Security Cameras in NY Streets to Deter Crime... (Amsterdam, Liberty: attorney, home)

[newtoli]

You're missing my point.

Lets say your wife thinks you're cheating on her. Wifey has a buddy who has an "in" with someone who has access to the cameras. Maybe $1k is all it takes to take a looksee and sees you somewhere you shouldn't be. Would you feel your rights had been violated then?

Your rights do not end once you step foot out of your door. There are places where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and you are treading very closely on violating the 4th Amendment.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Now, what happens when the camera is pointed directly at your window or door?

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by A_Better_Bronx_2morrow

How so? You are not making sense. A video does not lie. I can NEVER EVER be charged with murder that was caught on camera unless you see me ACTUALLY killing the person.

So to answer your question....NO, I would NOT feel like my rights have been violated.

Remember, your rights END once you step a foot out your door. Everything after that should be fair game.

Agreed....and as for that fella/gal making no sense and claiming to be neither to the extreme left or right....I guess we now have two sets of moderates, since I am a self-proclaiming one too.

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by Miles

Agreed....and as for that fella/gal making no sense and claiming to be neither to the extreme left or right....I guess we now have two sets of moderates, since I am a self-proclaiming one too.

Please tell me how I am not making any sense.

I've provided case law for gods sakes.

Presenting a dissenting opinion does not make it nonsensical. I never claimed to be neither to the extreme right or left, my point was that we need to stop classifying people as such and work together as a country, rather than playing the blame game.

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by newtoli

Please tell me how I am not making any sense.

I've provided case law for gods sakes.

a judicious amount of common sense can sometimes prevail whenever case law is reaffirmed, challenged, or overturned.

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by Miles

a judicious amount of common sense can sometimes prevail whenever case law is reaffirmed, challenged, or overturned.

Common Sense trumps our Constitution?

[A_Better_Bronx_2morrow]

Originally Posted by newtoli

You're missing my point.

Lets say your wife thinks you're cheating on her. Wifey has a buddy who has an "in" with someone who has access to the cameras. Maybe $1k is all it takes to take a looksee and sees you somewhere you shouldn't be. Would you feel your rights had been violated then?

Your rights do not end once you step foot out of your door. There are places where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and you are treading very closely on violating the 4th Amendment.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Now, what happens when the camera is pointed directly at your window or door?

No, I'm not missing your point but I believe you are missing my point.

All these questions you ask are extreme "What if" questions. What if Bin Laden paid somebody off to hack into the CIA computer system to get sensitive information that can aid Bin Laden in planning his next terror attack. What if this, what if that,..blah blah blah.

Highly unlikely...not impossible as nothing in this world is but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by newtoli

Common Sense trumps our Constitution?

Take a legal refresher....learn the difference between the Constitution and case law and return.

In the meantime, excuse me while I talk to that beautiful lady from Queens and Florida. A bikini triumphs over any kind of law.

[scatman]

Originally Posted by newtoli

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Frankln

Somebody reminded us of that last Tuesday!

Now, back to the thread.......

[Bookery]

I’d just like to comment about the whole public/private debate.

I’m a librarian. I work for a public library. That means it’s a public space, funded by tax dollars, and we have to know the privacy laws. While the Constitution’s Bill of Rights doesn’t say anything about a right to privacy, most Americans feel that they have a natural right to privacy, and US court decisions have upheld that right. Ten state constitutions guarantee a right of privacy or bar unreasonable intrusions into citizens’ privacy. In fact, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (created by the UN) states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.” (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

So back to the library, which is a public place. “Forty-eight states protect the confidentiality of library users’ records by law, and the attorneys general in the remaining two states have issued opinions recognizing the privacy of users’ library records” (ALA | Privacy). Library privacy is maintained because it maintains freedom of thought: if you knew someone was monitoring your library use, you might be more reluctant to research controversial issues, effects of drugs, communism, etc.—even if you are completely innocent or “party-line.” Police in most states have to have a warrant to gain access to library records, and even then they’re activities are limited.

So Point #1: You do have some right to privacy, even in a public space.

Here’s the interesting thing: certain provisions of the Patriot Act give the FBI the right to look at your library records and track your internet use without probable cause (i.e., without a real warrant—just a National Security Letter). Then, they could serve the library with a gag order, preventing the librarians from discussing the incident at all or telling the patron that they’re being investigated (the gag order part was overturned by a federal appeals court in December-- ALA | American Libraries - Overturn of Patriot Act's Gag Order Upheld, in Part). You may say this is just a precaution, but it’s happened several times (here’s one example: Librarians Denounce Gag Order in Patriot Act Case : NPR). It’s absolutely a violation of privacy. The federal government has a history of using letters like this to gain access to library records.

So Point #2: The government tends to take advantage of situations in which they can monitor their citizens. The US also has a history of trying to silence or discredit people who publicly disagree with major policies. It’s not out of line to imagine cameras on public streets being used for purposes they weren't originally intended for.

I think cameras on public streets are okay as long as there are strict laws in place to govern where the cameras are placed, how the footage is used, and who’s allowed to see it. But it is a risk. And it does sound like 1984.

[Coolhand68]

Originally Posted by newtoli

I am being real, and putting this into perspective. Benjamin Franklin is probably rolling over in his grave!

Case in point, the lawyer referenced in previous post. You cannot destroy one persons life under the perception that you might be making life better for others. It's a fine line to walk, and cross. These are not the ideals this country was founded upon. There are ways to deal with this situation without sacrificing our personal liberties.

We are the United States of America. We hold ourselves to higher standards, and we have sacrificed them out of fear. The terrorists have won, in that regard.

Nothing will give us permanent safety.

I'm sure Ben Franklin is also rolling in his grave at how today's politicians have made a mockery of our constitution. Illegal immigrants get a free pass, career criminals and terrorists roam the streets thanks to legal loopholes and ACLU types, standards of education have dropped dramatically over the last several decades, and our police and military have had their hands tied while trying to maintain some degree of peace and civility. So where are these higher standards you speak of? What rights are being taken away from you because the city places a camera on a high risk street corner? Afraid someone will catch you picking your nose? Honestly, I don't think there's anything to be concerned about. There are cameras at airports, convenience stores, shopping malls, ballparks, and many public places already, have you ever felt as though your constitutional rights have been infringed at any of these places because of the cameras?

Look at the news and those caught on video shows, do you see how many criminals have been brought to justice because of cameras in stores and elsewhere? Recently there was a severe beating that took place in California and an entire gang of thugs were caught and arrested thanks to video cameras at the location. If people are going to act like animals, then I say we have the right to film them as though they are on the discovery channel.