Redstate

My knee-jerk libertarian reaction is that this policy is bad. But we are talking about cameras in PUBLIC spaces. Would there really be anything wrong with it if Chicago had such vast financial resources to permanently station a cop on every corner in the city? I feel like in theory I should like that idea, which is pretty much what the camera thing is supposed to accomplish.

As far as the libs in the ACLU you are right it is unbelievably hypocritical  how they are silent when it is a Dem that wants monitor everything we do all the time. But keep in mind that the hardcore libs believe in their own brilliance and superiority and really want to tell everybody how to live their lives and want to control us to a far greater degree than the right wing religious types supposedly do. So I guess the ACLU's behavior on  this won is consistent with what they are angling for in the long run- control.

however like many things it begins innocently enough, then gets over done.

Cameras in public places are fine with me. If you have something to hide, that is another matter. As for the stink about private property such as businesses and apartment buildings, most already have them, as to banks and ATM's, C-stores, etc., it's just good security.

For use by the DHS, it think that issue is highly debatable, because face recognition software, or what ever other means they employ, is only as good as the information the system is fed. If we don't know what a perp looks like, we can't use it against them, as in sleeper cells.

The American Criminal [read Civil] Liberties Union is sure to continue their rampage about this issue.

anything legally or ethically wrong with CCTV (as the Brits call it.)  In dense urban centers it makes perfect sense to have a birds eye view of the comings and goings in these VERY public places.  Evildoers have far more opportunities in these areas, and it makes perfect sense for law enforcement to use available tools to equal the score.  It allows cops to do their jobs more efficiently with less cost to tax payers, and does not violate basic rights and freedoms.  Now, the public may find it distasteful to be randomly monitored in public places, but they would be subject to identical monitoring by a person on the scene, so I don't see from an ethical standpoint how it is any different.

The issue is not what is viewed on the camera, the issue is what is considered a crime.  If a person is observed by a policeman on the scene as doing nothing wrong, how is that materially different from a CCTV camera viewing a person in the same place doing nothing wrong?

For a lot of reasons, some philosophical, some aesthetic, and some ethical.  I want to expand on it later, but right now I'm going to dinner in a (non-monitored, I hope) restaurant.  But I think it's very strange for us to reach a point in cities (and smaller towns, eventually) where we're saying:  "In order to reduce the crime rate to some imperceptible iota x we're willing to impose surveillance on every person in order to drive it down to that level."

Also, whatever happened to the idea of not doing something wrong even when someone wasn't watching?  

Finally, what will the world be like when every significant public (and many private) spaces are continually monitored?  I can envision a future where you're monitored at the workplace because you work for a company.  You're monitored on the way to and from the workplace in your car, which is tracked automatically by a vehicle tracking system of the kind that Britain is creating.  At home, you have an ADT security system that is watching every room, and your children, in order to get a break on their health insurance, have implantable RFID chips installed so that they can be kept track of remotely.  At their schools, RFID chips are required because it allows the administrators to ensure that nobody is in the building who shouldn't be there, and automate functions like attendance, etc.  

Now imagine living in that world and being transported magically back to today's world of old fashioned ethics, police work, and record-keeping.  Would you feel as though a huge weight had just been lifted from you knowing that all those invisble surveillance webs had suddenly evaporated and you were truly free of them?  

Are we constraining the concept of freedom to the point where, for the average person, you will never be "outside the bubble" and there will never be a way to either step outside it or, to put it coarsely, "go off the grid?"

I really believe that we're not far from that, and the way it's being sold to the public will guarantee that it happens.  As soon as insurance companies start providing breaks on coverage for businesses that have fulltime police surveillance and then health-insurance companies get on the bandwagon, I think it might be unstoppable.  But is that the kind of world we want to live in?

with you. I am usually right with you on issues, but not this time for one simple reason.

It's already everywhere, Walmart, the Grocery Store, this list goes on and on. They certainly aren't going to pull them out.

a revenue generator for the City. It's really a wonderful scam, when you think about it. I live here and my wife's a victim of it.

 No benefits need to be promised. Union contracts, with the City, aren't usually negotiated, but left, in situ, while "talks" go on for years. I think the last firemen's contract expired some five years ago and nothing's going to happen until the Feds come in and force a negotiated settlement. But, I digress...

The Kamera Korps scheme here works as follows, the Kamera catches a crime, red light being run, speeding, parking violation (yep, they're included), whatever. The City farms out the tape to be reviewed, sometimes within the CPD, sometimes privately. A ticket is issued. Seems straight forward, right? Here's the juicy part.

The error rate, so far, is about 30-35% (I'll find the Sun-Times article and post it later). That means for every 100 tickets, the wrong person is getting cited 30-35 times. Following me? Good, the best part is coming...

