Houston eyes cameras at apartment complexes

[solypsist]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Police_Cameras.html

Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.



I seem to recall several users (maybe from Texas, too?) here having the same sentiment as that second part of the article blurb. I wonder....

[Byzantine Prince]

Hm, if they do do this they better make damn sure there was a crime commited before they view the tape. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it remains reasonable.

[solypsist]

Hm, if they do do this they better make damn sure there was a crime commited before they view the tape. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it remains reasonable.


Yeah, right. My thoughts are if there are cameras posted at "strategic" locations all over the city who is keeping their eye on the people keeping their eyes on the public. I'm sure that there would NEVER be anyone monitoring the surveylance that would train cameras on unassuming people at the swimming pools at the apartments. They would NEVER monitor people's routines to see when they come or go from their homes to know the best time for a break in and then set it up. They would they NEVER monitor for the sake of stalking a victim. The folks doing this would SURELY be upstanding, clean cut, god fearing do gooders. Who else would apply for a voyueristic job?

[Fragony]

Yeah, right. My thoughts are if there are cameras posted at "strategic" locations all over the city who is keeping their eye on the people keeping their eyes on the public. I'm sure that there would NEVER be anyone monitoring the surveylance that would train cameras on unassuming people at the swimming pools at the apartments. They would NEVER monitor people's routines to see when they come or go from their homes to know the best time for a break in and then set it up. They would they NEVER monitor for the sake of stalking a victim. The folks doing this would SURELY be upstanding, clean cut, god fearing do gooders. Who else would apply for a voyueristic job?

In theory this could be bad I agree, but it all depends on how it is applied. Listening in on someone's phonecalls could be scary, but when handled with care it is a powerful tool to counter crime. If you go out from the worst intentions, then just having a law-enforcing agency of any kind would be a terrifying thought. How is this really different from police officers monitoring a certain appartment besides that it is more efficient?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

if you go to the U.K. you can see this approach to policing in operation.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It seems to worked well there...right?

I think this is a terrible, stupid, and unconstitutional idea. I despise the proliferation of surveillence cameras in cities, because they violate freedom, privacy, and give more power to the government over its own citizens. I don't care if they help fight crime.

Crazed Rabbit

[Duke Malcolm]

It seems to worked well there...right?

You are being sarcastic, yes?
Most folks I know ignore the cameras and just do illegal things anyway. It is only usually only the local constabulary or some such thing that prevent the crime. However, CCTV is not about preventing crime (that is for the policemen), it is about catching people who commit crimes, so it is ludicrous to suggest that they will help ease the stresses caused by a lack of police constables...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. You're right about the need to hunt down the offenders after they've been caught on tape. But a hat seems like good protection.

Crazed Rabbit
P.S. Anyone see the movie Demolition Man?

[Beirut]

Britain has a massive camera network. There was a TV documentary about it and it was wild. They followed a guy from his doorstep, to the park, watched him buy some pot, and followed him all the way home. (I wonder if they sent in the SAS to kill him right afterward... )

On the TV doc, they interviewed one guy who was fed up with being watched so he had some fun with it. He put on a wild gargoyle/monster costume, a really good one, and went out and slithered around in front of one of the cameras at 2 in the morning. A very short while later several cop cars arrived and parked waaaaay back from him. All the cops got out real slow and approached him even slower. He explained what he was doing and they just told him to go home. What a riot. I think those cops really had the fear of God in them for a minute.

:bobby2: "Right! Sea Monster thingy! Put yer tentacles up and don't eat me!"

[Bar Kochba]

isnt this a big restriction to American freedom come on even if your not doing anything do you want police officers watch you have sex??

[Devastatin Dave]

Well, a whole bunch of those Katrina "victims" are now squating out there in Houston now, so maybe they needs this, unfortunately...

[LeftEyeNine]

Anyone played Moment Of Silence adventure game here -I guess I had mentioned about it before?

In the game, writing is forbidden (it was 2050, IIRC). Every letter of expression including the very personal ones are obliged to do online and digital. The government's excuse is exactly:


"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

Global terrorism pumped up the destruction of privacy. No, I'm not doing anything wrong, however I still don't prefer to have a shower in the street or have a hot night in the park next to where I live in the middle of the day. Privacy is privacy, I'm just dubious about someone who is indifferent towards losing their privacy.

[Kanamori]

A street is a public place; if you go out there, people see you. *gasp* I do not understand the difference between having a cop on the street watching for crime as opposed to having a camera on the street watching for crime, besides the fact that one is a lot more reliable. Putting government cameras inside a private place is ludicrous. This always seems to be a knee-jerk reaction inspired by 1984, and all of a sudden cameras are evil.


"Right! Sea Monster thingy! Put yer tentacles up and don't eat me!"

I'd be scared of some nut job if I didn't have a gun too.

[solypsist]

if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?

My question for anyone who tosses this idea around is "if I'm not doing anything wrong, why should the police worry about it?"

[Beirut]

I'd be scared of some nut job if I didn't have a gun too.

Honestly, I think the cops really didn't know what was going on. Two in the morning, foggy, and the guy's costume and the way he moved (slowly, slitheringly) were excellent. I'll bet for at least a few seconds they were downright... apprehensive.

[LeftEyeNine]

A street is a public place; if you go out there, people see you.

When they watch over you, what will be the difference between the street you know and where you live ? You can easily get the idea actually.

[LeftEyeNine]

By the way, there were rumours about several years ago that the General Staff here had started to categorize and "label" people for surveillance which was appealed with anger and protests in Turkey.

