "You put a frog in a pot of boiling water, and the frog jumps out immediately. You put a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog dies without even realizing it."

 

I did an experiment once, here in the UK. i walked back from town to my house, making a note of when i was on camera and when i wasnt.

 

The majority of my journey was documented, wether it was from shop security cameras pointing out of their windows, the cameras atop the traffic lights (desighned to catch people who run red lights), speed cameras, or the CCTV cameras put up to catch crime and constantly monitered (i probably missed a few, like cameras in busses and taxis that could have caught me on camera).

 

I, and most people, are confortable with this, as -- unless we commit a crime, or have a crime commited on us -- the fact that we are videotaped is entirely inconsiquental.

 

BUT, i think if the govournment wanted to, say, put cameras up in our own homes thered be a fuss despite our level of acceptance of CCTV.

 

 

-----

 

I can think of two times when the fact that i was video recorded actually had even the slightest inpact on my life.

 

one was when someone tried to mug me. he was caught on camera. I believe he is in jail now.

 

the other was one time when i was incredibly annoyed, and was elbowing lamp-posts on my way home. I stopped whenever anyone was about so as not to concern them, but still a police van turned up and asked if i was alright, in a 'hello hello hello, whats going on here then we know you've been assaulting lamposts they have not filed a complaint because they are not alive hint hint ps is your arm alright' kinda way, which i assume was due to me being seen on CCTV (like i said, i stoped when anyone was around, and the police van came strait for me... didnt look like it was just patroling).

 

so... pretty effective, and non-intrusive unless an intrusion is justified imo.

[Bettina]

I think when a person sees a policeman on the corner they don't feel violated in any way. Protected even.

 

But the security camera is considered sneaky to them and they don't know who is watching, or who may misuse the information it gathers.

 

Personally I would like a camera everywhere. The last few robberies, and abductions were caught on tape where no policeman was around. Later that evidence helped convict them.

 

Bettina

[ecoli]

 

BUT' date=' i think if the govournment wanted to, say, put cameras up in our own homes thered be a fuss despite our level of acceptance of CCTV.

[/quote']

 

The jump wouldn't be that fast. First you'd put the cameras on the streets... then public buildings (eventhough most will have them already). Then peple will have the option of putting the cameras in their homes, then who knows... maybe it'll become mandatory. All the while, we'll feel like these cameras are heree to help us, but I don't trust the people who have access to this information. Under the patriot act, the government can pretty much hold anybody they want to without giving a reason... this is a clear invasion of privacy that I believe to be dangerous.

[Pangloss]

The ubiquity of information that Sayo mentions above is one protection, but what constitutes a "crime"? What validates an investigation? What creates "probable cause"? How easily can the system be abused by errant or malicious employees? These are also interesting issues.

 

One of the suggestions Brin makes is that all of the cameras should be publically available all of the time, the idea being that total transparency is preferable to not knowing who is watching you, or when or why.

 

While that scenario may seem abhorrent on the surface, consider how abhorrent it may seem following the revelation of abuse of the present system by, say, sexual predators unknowingly employed by a traffic control system. Or perhaps a political leader who oversteps his or her authority in their zeal to capture sexual predators.

[Mokele]

It starts with public cameras on every corner. Once people get used to that, I'd be afriad that it would escalate.

 

But isn't this just slippery slope fallacy? Just because one thing happens doesn't necessitate the following claimed consequences. As noted above, the UK has lots of thse camera systems, but I doubt you'd find UK residents any more likely to accept cameras in their homes; in fact, it's the US which started and drove the whole 'reality TV' thing, so if ratings are any evidence, we're *more* likely to agree to it. ;-)

 

Then peple will have the option of putting the cameras in their homes, then who knows... maybe it'll become mandatory.

 

This is the biggest leap, and where I see the case as falling apart. I can see peple accepting cameras in public, but I can't really envision them being accepted in private, except posibly as temporary installations to be used when out of town on vacation in case of burglary. The fact that home security systems these days have every bell and whistle under the sun *except* cameras (which would be a fairly simple addition) is, I think, evidence that this jump would never be made.

 

All the while, we'll feel like these cameras are heree to help us, but I don't trust the people who have access to this information.

 

It depends on what information. If it's about stuff in the privacy of one's home, I'd agree but I don't think that'll happen. If it's information on what we've done in public, why does it matter? Ater all, it was in public.

 

One of the suggestions Brin makes is that all of the cameras should be publically available all of the time, the idea being that total transparency is preferable to not knowing who is watching you, or when or why.

 

I disagree; it would make stalking too easy. My ideal preference would be for it to be under the control of an AI which doesn't give a crap what us meatsacks are doing unless it violates a law. Alternatively, we could just utilize socially apathetic people who don't care who's on the screen.