You just recieved a ticket in the mail for an infraction to which you weren't a party. Fine, you think, I'll just write the City and it'll be taken care of... not so fast. The ticket comes with a form letter that says you have ten business days to pay or appeal, or we're going to have your license suspended. Okay, you say, I'll appeal. You send a letter, as requested in the form letter because you aren't allowed to go in person, describing why you think this ticket is in error and should be dropped. An answer comes back inside that ten day period (shocking), from the City, stating that your appeal has been denied, you now have five business days to pay or the fine is doubled and we're going to suspend your license. There is no appeal process after that, you are denied any further recourse other than pay, or lose your license. (Political clout trumps all in this process, of course, but you better be paid up with your ward committeeman).

So, they can have clerks at desks firing out the tickets and they know, positively, the money's going to come. The payoff on their investment is great. What's not to like? Unless you get one of those tickets...

Like many posters I have mixed feelings about the proliferation of cameras.  But where is the breathless outrage, the misleading news stories and calls for investigations, hearings and impeachment from the MSM and liberals like those that we see in response to the Bush administration's wartime enemy intelligence gathering -- sorry, I misspoke, peacetime domestic spying on Americans program?

I am breathless from what I just read. No appeal, no facing your accuser? Now this is an example of misuse if I have ever seen one. Lots of cities have speeding cams or redlight cams and the like. My son got one in NYC for stopping in a cross walk at a redlight. The picture was undisputable.

You send a letter, as requested in the form letter because you aren't allowed to go in person, describing why you think this ticket is in error and should be dropped. An answer comes back inside that ten day period (shocking), from the City, stating that your appeal has been denied, you now have five business days to pay or the fine is doubled and we're going to suspend your license.

Extortion? Racketeering? Mobster Tactics? I don't know what to call it. I guess I am just a naive country bumpkin, I find this appaling!

There is no appeal process after that, you are denied any further recourse other than pay, or lose your license.

Unbelieveable, shocking, outrage? The words just won't come to me. And, like in the story I read about this on Drudge, the American Criminal Liberties Union is staying away from the issue. Isn't this right up their alley?

First of all, you can't get rid of them. Remember the Paper Clip Man that used to watch us all the time, and report back to Microsoft on what we were doing? When they came out with XP, they said they'd gotten rid of him. But they didn't. He's still there. Only now he's invisible.

Secondly, the cameras are not needed. I don't know if anyone told you this, Kowalski, but they are already paying the rest of us to rat you out. Lucky for you, you haven't done anything yet.

And finally, you can't trust these cameras. Here in Washington, they are having to install cameras to watch the other cameras.

Speaking of which, the Republicans are finally getting even by installing cameras to watch the Washington Post. That still means that no one is watching the Democrats, but the Democrats don't get much done anyway.

I do not agree with the sentiment that there is no harm in being watched if you aren't doing something wrong.  Just don't like it.  A government should not be constantly suspicious of its people.

Of course law enforcement has to be able to watch us to a point.  Where they cross the line into intrusion, I don't know.

Since the cameras are in public, I would be willing to wait to see what kind of results they have on violent crime.  If they fail to produce considerable results, I'd want them out ASAP.  I'd hate to see them used primarily for petty crimes such as traffic violations.

I'd hate to see them used primarily for petty crimes such as traffic violations.

Violations like this are the primary reason city governments are salivating over things that resemble continuous camera monitoring, IMO.  Now take it a step farther and apply it to automobiles:  In Chicago, you need a city sticker in order to drive and park a vehicle in the city.  In the past, it required an eagle-eyed cop to spot the fact that your city sticker didn't exist or had expired in order to cite you, and either pull you over or stick a ticket on your windshield.  Police have access to the databases and they cruise the streets and call in the phalanx of boot police on a regular basis there.  They work entire neighborhoods at a time, cruising up and down the streets and booting dozens of cars.  (Side thought:  Maybe the reason so many people in Chicago 'approve' this idea is that they know they're already guilty?)

But once a realtime traffic-monitoring system is added to continuous camera surveillance, look forward to getting tickets in the mail for the time you crossed from a 40 MPH speed zone into a 25 MPH one without slowing down fast enough.  You'll get a moving violation, points on your license, and have to pay the tariff without ever being seen or even pulled over.  Oh, and your insurance premiums will increase!

IMHO the authorities have learned that systems like EZ-Pass can be applied to ordinary traffic enforcement, and the cameras are the first step in breaking the public in so they can move further in that direction.  That's just ONE of my complaints about the system.

BTW -- the wealthy don't drive.  Someone drives for them, and they just pay the tickets anonymously.  

I don't know if anyone told you this, Kowalski, but they are already paying the rest of us to rat you out.

