As much money as I could afford.We need many, many more than we possibly have now!!!

let’s put cameras in the mayors home and all the board. Also each and every police officer . If they do anything wrong we can ticket them or if the offence is bad enough arrest them . Bet not one camera would go in . But I don’t know why , if they are not doing anything wrong why would they care ?

There are lot’s of legal problems with installing cameras in residential areas or in public areas where they can be used to view residential areas.

There are problems with installing them in public areas, such as parks, as well.

For those who think cameras can be installed anywhere because, “You are doing nothing wrong”, Do you want one installed in your bedroom or bathroom, You are doing nothing wrong, having sex with whoever, and go to the bathroom to pee.

Incrementalism has it’s way of going from good to bad in a hurry when government is doing it.

Perhaps it is my natural paranoia, but when I’m in public, I always act as if I am on camera – because you never know. Slippery slope? We’re already here. This latest change is just a matter of degrees.

I think the interesting discussion is, since these are cameras are funded by public dollars, on public property, and viewing the public in public places – will the public have access to the images? You see, cameras can work for the people – or against them. How many times has video revealed bad cops, excessive force or criminal behavior by “pillars of the community”?

I say if the government wants to install cameras – fine. But the people should be able to access them too. This would give the people a chance at real government “oversight”, rather than the normal use of cameras – to keep the “little people” in line.

The more the merrier and let’s keep them coming! There have been so many crimes solved in just the last few weeks because these jerks were caught on camera’s and someone was able to recognize them and turn them in. I am also very impressed with the clarity of the video’s.
I am more concerned with my safety than with anything anyone may see me doing. I hope that when a would be thief or whomever sees that these pictures are not the old grainy, blk and white, you can’t make out who or what it is, days are gone and that unless you came to earth from outer space, someone will recognize you and you will be found,it will make them think twice.
As far as people losing their privacy goes, we lost it with the invention of the internet years ago. Homes now have webcams and they are not always used in the best of taste. We all have known people who have video taped things in their own homes that should of never been done. Why worry about the gov. taking things too far? We have done that to ourselves already.

To get into my company’s office I have to possess a new Federal ID card that includes all 10 fingerprints, both palm prints, photo, birth certificate and passport on a chip readable remotely at any federal port, air facility, or rail yard (presumably by anyone signing a Federal document promising not to misuse what they see). Gee why wouldn’t I want a camera on every fence post? If you think Mr. Bush didn’t get his universal Federal ID, think again, every interstate trucker, merchant marine, railroad worker and all who’s work takes them to those sorts of facilities will have to have one of these puppies by year’s end. Who’s left?

Too many times, as recently as today, we’ve seen mis-use of surveilance videos by well meaning if misguided citizens and public servants. I believe it was New Hampshire where a hit & run accident was caught on video and the local chief of police made a big deal about the “calousness of the public.” Only hours later he had to back track because, in fact several persons not seen on the video made honest and proper attempts to help the victem and identify the fleeing suspects. Fortunately, in this case no inocent person’s face or car was in the video.

My other concern particularly in parks & along public streets is when did it become necesarily a crime to be stupid or do stupid things. If there is anyone over 30 who didn’t do something out of character, and just plain dumb by their current age I take my hat off to them. In some cases was property damaged? Probably. But with few exceptions the lesson learned from fear of discovery was far more profound than if caught on tape. If “officialy” witnessed there is no recourse but to drag the person, and their family through months if not years of investigation charges, and resolution. Looking at the big picture, sometimes even a open and shut case must be defended vigorously to protect future options by a young person just being young. It is a burden on the accused, but as importantly it bogs down an already overworked justice system that misses too many serious offenders.

Gina,
There is a quote that goes something like “those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither”. This completely applies to your mindset.

I have no issue with public parks because that is city owned property, but when they turn survellance on every street and every person, they cross the line. This is just looking for trouble where none exists (which defines Columia). Who controls the video images? Who defines context?

