Reply With Quote
smh
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...veillance.html
smh
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.
It's ty, but it's happening whether we like it or not.
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.
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.
Recommend the frontline that aired tonight - Top Secret America - 9/11 to the Boston Bombings.
sorry no link atm.
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.
from police surveillance of everyday life? who would ever conceive of such a thing?
is it at all effective from a public safety standpoint? this question seems begged.
2011 headline in Austin, TX: http://www.kvue.com/news/APD-install...132274163.html
I noticed one yesterday.
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
seems to me that public cameras were effective in helping to figure out who the Boston bombers were. Am I mistaken on that?
Boston was certainly great PR for public cameras, if anything.
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.
Now who do we have to thank for this, hmmmmm?
No. but I'm not sure that's statistically significant.
Did you see boutons's link re: England?
also, plausibly, traditional police work would have got these guys.
also, plausibly, it did.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-02-2013 at 03:36 AM.
giving all the credit to the surveillance camera is an extreme simplification of the apprehension.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-02-2013 at 03:37 AM.
Why is a cop catching a law breaker better than a camera?
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...-doubling.htmlthe more compelling reason to oppose mass camera surveillance is that the tactic fails to reduce crime and in fact wastes officers' time 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 do enting where cameras actually reduce crime, and schools aren't on the list. The public shouldn't oppose camera surveillance (only) because of privacy concerns, but mainly because it's an ineffective tactic that empirically doesn't work.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