From the moment I started viewing this website.  Totally.  Hosed.  ;)

Apart from the creepiness aspect of living under constant surveillance, I see several major problems...

1. Without a live observer, the photos lose context. How can one differentiate between innocent error versus intent. If someone is there, you can explain; how do you defend against photos alone. In addition, there is the prospect of the cameras ignoring critical information/context that is off camera.
   
2. There is the prospect of surveillance inhibiting legal behavior or a certain amount of risk taking - living in a fish bowl will alter our behaviors. You will always need to consider not just whether you are behaving legally but also how will others looking at film in some other location interpret your behavior, especially if the general lack of trust within society which is behind this drive towards surveillance leads to, in practice, a presumption of guilty until proven innocent.
   
3. This also opens up the prospect of blackmail and extortion by the possessors of these vidoes regarding behavior that is embarrassing if publically exposed even though not illegal.

"A few more victories like this and we won't have an army."

Having more security cameras in public places and in private businesses is a good idea.  But it does seem creepy and excessive to connect the private cameras to a massive government-run "big brother."  Let the police have access to the tapes only after there is  reasonable grounds for suspicion that a crime has been committed.  Otherwise, it opens the program up to the kinds of abuses listed above.

here in MN.  But I do think they only send a ticket if you are more than 10mph over the speed limit.  So far, there are only a couple on the highways I know about.

Coupled with the little black boxes going into new vehicles, I'm starting to think we're headed that way.  Just like Bruce Willis in the Fifth Element.

police controlled cameras are being considered for private stores, at the expense of the owners. That would be an intrusion.  Private security cameras are controlled and restricted by and to the use of the establishment, a differnce.  If a crime is committed the company can ask or allow for police viewing. But why allow permanent police surveillance of private property and against the will of at least some of the proprioritors?  Could tapes be requested or subject to subpoena by other state and federal agencies, Labor Boards, Tax Departments, Equal or Civil Rights Agencies, etc.?  I don't see any overriding reason for crossing this threshold but maybe we can get Senator Reid's opinion.

already extortion, just that the political class gets the pass.

Ko on this before.  I still don't see the big deal.

Cameras are already everywhere.  In this debate, we should think of two names;  Carlie Brucia.

Did the cameras keep that scum from snatching her, no.

Did they cameras aid in finding him?..  Yes.Period.

perfect to last.

I'm just waiting for the first "smart guy" to start using spray paint and then the gig is up.

Cameras don't really bother me. You go anywhere and you show up on camera quite a bit as it is. What does bother me about this is:

1. Chicago isn't footing the bill, they are forcing private businesses to do it.
   
   
2. Cameras are not that effective in preventing crime. The money would better be spent elsewhere (but hey, if you aren't spending your own money I guess that doesn't factor in).
   
   
3. The real problem with these cities is their draconian gun control laws. Criminals run free because they are virtually assured their victims aren't going to be armed. If they really cared about crime this is what they need to fix. It wouldn't even cost any money.

London probably has more cameras than any other major city, and it is not a particularly safe city. It is stupid to emulate that failure in major American cities, but that's exactly what liberal police chiefs and mayors want to do.

This may be a trend that continues because it is such a good issue for politicians. The opponents are just the right ones here.

The civil rights groups will scream, and the right wing privacy activists will scream. However for a politician that's not a bad thing to have screamers on the left and right on an issue that is popular.

It will also be easy after a couple of arrests to point to the aid of the cameras for the evening news. Triangulation lives, and surveillance cameras may be the modern incarnation.

This site has the right idea of how to fight back against this sort of bull^?^?^?^?garbage:

The Hurtt Prize is a $1120 (and growing) reward for the first person who can provide definitive videotaped evidence of Houston police chief Harold Hurtt committing a crime, any crime. This evidence will posted here and forward to the Houston Police Department along with a demand that action be taken.

I am putting up $1000 of my own money for this prize, but if you think this is a good idea, and wish to pledge some of your own money for the potential winner of the Hurtt Prize, send an email to bounty@HurttPrize.org with your Name and Location (city and state). Your name, location and the amount you are pledging will be posted here.

Serves him right for saying "If you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

Somewhere in the early 1990s, my then-gf (now ex-wife) and I were driving up to her mom's house in Highland Park.  Driving there from Indiana involves coming up the Kennedy & Edens, or the more scenic route of Lake Shore Drive and Sheridan Road, which is what we were taking that evening.  Her car had a rather ugly rusty dent in the back quarter, thanks to an accident with a pick-up truck in a parking lot several months earlier, and she never fixed it because the money was needed for other things at the time.