For example, if I go to lunch with an old friend and we part with a hug or kiss on the cheek, does that video now get used as grounds that either of us are having affairs?

We have red light cameras and police dogs in our schools. It seems we are willing to trade liberty for security any chance we get. I suspected this will be the next step. Where will it end? I suspect with cameras on ever block…sigh….

I agree with But who’s watching the watcher?

You’re on camera — or tracked in some manner — almost everywhere you go. Gas station, retail stores, hospitals, schools, work…. I guess is if you don’t want people to see what you’re doing, you should do it in your own home. I guess the question is, when in public, what privacy do you have? Someone will always see you… eye-witnesses are still some of the most convincing testimony given in trials.

I don’t have a problem with being watched. I do have a problem when me tripping and falling on the sidewalk shows up on YouTube. All things in moderation.

The novel “1984″ gave surveillance devices a bad rap. I’m not intimidated by them, so my vote is to place them wherever we can afford. And with rising gas prices, we can probably afford more than think. More cameras in parks would possibly eliminate a few park rangers’ salaries and patrol vehicles–and about $75.00 a day for gas. And maybe we should begin placing even more “red light” cameras, because they seem to work…! I know that I respect the red-light camera monitored signals more than I did the conventional ones. And those who receive violation notices in the mail probably wish they had done the same.

Columbia is a small homogeneous town… not even necessarily a suburb. If the residents and government there agree that cameras are for them, that’s great. But I don’t want any more in the City. Surveillance is creepy. Every building, every street corner practically has cameras. The best way to protect oneself is to be aware of your own surroundings and not rely on a false sense that the “Good Guys” are looking out for you.

If I can be on the street, in a park, a mall or parking lot and I personally can feel safe in my space than that is enough liberty for me. A camera video taping me walking, browsing, kissing a friend goodbye in exchange for someone spotting a gun toting nut and stopping him/her from causing me bodily harm just doesn’t feel like that big of a trade off to me. That’s where my mindset is.

Public is public. If your child is taken from your street, front yard, park or anywhere else, you better hope that there was a surveillance camera every step of the way. Living in todays world makes some of us uncomfortable with cameras and the thought of someone watching us. It is the safer alternative in some situations. Watch what you do and live with it. It might make for a happy ending someday for you.

I disagree with Ryan/E on police surveillance. Sure, there are lots of times when the police need to investigate criminal behavior without blowing cover. But there is something positive to say about a police force that is seen on the street. Their physical presence is more a deterrent to crime than many more surreptitious cameras. There is honesty and integrity involved when the men and women who represent the law are physically present. A tank of gas a day is a small price to pay for visible, accountable government.

I still belive the good people out weigh the bad people, so no camera’s for me. Gina why would a camera make you feel safe? If someone comits a crime to your person its done regardless of weather it was filmed or not, so the guy gets caught good,you have still been violated nothing changes that,and if you think camera’s will deter crime, well do you watch the news at all?

It seems that cameras only act as a deterrent to honest people.The criminals seem fairly oblivious,or else they are just too stupid to realize there are cameras ,given how often security footage is used to help solve crimes or posted online.The cameras would only increase safety if someone was actively monitoring them 24/7,with officers able to move immediately in the event of a crime.Otherwise, it seems they would give a false sense of security.I do think they have some utility for solving crimes, but I would hate to see them become so ubiquitous that the only place without cameras is the restroom.It also seems the widespread use of cameras would be ripe for abuse without limitations on their use.There have been enough legal questions regarding the legitimacy of red-light cameras.It seems many people get tickets as the registered owner of a vehicle, but with no proof of who was driving.

The comment about trading liberty for security, I believe was from Ben Franklin.I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not feeling anymore secure now than 20 years ago.It seems society has effectively lowered the bar so much on behavior and personal responsibility that anything goes with some segments of the population.How can people who don’t respect themselves have respect for others?

