Poll Finds Strong Acceptance for Public Surveillance

[ElNono]

Americans overwhelmingly favor cameras in public, judging privacy curbs an acceptable price for greater security from terrorist attacks, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/us/poll-finds-strong-acceptance-for-public-surveillance.html

[ElNono]

smh

[Blake]

It feels creepy, but what would be an argument against it?

[coyotes_geek]

The cameras in public don't bother me too terribly much. It's all the warrantless wiretapping stuff that's the concern.

[baseline bum]

It's shitty, but it's happening whether we like it or not.

[Th'Pusher]

The cameras in public don't bother me too terribly much. It's all the warrantless wiretapping stuff that's the concern.

This. When you're in public, there's no reason to expect privacy from video. We need vigelence against protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.

[ElNono]

It feels creepy, but what would be an argument against it?


The cameras in public don't bother me too terribly much. It's all the warrantless wiretapping stuff that's the concern.

[ElNono]

This is the discouraging part, IMO:

More broadly, only 20 percent of people said they believed the government had gone too far in restricting civil liberties in the fight against terrorism, while 26 percent said it had not gone far enough and 49 percent said the balance was about right.

[Th'Pusher]

Recommend the frontline that aired tonight - Top Secret America - 9/11 to the Boston Bombings.

sorry no link atm.

[Wild Cobra]

Why are people thinking they have privacy in public places? I have no problem with cameras in public settings. Just keep the uninvited ones out of private settings.

[Winehole23]

Why are people thinking they have privacy in public places?from police surveillance of everyday life? who would ever conceive of such a thing?

[Winehole23]

It feels creepy, but what would be an argument against it?is it at all effective from a public safety standpoint? this question seems begged.

[Winehole23]

2011 headline in Austin, TX: http://www.kvue.com/news/APD-installs-surveillance-cameras-downtown-132274163.html

[Winehole23]

I noticed one yesterday.

[TeyshaBlue]

Recommend the frontline that aired tonight - Top Secret America - 9/11 to the Boston Bombings.

sorry no link atm.

:tu

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365002414/

[boutons_deux]

Report: London no safer for all its CCTV cameras
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0222/Report-London-no-safer-for-all-its-CCTV-cameras (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0222/Report-London-no-safer-for-all-its-CCTV-cameras)

[Blake]

is it at all effective from a public safety standpoint? this question seems begged.

seems to me that public cameras were effective in helping to figure out who the Boston bombers were. Am I mistaken on that?

[Spurminator]

Boston was certainly great PR for public cameras, if anything.

[Blake]

Report: London no safer for all its CCTV cameras
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0222/Report-London-no-safer-for-all-its-CCTV-cameras (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0222/Report-London-no-safer-for-all-its-CCTV-cameras)

is it a cost issue? If it is, then I can see the outrage, but I'm having trouble sympathizing with people crying because they got busted by a public camera for breaking the law.

[Avante]

Now who do we have to thank for this, hmmmmm?

[Winehole23]

seems to me that public cameras were effective in helping to figure out who the Boston bombers were. Am I mistaken on that?No. but I'm not sure that's statistically significant.

Did you see boutons's link re: England?

[Winehole23]

also, plausibly, traditional police work would have got these guys.

also, plausibly, it did.

[Winehole23]

giving all the credit to the surveillance camera is an extreme simplification of the apprehension.

[Blake]

also, plausibly, traditional police work would have got these guys.

also, plausibly, it did.

Why is a cop catching a law breaker better than a camera?

[Winehole23]

It feels creepy, but what would be an argument against it?
the more compelling reason to oppose mass camera surveillance is that the tactic fails to reduce crime (https://www.schneier.com/essay-309.html) and in fact wastes officers' time (http://worldwearydetective.blogspot.com/2006/01/watching-you-catching-you-locking-you.html) that would be better spent on traditional investigations.


Especially in the U.K., where cameras are ubiquitous, there's been a great deal of research documenting where cameras actually reduce crime, and schools aren't on the list (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/03/britain-surveillance-cameras-do-not.html). The public shouldn't oppose camera surveillance (only) because of privacy concerns (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2004/12/biometric-blues-third-stanza.html), but mainly because it's an ineffective tactic (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/04/the_ineffective.html) that empirically doesn't work (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1).

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2014/03/police-surveillance-at-schools-doubling.html