So we're driving through Glencoe (your ANSI standard ritzy North Shore community), and get pulled over by the police.  "Did you know that one of your two license plate lights is out?  Oh, by the way, we're going to run your license, just to check."  She had moved to Indiana a couple of years earlier, and now had an Indiana license and plates.  Cop returns, "Did you know your Illinois drivers license is suspended?"  She says "I don't have an Illinois license, I have an Indiana license (shows it, again)."  He responds "Did you have an Illinois license before?  I'm showing it as suspended, and I have to arrest you for it."  To jump straight to the punchline: after she moved away from Illinois, she stopped getting the manditory emissions test for her car in Illinois, so the Illinois bureaucracy suspended her license, without ever checking to see if it was still a valid license or her car registration was still current.  We had to drive down to the jailhouse (cop asks me at that point if I had a valid license, and I reply "yes, I've never had an Illinois license") and wait for her to go through the paperwork of being arrested (and for them to try to figure out how to work the fingerprint machine at 11pm at night), and then released.

Her mom took her paperwork to court a few weeks later and got the whole thing dropped, and we found out that this kind of bull$#!+ happens in Illinois all the (redacted) time.  My experience, plus this article confirming that they're still pulling crap like this, guarantees that I will never ever live in Chicago if I can at all help it.

but this happens everywhere.  It's not just Chicago

about fighting back.  What are you fighting back against?

pull this this up..www.zillow.com...check it out.

will you fight back against this?...or what happens when someone takes it to the next step, and you can use a website like this in REAL time.

I guess my point is that the tech(cameras) exists, and in most cases, are being used in  positive ways.

is the fight just being paranoid?

about Highland Park. She used to work for a theatre there that was doing "Big River". There were a lot of African-Americans in the cast that got pulled over all the time on their way to work. It was immediately obvious that the police were pulling over any black person they didn't recognize (i.e. Michael Jordan). I forget what ended up happening, but there was some sort of sting and a lot of cops got fired.

Read the url; they're trying to turn the police chief's own words against him.

but not sure why.  That's why i asked the previous question.  if this is being done in an effort to truly do something good, what's the big deal?

So this guy does something "wrong", ..what is the point?

Does that invalidate that measures like this just might be a good thing?

It's the same principle as the folks in New Hampshire trying to seize Justice Souter's house under Kelo.  People don't realize the effects of the laws and regulations they're implementing until it has a direct personal effect on them.

It seems that public perception is, in hindsight, that this is bad law, overstep.  R's and D's alike.

In regards to this issue though, regardless if this guy does wrong or not, how is this bad?....it's an attempt to do what's right and helpful to curb crime, and others ills.

Just not getting the opposition to this.

Look at how controversial use of instant replay is in sports-- currently only the NFL has it, and only in certain limited circumstances, and even then it's partially under coach's control, because they can challenge plays.  Mistakes get made, even with instant replay, and sometimes mistakes get created (see: the interception near the end of the Pittsburgh/Indianapolis playoff game that was overturned).

Now imagine taking all the referees off the field and having it all done by cameras.  Would it be better?  In certain ways, maybe, but in other ways it would most certainly be worse.

but you are taking it a bit far.  All the refs would still be on the field, and maybe more.  this measure  

is supplimental to existing means to fight crime.

mistakes will be made, but every advantage we can have, should we not use?

other than this being a topic for political discussion, i don't see the reason for angst.

You may think that in my analogy, all the refs would still be on the field, but I think that as soon as the cameras were put into place, the refs would retreat to camera-watching positions pretty quick.  After all, would you rather be out on the field hustling where everyone can criticize you, or be sitting at a desk job all day?

In short, cameras might be supplemental for now, but from there it's a very short step to using them as the primary means of law enforcement.  Then the cat is out of the bag and will never be recaptured.

recall when I worked for the PD in my town.  In car  

computers were the talk of the law community.  in my town, people were unsure about them.  "the cops have computers in their cars?"!  then it went to the in car, mounted cameras.  what do you think happened?

people started questioning how they will be used...after all, they are video cameras!  the horror!!  well, when it's all said and done, have there been any abuses?..no.  how about statewide?

can't think of any.  national?  does nayone have any instance when the cameras at use by police, or any cameras such as we've discussed, have been abused?

i don't think there are any, it's just a little strange to think that it might happen. not that there's anything wrong with it.....  

that got a couple of cops fired was over racial profiling of hispanics running up and down Sheridan Rd. Some goof, excuse me, police officer, was heard over a scanner saying that he bet that (insert hispanic euphanism here)'s ten gallon hat was full of beer. ACLU, The Honorable Rev. Jesse, and a host of others came in demanding a) fire 'em all, or b) sensitivity training for everyone. One suspension, I think, and a whole bunch of class time for the entire force.

this could be an endless thread...on profiling.

I'm sure we all have stories.