AH, so THAT’S how they intend to keep that county over 98% caucasian over the next few decades! Like Macoupin county, the demographics are entirely unnatural in this day and age. Let’s have cameras in the crappers and bedrooms since this country has lost most of its freedoms anyway. We mught as well be entertained while awaiting our last day. But who will hide the film that takes pics of the good old boys doing crimes? They just let them go now, but who will hide all that film when nosy do-gooders want everyone prosecuted equally?
I have given up trying to pretend we have the kind of country our PR says. Bring it ON! Just let someone else pay for all that jail cell space we will need to house all those offenders we will catch. I would think that insisting folks raise their kids right or get sterilized would help more than cameras since we all know the worst know full well how to disable cameras. Hell, all you really need is a scantily clad chick and the cops won’t be watching any crimes. LMAO God, Canada looks better day by day. The cameras aren’t the problem. The problem is our citizenry is so evil we think we need them to bring people in line. Perhaps we ARE infidels!

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This sort of neo-fascism blatantly disregards the 4th amendment. There is no probably cause to “search” my person with a video camera. The fact that this is being allowed to take place is a grim reminder that America has let their guard down when it comes to government oversight.

Another factor worth considering is the objective nature of the video evidence. It has already been mentioned that law enforcement officers are just as visible on video as are the public, and with appropriate oversight they are subject to prosecution just as much as average citizens.

But what about persons falsely accused and/or framed by crooked cops? If the video was available to prove a witness was lying and prevent a wrongful conviction, the camera would be worth almost any cost.

It comes down to how the cameras are placed and who does the monitoring.

If you trust the system, I suspect you’re for the cameras. If you don’t, then you’re against them.

I wouldn’t be opposed to the video feeds being web accessible, as was mentioned.

So to answer the question, I would say I’m for them with some rigid and sensible safeguards in place.

Security cameras In St. Louis!? Are you kidding? They should have one on every single street corner. My plan is that the City of STL will join forces with the US Army. In addition to having high security cameras in place, new army recruits will get their combat training for Iraq and Afghanistan on the streets of North St. Louis. It’s a win-win situation: we have better trained troops, and our streets become safe again. East St. Louis could follow suit, with Scott Air Force base in close proximity. Why the hell would the City invest millions in traffic light cameras when the crime rate, especially in North St. Louis, is among the worst in the entire world? Time for some real leadership.

$394,532 budgeted for surveillance. Talk about government waste! Has the city considered fixing the horrible roads in parts of Columbia? Stop watching the potholes become bigger with your cameras, and use the money to fix them.

You can’t loose, give up or have take away something that you never had to begin with. The cameras just make it more noticable, but you never had any privacy in public anyway.

If you are in a public place, public street, public store, public garage, public park, public ANYWHERE you have NO privacy anyway. Nor should you expect privacy when in a public place.

I have zero problems with cameras in public places.
And no I’m not paranoid or afraid all the time. But the Leave it to Beaver days are long over. Kids have guns and have no problem using them. Cops cant be everywhere and are greatly outnumbered. I have watched people who could have helped a stranger in need just turn and walk away so any help to make public access places safer is ok with me.

I don’t think the writer of this article has accurately portrayed the town. Wasn’t there a girl abducted FROM HER HOME not long ago in Columbia? There are ofter drug busts and high speed chases because of I-255 going through the town. Doesn’t sound so sleepy to me.

I go out and run and often I am heckled by youths. I guess I’m funny looking or something. There has been a huge vandalism problem in the past with the kids tearing up the parks and the parents not caring.

It appears that between the nearness to the big city, the highway, and the snotty spoiled Columbia kids the police have their hands full.

Isn’t the $394k for the entire ‘control room’ with dispatchers, I would assume communications, etc.? Not just for survellience. Sounds like any police operations. Don’t jump to conclusions.

YES! Put cameras on the streets. And not just the downtown city streets…the residential streets, too. After all, crime is not limited to just one area.