[Big_John]

and even private homes

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.it's truly startling that an american can even seriously propose such a thing.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't see what the big deal is, cops never do anything wrong, they never shoot guys after they tell them to get up, there is no such thing as a coke-head air marshall, and even though district attorneys and sheriffs are elected they would never, ever use any type of legal surveillance to perhaps further some sort of agenda or spy on an opponent.......

why is there a shortage of police in houston? financial problems? no good recruits? did everyone quit in frustration of having to learn spanish?

[Byzantine Prince]

Global terrorism pumped up the destruction of privacy. No, I'm not doing anything wrong, however I still don't prefer to have a shower in the street or have a hot night in the park next to where I live in the middle of the day. Privacy is privacy, I'm just dubious about someone who is indifferent towards losing their privacy.
You are all missing the point. If the cameras are installed by the government, there also comes responsibility to only use the privilege for extreme cases, like verification of rape, or murder. You know things that people should definitely go to jail for to protect the rest of us. So what if they see you having sex or something like that, at least you know that you are protected from lunatics who might harm you. Also if proper procedures are followed, like having you there when they exhibit the video down at the station and being professional, there is no way it can be harmful to you. Again just like every law it is not as simple as "if you are not doing anything wrong there is nothing to worry about". The law accounts, or should account for all discrepancies in society's functions.

[LeftEyeNine]

..So what if they see you having sex or something like that, at least you know that you are protected from lunatics who might harm you.Also if proper procedures are followed, like having you there when they exhibit the video down at the station and being professional, there is no way it can be harmful to you...

To what degree ? Where does their surveillance incentive end ? And it is strange that you are expecting "properness" when someone can watch you without your notice, forget that it is a government or any other annoying legal state organization. It is manmade -someone will somehow exploit it.

[KafirChobee]

Back in the early '70s, RCA and AT&T presented a proposal to the government they were sure would be a winner - "hey, we can tap into every living room in America ... if you wants us to (or even if youse don'ts - these guys were so strong and knew so much about the congressmen they actually believed they ruled - unlike today when they would). RCA ended up being bought buy the Japs, and we all know how AT&T got splintered (and why our phone bills are so high).

Point is, most Americans find it is a good idea to be watched ... why not? Most want to be on TV anyway and have no idea what it really means to their lives. Giving up freedom, seems to be the thing to do in todays democracys'. If it in some Kafkian landscape mean they will be safe in Iowa (or where ever).

Mark Twain once said, "Those willing to sacrifice their freedom for security, deserve neither - and will never receive either." Or some such crap. I mean what did he know about terrorists? All he understood was Democracy.

Soon enough we will all be under the watchful eye; identified 24-7, our patterns known to all with the "need to know" (or political clout to ask for it); and some will feel safer. Others will realize that regardless of political, religious, educational, economic, or radical Lutheran (j/k...felt picking on my own trligion would resolve the ambiguitys) leanings .... we will all be, being watched.

It is not a matter of "pure of, or at heart, or stay the path", it is a matter of privacy as defined by the Constitution. Ignore it (the Constitution), and the rest of the reasons for survelliance fall away. Except for those so sure it will never fall on them - sorta like "tricky dicky" = 'til he realized that even the president is held accountable for his actions. Something Bush43 has yet to learn. But, that to is coming ..... can't you just feel it? Oh, yeah - it is so close I can taste it (going to be sweet to).

Accept goverment eyes in your home? Feel safer? You jest ... what part of "for the people" did you not understand?

What part of Waco didn't you grasp?

[Byzantine Prince]

To what degree ? Where does their surveillance incentive end ?
As I said, in extreme cases, like murder and especially rape. Rape is an interesting crime because there is no way of knowing the truth unless you see it on tape and even then it is hard to tell whether there is an actual crime taking place.



And it is strange that you are expecting "properness" when someone can watch you without your notice
Well obviously you will have to be notified and will have to be there when they watch it. I DID mention this too didn't I? :inquisitive:


forget that it is a government or any other annoying legal state organization. It is manmade -someone will somehow exploit it.
Someone will somehow exploit anything when they see a weakness. Anything at all.

[LeftEyeNine]

Does your government have to notice you in all cases ? What if they don't want to ? They can do that, can't they ?


Someone will somehow exploit anything when they see a weakness. Anything at all.

Not a philosophy topic here, BP. The exploited thing here is your privacy in KafirChobee's words, your freedom. Anyway, what's wrong if you already feel OK with it ?

[Byzantine Prince]

Does your government have to notice you in all cases ? What if they don't want to ? They can do that, can't they ?
It has been proven that they can do anything they feel like. I am only suggesting how it should work.



Not a philosophy topic here, BP. The exploited thing here is your privacy in KafirChobee's words, your freedom. Anyway, what's wrong if you already feel OK with it ?
If a haneous crime has been commited your privacy is taken away from you anyways as a witness, or a culprit, or a criminal, because you will have to testified about what you were doing. Of course you are not supposed to lie but that is not good enough for me. This is not as simple as privacy/no privacy. There are ways around everything, even your concern with privacy.

[LeftEyeNine]

My concern is that if something starts like that, I think it will highly likely not stop, they'll take away more of your privacy by time preparing "rational" causes for it. I see it as another step in the life of "terrorized and frightened Americans". You may hate Michael Moore but the idea of "continuing campaign of irritated citizens by Bush government" sounded rational to me.

You as Americans have every right to get anxious after 9/11 terror but I also think that Bush government rants on it. Eventually, I see this local plan as a test measure to be applied for larger scales later on.

[Byzantine Prince]

How dare you call me an American!? :furious3:













:wink:

[LeftEyeNine]

GAH! Or Canadian.. :smoking:

[BDC]

I don't have any issues with CCTV cameras. You know the guys watching them are just normal people.

Quite useful if something gets nicked in town. And scares the losers off from hanging around outside McDonald's...

[Papewaio]

And scares the losers off from hanging around outside McDonald's...

What they don't want customers or staff at McFats?