 

Or, for more fun, simply have the computer post-process all the data before it gets to the screen so that all the person sees is outlines of people (like iPod commercials), though of course the computer stores the images in real color and such in case they're needed for an actual crime.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

But isn't this just slippery slope fallacy? Just because one thing happens doesn't necessitate the following claimed consequences. As noted above, the UK has lots of thse camera systems, but I doubt you'd find UK residents any more likely to accept cameras in their homes; in fact, it's the US which started and drove the whole 'reality TV' thing, so if ratings are any evidence, we're *more* likely to agree to it. ;-)

 

Obviously... but the potential is there.

[Dak]

sorry, slow typer; you hadnt replyed when i started.

 

The jump wouldn't be that fast. First you'd put the cameras on the streets... then public buildings (eventhough most will have them already). Then peple will have the option of putting the cameras in their homes, then who knows... maybe it'll become mandatory. All the while, we'll feel like these cameras are heree to help us, but I don't trust the people who have access to this information. Under the patriot act, the government can pretty much hold anybody they want to without giving a reason... this is a clear invasion of privacy that I believe to be dangerous.

 

As mokele said, a slippery slope fallicy.

 

Manditory 1984esk security cameras in each persons house are no more likely to be a result of an increasing number of CCTV cameras, than compulsary burgalar alarms are likely to result from the increase in burgalar alarms and the option for people to put them in their homes, reguardless of the amount of crime that compulsary burgalar alarms would cut.

 

Police need a warrant to search someones home -- the same sense of the need to preserve the privacy of the innocent will prevent compulsary home-CCTV.

 

Obviously... but the potential is there.

 

You guys wont even let the govournment take your guns away to cut crime -- what are the chances that you'd let them set up cameras in your home

[Mokele]

Obviously... but the potential is there.

 

I disagree. People would never allow it, and for good reason (all of the often-cited reasons). I don't think CCTV carmeras in public will make it any more likely.

 

Mokele

[Sisyphus]

As long as they don't change the law, we should be fine. Cameras in public are fine; it's no different from having a police presence. Many urban areas are already on film, if not totally than at least in large part, like every intersection, subway station, etc. A government camera on private property, on the other hand, would most definitely constitute a search without warrant, and is therefore already very illegal. Just don't change the law, or else the slope does begin to look a little slippery... The Patriot Act makes me very nervous for just that reason. The argument, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about," is a common defense of said act, and one used by totalitarians everywhere.

[ecoli]

I disagree. People would never allow it, and for good reason (all of the often-cited reasons). I don't think CCTV carmeras in public will make it any more likely.

 

I can't agree with that, because of my distrust for politicians and the people's ability to believe what they are told.

 

You guys wont even let the govournment take your guns away to cut crime -- what are the chances that you'd let them set up cameras in your home [img']images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

 

Americans love holding onto our rights, even if we don't need them. There are some who say the founders of the constitution would support the legality of almost all activities performed on your own private property.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd prefer the police officer myself. Cameras are no good at giving directions.

 

 

 

On a more serious note, I think it is more of the paranoia that the government will misuse the cameras. For example, people don't like red-light cameras (even though it's just enforcing the law) because sometimes the government shortens the yellow light to increase revenue. For people to feel safe with cameras, you'd have to introduce a set of rules and regulations to prevent their misuse, and that means more beaurocracy.

[ecoli]

On a more serious note, I think it is more of the paranoia that the government will misuse the cameras.

 

I disagree. With all the corrupt politicans out there, you don't think somebody will be caught selling video for some reason or another. Then, it'll cause all sorts of problems with the media trying to get a hold of footage.

 

And would one need a warrant to go over the footage on tape? I think that should be part of it too. So what happens if you witness a crime not covered by the warrent... etc.

 

For example, people don't like red-light cameras (even though it's just enforcing the law) because sometimes the government shortens the yellow light to increase revenue.

 

umm... how?

 

For people to feel safe with cameras, you'd have to introduce a set of rules and regulations to prevent their misuse, and that means more beaurocracy.

 

Even lots of laws of loopholes. I just can see too many ways in which this thing can be exploited.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I disagree. With all the corrupt politicans out there, you don't think somebody will be caught selling video for some reason or another. Then, it'll cause all sorts of problems with the media trying to get a hold of footage.

That doesn't qualify as "misuse"?

 

And would one need a warrant to go over the footage on tape? I think that should be part of it too. So what happens if you witness a crime not covered by the warrent... etc.

This would be part of the regulations necessary. And, of course, if police uncover something unrelated to the crime they are supposed to be investigating, they don't ignore it, do they? You can't just say "I wasn't looking for it, so I won't convict you."

 

umm... how?

They reduce the amount of time in the yellow light, which means that as people try to get through the intersection during the yellow light, it turns red for them more often and they get caught for running the red light.