Domestic violence is a huge problem. I think that cameras should be put in people’s homes, and monitored by the authorities. Meth, child abuse, all could be monitored by the authorities. After all, if you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve nothing to hide.

I think one of the neighborhood kids is smoking something funny in his car. Cameras in cars will catch those people - before they harm our children. If you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve nothing to hide.

If your grass is too long, or your dog is getting out. Think of the money we could save! I think we could start a program whereby, citizens could call and report their neighbors if they think something is amiss, then the police could focus on those individuals.

And after all, if they’re not doing anything wrong, they’ve nothing to hide.

Hogwash. It is Big Brother - plain and simple! Orwell was just off by a couple decades.

Besides, they’ve had them in Columbia since 2005 - with more added the following year.

I notice that a camera in ‘05 cost $2250 - a year later they were up to $4200/ea. Think someone didn’t see that government money coming?

They must almost crime-free by now. Have they reduced the number of police officers, since the crime rate must surely be getting lower?

Did you see the video of the old guy run over in Hartford, CT.

It was taken by a street camera.

They can’t make out faces, car models, license numbers, or anything which will help catch the drivers - who fled.

These cameras can do nothing to stop a crime, or help solve a crime that has been committed.

If you believe that cameras are of no help in solving crime, you just need to give State Rep. Brad Robinson(107th) a call and ask him if he would have gotten away with a hit and run if not for a camera mounted on the high school.

Cameras mounted along the lines of thoroughfares, avenues and streets; also, in public parks; train and bus stations, and their approaches, are not the invasion of anyone’s privacy.

After the London bombings, the police were able, by backtracking the available footage, to discover others who may have been involved. Of course London holds the reputation of having the most cameras. However, note that the cameras did not stop the bombings.

If these cameras are turned into your window or backyard, then yes they become an invasion of privacy.

Here is the kicker, unless you the taxpayer are willing to pay for more “beat cops”, this type of surveillance camera may in the long run prove more effective.

Bring them on, every corner!

I am totally in favor of having cameras in any public place that would normally be patrolled by the police anyway. They can put one in my front yard as far as I’m concerned, but I’ll settle for the public places. I have nothing to hide and I conduct myself lawfully so why would I care if they put cameras up to protect the public? I think people are missing the point that they are designed to protect us and not to snoop on our privacy. Get over yourselves or clean up your act so that you don’t have to fear that you’ll be seen.

I think this reporter has been misled. Cameras are an excellent pro-active approach to keep our community safe. I think it is ashame he has tried to make the police department look bad for having cameras installed. And yes, there is policy on how cameras can and cannot be used (AKA the Illinois Compiled Statutes). The Columbia Police Department is one of the finest in the area. I wish the police department had enough money to place a camera on every city street. What an excellent way to prevent and solve crime. Instead the City Council would like to spend money on a frivolous law suit, which could easily be solved by agreeing upon the development (this was previously agreed upon by contract).

Sluggo- I recommend Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territiories of Canada. It seems to fit your requirements.

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

This is one of my favorite quotes. I thought it was from Ben Franklin, but I have seen some info that this may not be his quote.

Still great none the less.

I sometimes think I would be OK with the uses to prosecute felony crimes, but it will never stop there, soon you won’t be able to fart outside your house without the government knowing about it, and probably in your house too. 1984 here we come

I am a law abiding citizen but you cross the line when you need a camera to babysit thats what neighborhood watch groups are for,not only do they get people involved with the safty and well-being of the area where they live it creates a commuinty willing to protect themselves,but go ahead stay inside and lock your doors,stay uninvolved let the cameras cast judgement as long as you all feel safe.

maybe they can equipt these cameras with a taezer,zap the hell out of the bad guys!

Short answer: None. That’s the only acceptable answer. Anything else gets into grey area, and no one wins. Surveillance yes/no is an easy, black/white issue. However, if you say yes, then you have to determine how much. Some people maybe only want a little, some maybe a lot. What I have no doubt about, though, is that, once we allow any surveillance, the amount will always increase. The argument will always be “look, it works here”, regardless of the counterevidence. So it is indeed a slippery slope. So what was an acceptable level of surveillance is now too much, to the point where it’s too much for everyone. We should be striving to make the machinations of government more transparent, not allowing the government to control us.

