Surveillance Cameras in Parks

[YapCity]

Originally Posted by Amavel

Why would installing cameras in parks increase kidnapping or (irrelevent) house robberies? Have robberies increased because there are security cameras in private businesses? If anything, they act as deterrents. Teenagers will probably be less than thrilled about vandalizing parks because there are similar consequences if they were to steal at the mall. If there wasn't a camera in a park and a kidnapping occured, who would provide a description for an Amber Alert?

I don't see everyone complaining about lack of privacy when John Doe can watch live traffic feeds online and knows "when to rob homes". I don't see everyone complaining aoubt private helicopter companies that have free reign to take high resolution photographs of your home and property. Do I even need to mention cellphone cameras that can shoot video of ANYTHING and post it on YouTube or, even worse, a pornographic website? I guess because they are "government instituted" cameras that must mean they are threatening your rights to privacy. Last time I checked, when you willingly enter public property, much of your rights to privacy are foregone.

The biggest problem with it of all can be summed up in ONE word....

Precedent

-TT

[allydriver]

Originally Posted by YapCity

The biggest problem with it of all can be summed up in ONE word....

Precedent

-TT

Originally Posted by allydriver

IMO it will make them that much easier to start installing elsewhere once they are established in the parks.

Yep Yap, couldn't agree more

[dusesean1986]

[quote=YapCity;288925]

Originally Posted by dusesean1986

Did you think that a police officer would be convicted of raping a captive with a plunger in NYC?

Did you think that George Bush would ever be dumb enough to send MORE troops to Iraq?

Did you ever think that someone would lace your Tylenol with cyanide?

Did you ever think that someone could kidnap a little boy and get away with it for FOUR years? With the boy still alive?

Did you ever think "The Terminator" would be the governor of your state someday when you first watched the movie?

lol, things happen, all the time. People are capable of some STUPID, and downright evil things. That is what you need to keep in mind when you allow them to infringe on your right to privacy as a trade-off for personal security.

-TT

Not to rain on your parade of thoughts, but what in the world does George Bush, Tylenol, and "The Schwarz" have to do with security cameras in a park? Let's make this simple, I thought you were against surveillance cameras in parks because of a lack of personal privacy. Now, you are countering your argument, basically describing crime and what knows else, as being a more superior reason to have cameras, regardless of the personal privacy of an individual. Give me a one to three sentence answer of your take on surveillance cameras in a park. If you're going to explain your "precedent theory," make it clear and concise. About the only thing that isn't confusing me, is the TT at the bottom of your quotes.

[SergeantL]

Originally Posted by glad I dont live in Ca

I have heard that they are going to start following a national trend to install video cameras in parks. Does anybody have a problem with this besides me??

Since I am in law enforcement, the answer is no. My officers can only be in so many places at one time. Extending our ability to cover public places greatly enhances our effectiveness. Web based cameras in our public parks have reduced vandalism and graffiti significantly and have led to a number of arrests.

I see no difference between placing a patrol officer or a surveillance camera in a pubic park, other than cost.

[madicarus2000]

Are surveillance cameras in a public park viewing open areas that don’t have an expectation of privacy (e.g. bathroom) constitutional – Yes.

Are surveillance cameras an effective deterrent to crime and/or can help solve crimes – Yes.

Can the system be subverted and used inappropriately by those we have in positions of trust – Yes.

If your support for cameras is the “I’m not doing anything wrong…” then will you never object to an officer who wishes to search you in a public place when you feel you haven’t been doing anything wrong and the officer doesn’t have probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, but wants to do it “because he/she has a hunch”?

Are you aware that there are many instances in which officers use their authority or access to systems for personal use to act against other people? Not all officers do this but it does happen often enough to be a concern. Are you comfortable each time someone says that there are checks in place to prevent it from happening again? How often do you hear that last line again, and again, and again…?

Can you ask yourself, “this can deter or help solve crimes, but it can be used inappropriately, where is my line or what compromises am I willing to make”.

[YapCity]

Originally Posted by dusesean1986

Not to rain on your parade of thoughts, but what in the world does George Bush, Tylenol, and "The Schwarz" have to do with security cameras in a park? Let's make this simple, I thought you were against surveillance cameras in parks because of a lack of personal privacy. Now, you are countering your argument, basically describing crime and what knows else, as being a more superior reason to have cameras, regardless of the personal privacy of an individual. Give me a one to three sentence answer of your take on surveillance cameras in a park. If you're going to explain your "precedent theory," make it clear and concise. About the only thing that isn't confusing me, is the TT at the bottom of your quotes.

Honestly I've almost given up trying to explain it to you. I don't think you will ever get it.

The tylenol, Bush, etc., was to remind you of things that you might never have expected to happen, yet they did. That was a simple concept, how you missed it I'll never know.

Precedent: It started with tollbooths, then traffic, now parks. Soon it will be beaches, malls (pvt yes, but trust me), then movie theaters, etc. We're already talking about facial recognition software in airports.

Do you even WATCH sci-fi movies? This is not a new idea.
The problem is many of these movies have some BAD acting, but the concepts in them are not far from the future if we let it happen.
Check out "Demolition Man", for one. "Enemy of State" if you haven't already seen it. You might laugh, and that's ok. Most people lack a good understanding of what we are ALREADY capable of with technology, and where we're headed. There are also some social issues addressed in older sci-fi that one could easily say was a prediction of today's events. That might help you in expanding your mind enough to understand the implications of "just putting a few cameras in a park".

Everybody thought that little box Captain Kirk was talking into was complete fantasy. Now Motorola sells one that is slightly thinner. It's called the RAZR. Sci-fi many times can and WILL turn into sci-fact. Just give it time.

-TT (Stands for Tim Taylor)

[ontheroad]

- TT makes so many good points about the possibilities and in many cases, the probabilities of more restrictive movement. Sometimes it feels as if these solutions will deter or protect us, but it has been my experience that more often they constrain us and prevent us from free movement. Prohibitive measures for the entire population to minimize the threat of a few does not work! The few continue to commit crimes while the whole pay a grave price: loss of freedom!

If you'll indulge me for a minute: About 15 years ago we had an increase of drug crime in the public parks of NYC; officers patrolled the parks; then the parks were closed at night, but before they were closed one summer evening, a friend from Brasil and I went to Greenwich Village's Washington Square, to catch the evening breezes. It was just before 11pm.

People were rounded up, with sticks, and told, not asked to leave the park. As the park--until then--was a public space, I insisted it was our right to be in the park on a summer's eve. The police adamantly disagreed and threatened to arrest me. My Brasilian friend hastily left. Why? She came from a totalitarian state where threats of arrest become realities!

The moral of this story is, "yes, our rights continue to be eroded." When we can't enjoy the few public spaces in a overcrowded, dense City, and are forced to comply with rigid, ill conceived laws and prescriptions for social order, what we will undoubtedly see is another totalitarian state--right here in the United States.

We are already half way there!