Crime Stats: Durham vs. Charlotte

[tarp]

Regarding surveillance cameras on the street, "I think it's a great idea since the only people, I imagine, against such things would be those who are probably doing something questionable in those areas", Caliboy said...

It is a huge violation of privacy.

[sls76]

Originally Posted by tarp

Regarding surveillance cameras on the street, "I think it's a great idea since the only people, I imagine, against such things would be those who are probably doing something questionable in those areas", Caliboy said...

It is a huge violation of privacy.

Oh well. It sure helped figure out who the terrorists were in London after the 7/05 subway bombings and probably prevented future attacks.

[metro.m]

Originally Posted by sls76

Oh well. It sure helped figure out who the terrorists were in London after the 7/05 subway bombings and probably prevented future attacks.

sheeple.

[groove1]

Originally Posted by tarp

Regarding surveillance cameras on the street, "I think it's a great idea since the only people, I imagine, against such things would be those who are probably doing something questionable in those areas", Caliboy said...

It is a huge violation of privacy.

No it's not. Anything you do in public that can be witnessed by the public can be recorded. It is similar to haveing a bag of cocaine on your living room table and your doors and windows wide open. Basically, there is no difference between people being able to see what you do in public and being recorded in public.

[CaliBoy]

Originally Posted by tarp

Regarding surveillance cameras on the street... It is a huge violation of privacy.

I can understand and once supported this. However, it's really what people do with such surveillance systems. And, I think, a large mass of the population think that such systems will be used for unscrupulous things. As I mentioned, cameras have helped improve safety in England. In my old neck of the woods, a camera is posted on Hollywood Blvd where once there was not. Stats have improved there, as well. Am I aware of the cameras, sometimes. But, I don't do anything that warrants being arrested. On the other hand, I really don't feel that every move I make is being scrutinized either. I am confident that if some crime against me did occur on that corner in Hollywood Blvd, that the police department would not only be available to me and hopefully responding, but will have a record of the event for proof in court.

Is it an invasion of privacy. Yes, if your privacy extends out into the public. However, as groove1 indicated, there really isn't a difference between the camera and the police officer on the street. Except that, with the camera, we have more officers, in a way, covering more areas susceptible to crime. Less personnel covering more areas too. And, if it reduces crime in the area by even 20 percent, then I'm all for it for a safer community. Other than staffing each city corner with an officer, there might be other solutions other than cameras. But, I'm not sure what those solutions are... however, the longer we don't make sensible efforts to eliminate or quell crime, the happier, I believe, the criminal are.

Lastly, I will state that if the cameras were used to enforce every little infraction each individual on the street could, unknowingly or accidentally, make, then I would have a problem even visiting that area. I do believe the cameras should be used to help encourage safety and prevent crime from occurring (and, when a crime does occur, help find the perpetrator and use the evidence to convict the perpetrator). So, with the former, I'd have reservations. But, I'll take my chances and have faith in Durham's Police force since they have proven, already, to be quite capable and caring of the public they serve and protect.

Originally Posted by sls76

Oh well. It sure helped figure out who the terrorists were in London after the 7/05 subway bombings and probably prevented future attacks.

Yes, this is true, and the same for the Oklahoma bombings (as far as helping to prosecute McVey) and identifying the terrorists during 9/11. Unfortunately, none of the aforementioned were doing anything that really warranted stopping them at the time, so even with cameras installed doesn't mean that all criminals will be stopped from the actual act. However, their existence will certainly prevent certain oportunists from considering criminal acts.

Originally Posted by groove1

No it's not. Anything you do in public that can be witnessed by the public can be recorded. It is similar to having a bag of cocaine on your living room table and your doors and windows wide open. Basically, there is no difference between people being able to see what you do in public and being recorded in public.

True. I'm more concerned about the average YouTuber recording their neighbor's activity than the police using cameras to instill safety in a certain neighborhood. And, ultimately, cameras will not be installed in areas that are not affected by crimes. There is a cost factor involved, so it's not like every move we make will be monitored. And for those good folks who live in areas afflicted with crime, I've chatted with quite a few regarding this and many other safety topics. Though they, too, would not want every move they make recorded, the threat of continued crime, or crime without prosecution, is worse than having a camera pointed down the public street.

Ultimately, I hate having any camera pointed in my direction. But I'll take it providing they are used productively and efficiently to combat crime. So far, I've not read much in the way of immediate alternatives. There are long term, idealistic solutions. But, in the short and long of it, having a police officer quietly monitoring the streets of Durham, or any city in America, is comforting to me. However, I have a lot faith in our PD and am sure if anyone has a beef with the PD, they'll probably have a beef with the cameras (which represent an extension of their eyes).