Anyone with the lame “nothing to hide” argument - read this: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
It’s a stupid argument. Read security expert Bruce Schneier’s take on why all this stuff is useless: http://www.schneier.com/essay-109.html among others.

Also, research what effect Britain’s massive surveillance network has had. (You won’t like it if you favor cameras.) You have to realize that you can’t just put up a few cameras and stop all crime. That’s just asinine, and it’s just treating symptoms, not cause. Sure sometimes they might be useful, but the tradeoffs aren’t worth it.

And it’s “cameras”, not “camera’s”. Apostrophes are used for possessives, not pluralization.

Times have changed since Ben Franklin was around.
He could not have forseen the times we live in now.

They didnt have a huge population to police as we do now. No cars that could outrun everyone. No teenage drivers talking on cell phones. Respect was taught at home and parents were in control of their kids not the other way around No shopping malls with acres of parking. No driveby shootings using gun that fire 50 bullets a second.

Sorry but times have changed.
And we must change with it.

“Times have changed since Ben Franklin was around.
He could not have forseen the times we live in now.”

Sorry, but I call BS. His quote is about principles, and principles don’t change. The principle is you don’t lock yourself in a box just because it might be dangerous to go outside. You don’t hand over your freedom for a 1% or whatever increase in safety. That’s true whether the dangers are pirates (or whatever 18th century danger is appropriate) or gangs. He supported freedom of speech. We don’t say that doesn’t apply anymore because he couldn’t have forseen the internet all the idiotic things people would say on it. If anything it makes resilience in the face of oppressors all the more important.

“Respect was taught at home and parents were in control of their kids”
Perhaps that’s something that could be fixed instead?

I don’t know if my earlier post will go through, but here’s something for all the people with the “Nothing to hide” argument to read:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

No public cameras without a warrant, and those installations should be targeted and temporary.

What people seem to not understand here is a camera cannot come to your aid. All a camera can do is record what happens, not intervene or prevent it. It can take a really nice picture of my dead body, but that doesn’t help me.

Pictures aren’t airtight unalterable evidence. They can and have been used for ulterior motives, and can be altered digitally to ‘prove’ almost anything. They don’t do anything at all except after the fact. They just make some control freaks feel good.

I don’t think much of private unmanned cameras either. You can put a camera on a bank counter, but if someone isn’t there to push a button, lock the doors, call the police, the amount of effort to track down the perp isn’t any more than training the employees to get a good description if there is an incident, and you’ve already got to pay the employee.

I don’t shop in stores with obvious cameras, or that brag about them.

If we want surveillance, let’s use real people. If it’s good enough for inmates in jails, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

Bruce Schneier is also a good read: http://www.schneier.com/essay-109.html

Ask yourself which is more likely:
A. We put up a bunch of cameras up and it totally solves all of our crime problems, and it the system never grows and is never abused.
B. We put up cameras and it has some small effect on crime, but the system grows and is abused.

Using Britain as a model, the answer is pretty clear. (Hint: B http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1)

Remember - cameras can’t prevent crime, only record it. Dumb.

Bruce Schneier is also a good read: http://www.schneier.com/essay-109.html

Ask yourself which is more likely:
A. We put up a bunch of cameras up and it totally solves all of our crime problems, and it the system never grows and is never abused.
B. We put up cameras and it has some small effect on crime, but the system grows and is abused.

Using Britain as a model, the answer is pretty clear. (Hint: B http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1)

Ask yourself which is more likely:
A. We put up a bunch of cameras up and it totally solves all of our crime problems, and it the system never grows and is never abused.
B. We put up cameras and it has some small effect on crime, but the system grows and is abused.