 

Even lots of laws of loopholes. I just can see too many ways in which this thing can be exploited.

It's no different then a regular policemen's eyes.

[ecoli]

That doesn't qualify as "misuse"?

 

illegally selling private information isn't misuse?

 

This would be part of the regulations necessary. And, of course, if police uncover something unrelated to the crime they are supposed to be investigating, they don't ignore it, do they? You can't just say "I wasn't looking for it, so I won't convict you."

 

If you're a police officer and you're searching a house and you find illegal materials that isn't listed on your warrant, you aren't allowed to arrest someone with its possesion until the officer gets a new warrant with said

 

It's no different then a regular policemen's eyes.

 

Except that its quantifiable and reproducable information that be copied and misused.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

illegally selling private information isn't misuse?

I originally said people were afraid of misuse, and you made it look like said scenario wasn't misuse, but something else.

 

If you're a police officer and you're searching a house and you find illegal materials that isn't listed on your warrant, you aren't allowed to arrest someone with its possesion until the officer gets a new warrant with said

That's not quite what the purpose of a camera is. It is there mainly for deterrence (like a real police officer) but also to help arrest people once a crime is commited.

Frankly, if you see a crime on camera, that's just as good as seeing it in person, legally--you need to take action. It's like saying "You didn't ask" when someone asks you why you didn't mention you were a leper before you married them.

 

Except that its quantifiable and reproducable information that be copies and misused.

We don't have all that much restriction on writing either, and it can be libelous and misused.

[ecoli]

I originally said people were afraid of misuse, and you made it look like said scenario wasn't misuse, but something else.

 

I did? sorry, then.

 

That's not quite what the purpose of a camera is. It is there mainly for deterrence (like a real police officer) but also to help arrest people once a crime is commited.

Frankly, if you see a crime on camera, that's just as good as seeing it in person,

 

Better, acutally. Documented evidence holds up in court a lot better then taking somebody'es word for it.

 

We don't have all that much restriction on writing either, and it can be libelous and misused.

 

I don't think that's a good parralel... when you're writing something, its almost always influenced by personal interpretation, and so is not taken as seriously as a video footage of an event. I think this makes it more dangerous.

[Mokele]

I can't agree with that, because of my distrust for politicians and the people's ability to believe what they are told.

 

Note that we disagree, and likely can't back it up beyond simply our views of human nature. Therefore, there's nothing solid indicating that cameras in public are actually going to increase the risk, so it's just slippery slope.

 

My point is that the move into the home of such systems would be a separate and distinct issue. In theory, it could occur now, before cameras on the streets. And even if proposed afterwards, it would *still* be subject to scrutiny rather than automatic acceptance.

 

IMHO, people may be stupid and politicians corrupt, but we're also a bunch of apes who love our privacy and will attack those who violate it. I'm betting on instinct winning out.

 

I disagree. With all the corrupt politicans out there, you don't think somebody will be caught selling video for some reason or another. Then, it'll cause all sorts of problems with the media trying to get a hold of footage.

 

So? It's footage of what happens in public. All the media or politicians or perverts need to do now is just wander around with a video camera you can buy in any store and get the same footage. What's the difference?

 

And would one need a warrant to go over the footage on tape?

 

Doubtful, it's in public.

 

I just can see too many ways in which this thing can be exploited.

 

Such as? Remember, anything these cameras would see is what we see anyway in public. The worst I can imagine is footage of someone picking their nose being shown.

 

illegally selling private information isn't misuse?

 

Since when is the camera recording private information? It's recording what occurs in *public*.

 

Documented evidence holds up in court a lot better then taking somebody'es word for it.

 

In part due to the fact that witnesses have proven time and again to be so horribly unreliable that their use in court should be considered grounds for a mistrial. In that way. these cameras would boost the aprehension rate, the conviction rate, *and* decrease the chance of convicting the wrong person.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

You bring up excellent points, Mokele. and, as I told Cap'n Refsmmat before, I'm really just debating a point that I don't completely agree with, merely to see if I could do it.

 

I think public cameras are actually a good thing, as long as it can be made cost-effective, and I could be assured that the system wouldn't be abused. But hell, the system in place is abused probably the same amount as cameras would be.

 

While, I admit, I don't like the idea of being watched everywhere I go, I would willingly give up that right if I knew it was helping uphold the law. I'm thinking that the type of crime associated with the camera (domestic violence, theft, robbery, assault, etc.) probably would serve to better the community.

 

I think that if I knew the tapes, other then random viewing, would be viewed only when a crime was reported, then I would feel much safer about it.

 

Then, of course, there is the sheer volume of data that would be produced, esp. because of how big the juristictions police have to cover. Would we even have the manpower/financial power to deal with it?