Using Britain as a model, the answer is pretty clear. (Hint: B http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1)

Remember - cameras can’t prevent crime, only record it. Dumb.

P.S. To Ryan OTE on page 1:
a) Park rangers are very poorly paid; they make less money than police in small towns which is why there is a high turnover in park law enforcement. b)Not all “park rangers” are peace officers; most cover 2, 3 or 4 parks, and their duties include medical emergency triage, education, watching out “for” kids on the loose, picking up litter, calming or ejecting people being too noisy and obnoxious (how do you measure decibels on tape?)patrolling rivers for unsafe behavior, telling people to stop regulation-breaking behavior (and usually not writing a ticket– too many tickets, and they get reported by citizenry out to have a “good time”)dealing with underage drinking (how can a camera card someone between 18 and 23 who is indeterminant in age?) Probably less than 2% of a park ranger’s duties in a year deal with felonies, and for the most part, they call a deputy or city officer for the very few actual arrests. They’re more like the old constable. If the cameras are $4220, it only takes 3-4 cameras to buy a park ranger (1 to 2 cameras for a seasonal ranger). The rangers are more versatile, and harder to vandalize because they move around.

If its public, what is the big deal? Some psycho peeping Tom could be watching me at any time with a high-powered telescope. Regular people could be videotaping or photographing me without my knowledge. That little google satellite thing may have just clicked a photograph of me.

If you look at the success that CCTV in Britain has had with reducing crime in some areas (up to 75% reduction), you may want to start considering it as a viable law enforcement tool. There are already cameras on the front of cop cars. CCTV catches a lot of crimes that would otherwise have no witnesses. It also makes cops aware of what situation they are up against before they get there. For instance, if the dispatcher gets a call for a street fight, CCTV can tell them ahead of time, numbers, if there are weapons involved, etc.

We are in the techno-age. Better get used to people watching you. God may be dead, but we had still better act right, because now we are watching each other.

Here is one that occurred to me later:

Surveillance cameras at playgrounds for children and other gathering places for children.

# 43 They are called “moms” and “dads” and “big sister” and “big… nevermind.

I could do without them all together. I beleive that personal privacy and freedom are of the utmost importance.

“If its public, what is the big deal?” Because of the potential for abuse. How are we supposed to monitor what the system and the people monitoring it are doing? What if some perv starts using them to look at cleavage on the night shift? What if your employer wants to see if you really went to lunch with a friend or were out on an interview? There are just too many bad scenarios enabled by widespread surveillance, and not much good. All these people claim it will prevent so much crime (when it really can only record it). Where are the statistics? Have you read any studies, or just assume since that’s the feel-good thing to do?

cops ands prosecutors are some of the most dishonesat people on the planet,so when a cop is caught doing something illegal the evidence (as always ) will vanish this is not in your best interest nor will it “solve” many crimes .
Big Brother go away

So the problem is if you are cheating on your wife/husband you dont want the cameras cause you may get caught. Or if you are lying to your boss about being sick and instead you were shopping and you are afraid your boss may find out. Its this the cameras fault?

If you CHOOSE to be dishonest and to lie then you have always stood the chance of getting caught. Even before the cameras existed it was still the chance you take when you choose to be that kind of person.

As far as the “anyone can look at them” argument. Anyone could have always looked at you anyway. YOUR IN PUBLIC. They could have always taken pics of you, your kids, you dog, your cleavage, whatever. That “perv” could have always been watching your kids or looking down you dress.

But maybe, just maybe, with a camera or too in the right places we might be able to catch them watching you. If your kid were to vanish right now you can bet you will be glad those cameras are there. Would you still be quoting Ben Franklin then?

Been to a party or public event anytime in the last 10 yrs. You can bet your pic is posted somewhere online. Without your permission. If you would prefer to do without people SEEING you then stay home. Thats the only time you ever had privacy in the first place.

Unless your kids have a camera phone.

People are either leaders or followers, or more broadly: free or servants. Those who are by nature free resent anyone having oversight/power over them. Those who are naturally servants long for a strong master and in the absence of one – will make one.

When you are a servant, your best policy is to make sure your master is happy. That way they have no reason to punish you. That’s where you get the “If you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about” policy. It works the same whether your a plantation slave or a “citizen” in a police state – make sure you don’t anger your master and you will be fine.

When you are a leader, your best policy is to be ever vigilant – for the people trying to take your freedoms away never rest. Ironically, the takers of freedom aren’t nearly as dangerous as the followers who will Give freedom away willingly. These people are scared – always scared – and that fear drives them to give freedom to any who will offer them protection.

This is what Ben Franklin was speaking of when he said “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” You see, he didn’t feel sorry for a society dominated by servants and followers – he felt contempt for them. His country, The United States of America was founded by leaders – strong, free people who were willing to cross the ocean into an unknown land and forge a new country dedicated to the principles of freedom. I think Mr. Franklin would be ashamed to see what the people of the USA are now –frightened followers, willing to sacrifice ANYTHING to ANYONE who will promise to protect them.

The shame of it is Mr. Franklin is right. These frightened servants will sacrifice our freedoms one by one, but loose both our freedom and our security.

I feel really sorry for those like Gina, momama, and KarenA. who use the “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about” attitude as an excuse to join the SERVANT class described so well by “Freeman” in his post on page 6.

But…what more can be expected of folks who probably don’t even realize that there is NO difference whatsoever between B. Hussein Obama, Hit-lery Clinton, and MacInsane and while they’re at it, believe these staged events are actually elections, with the “votes” being counted!!

Cameras in banks and convenience stores…I can see that, but anything further is a complete violation of the Bill of Rights. Once again, as a previous poster stated…welcome to “1984.” You are now considered nothing more than a food-consuming “labor unit” by your (non)leaders….

John:

Let’s not forget that apostrophes are also used for contractions!

You know, I miss the numbering so folks could respond to particular comments, and not get others ruffled.

Karen A brings up a good point about ‘having your photo out on the Internet without your permission’. I seriously doubt that’s the case with me…I’m “of an age” that my friends don’t have camera phones (nor do I), and kids rarely take photos of anonymous grayhairs on the street.

That being so…I wonder if someone could sue for image infringement if the photo is taken from one of these spycams. What if you’re caught doing something which could be construed as being unflattering or inappropriate, or embarrassing, but not actualy illegal? If you’ve ever seen a model release form or read one of those books on photography law, you’ll find that a “private person” does retain certain rights to their own image, even if they are are in a public space. There are exclusions for genuine news, faces in a crowd, etc., but generally if a person can be personally identified, he/she retains some rights to their image, unless they have acknowledged that the photographer has their permission.(Laws are looser for “celebrities, politicians, or folks who are generally known in the public sphere.”)

Obviously is someone is doing something illegal, it is “evidence”, but if you aren’t….if someone hasn’t sued by now, it’s about time!

Teresa, your short explanation of Missouri privacy law is muddling two concepts. The first is an individual’s right not to have their seclusion intruded upon or private facts disclosed to the public. This is the situation where celebrities, etc. have “fewer” rights than private citizens. But, if you are in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy.

Then there is the idea of misappropriation of one’s identity for personal gain. This generally is associated with the use of another’s image for personal pecuniary gain. Both private citizens and public individuals are afforded the same rights (except, commonly, the right to identity of celebreties is generally inheritable).

Enough of that, now down to why this is just creepy.

I wonder when this country lost its way and now fully embraces the idea of omnipotent governmental powers. When did our distrust for the government subside so as to offer our civil liberties to the government on a silver platter? What is the point of these cameras? What will be their result?

Sure, they may result in more arrests for petty crimes. They will certainly deter law abiding citizens, e.g., Me. But won’t the police become complacent with the existence of these cameras? The answer is yes.

Police Officers are heavily reliant on technology and use that technology to the fullest extent to “catch the bad guys.” They do this without any regard to “the bad guys’” rights and seem to relish in their perversion of civil liberties. Police Officers are also generally pretty dumb (no joke, some jurisdictions won’t higher cops who score too highly on their aptitude tests). They will think that, because these cameras exist, they don’t have to be as vigilant. Additionally, many cops would probably be fired because of these cameras. Generally, I would be all for this, but the general incompetence of cops requires two or three of them to equate one reasonably, intelligent adult. You can see the problems this could present…

But, what is my real problem with the cameras? It makes it too damn easy for the government to keep tabs on me. I should be able to walk down the street without worrying about whether or not I committed some silly, pointless misdemeanor which will cause the thought-police to descend upon me like gorillas out of the mist (i.e., mailing me a citation). Everywhere we go, we are being frisked or forced to walk through metal detectors. I don’t want to have to walk out of my house and be stared down by some camera “protecting” me.

I can protect myself. Just read the 2d Amendment.

Karen A - first, learn to spell (your/you’re, too/two). Second, I said interview, not shopping instead of working. Big difference - do you tell your boss you’re looking for another job? That’s a good way to get let go of early. Third, if you’d have read the link, you’d realize the “nothing to hide” argument is bogus. It doesn’t matter what I’m doing - it’s my life, and unless it’s illegal, watching it (by the cops) is against the 4th amendment. There is a big difference between other citizens seeing or watching other people in public and wholesale surveillance by an uncontrolled government.

“I should be able to walk down the street without worrying about whether or not I committed some silly, pointless misdemeanor” Right. There are a ton of stupid laws on the books, like that no spitting law in Illinois somewhere. Perhaps you’re an activist against the war in Iraq, for instance. Now the administration just has the cameras follow you around until you swallow a bug and spit it out, and then they go after you. What’s to prevent this sort of crap? That’s the problem with surveillance. No one is arguing they would like their kid to get kidnapped. However, I guarantee the chances of abusing the system are much more likely than my kid getting kidnapped, or cameras helping to solve the crime.

Just because it gives a few people a warm fuzzy (with questionable real benefit - see Britain’s system), that’s no reason to infringe on the freedoms of everyone. This is the land of the free, right?

As I re-read the concluding sentence of the editorial,(”Would you be comfortable with city-owned cameras privy to every move you make?”) I came to realize that the question is poorly framed.

First, if these are cameras on light poles/power poles and on the outside of public venues pointed along the public thoroughfares, sidewalks, etc.; then what is the problem? There are very few things one can do walking along a sidewalk that constitute a concern for “investigation”.

Second, “privy to every move you make”, however, is different from the above. This implies that everyone is under observation everywhere at all times. This then would be Winston Smith with his large screen MAC or PC with the camera built-in and always on.

Cameras are always passive observers. However, if central dispatch was aware of a certain type of crime being committed in a general area, they might decide to pay a little more attention to that area. But they would not be able to watch all areas all the time.

As someone touched on here before,why is it that the majority of people who have or want these cameras everywhere are the first to cry foul when the cameras are facing there homes 24/7 or there business.
Try walking around all day with a video camera trained on everyone or walk into a bank with one or a police station or government building and see what kind of reaction you get.Or hey film your neighbor with the cctv camera’s on his property and see how they like it?
You have nothing to hide right? The point being is If you already branded me a potential criminal just by me walking down the street on camera,then I can also make that same claim against you no matter if your a cop,politician,government worker etc.
The potential abuse of this in our own government has already happened and is still happening nationwide you don’t trust me I don’t trust you so I can have everyone on my camera All Day Every day no matter where I go and no matter what building I walk into and this is the way to make it stop cause it will really hit home the real goal of all this.
The business owners and the powers that be don’t want you watching or filming them everyday,they just want to watch all us citizens as we have all been branded potential terrorists or to be more accurate,enemies of the state,meaning a threat to those who hold the power.