Poll Finds Strong Acceptance for Public Surveillance

[alp227]

Source: New York Times

Americans overwhelmingly favor installing video surveillance cameras in public places, judging the infringement on their privacy as an acceptable trade-off for greater security from terrorist attacks, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

A week after the Boston Marathon attack, which was unraveled after the release of video footage of the two suspects flushed them out of hiding, 78 percent of people said surveillance cameras were a good idea, the poll found.

The receptiveness to cameras on street corners reflects a public that regards terrorism as a fact of life in the United States — 9 out of 10 people polled said Americans would always have to live with the risk — but also a threat that many believe the government can combat effectively through rigorous law enforcement and proper regulation.

For all that confidence, there are lingering questions about the role of the nation’s intelligence agencies before the attacks, with people divided about whether they had collected information that could have prevented them (41 percent said they had; 45 percent said they had not).

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/us/poll-finds-strong-acceptance-for-public-surveillance.html?pagewanted=all

---

Full results http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/01/us/01poll-terror.html

On one hand, if you're out in public, you've got no guarantees of privacy.

On another, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The top "readers' pick" comment:

A nation of sheep. The chances of 'terrorism' affecting a US citizen are vanishingly microscopic, yet we're glad to hand over our privacy and civil liberties to a sprawling and grasping, increasingly privatized, non-accountable surveillance-industrial-complex. We modern Americans are proving ourselves to be a fearful people.

Then:

All those cameras, Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Inc., etc., did not prevent the bombings.

Next: Drones overhead where ever you go. Just you wait.

And:

Or, a nation of nitwits. Look at the infantile charade in our airports; elderly women groped, terror lurking in tooth paste tubes and bottles of water, men in diapers in wheelchairs harrassed....for a vanishingly small threat, somewhere between mercury in the swordfish and drowning in your bathtub. Who is this 'overwhelming' majority that would cede privacy for such expensive, long-shot deterrence of extremely rare events. Is this poll an accurate reflection of the populace? Granted, people can be led to believe virtually anything if they're brought up with it or dunned with it long enough, but a disconnect as large as this between level of threat and hyped up level of response to it? There are people out there saying things like 'I don't care how much it costs us or how many rights we give up if it increases even one iota my daughters' security'.' Whatever that means. Maybe we do get what we deserve when a gullible public votes.

[Warpy]

1. I am a civil libertarian who doesn't mind the cameras one bit

as long as they are restricted to spaces everyone acknowledges are public spaces and are kept out of homes.

If crimes are committed without video evidence, then the police have to rely on eyewitness accounts. Not only do most folks have highly imperfect visual memories, they are also highly suggestible. Eyewitness testimony has been used to put many innocent people behind bars for a long time.

I support them in public places for this reason, the video needing to be obtained by warrants in the case of crimes being committed. They're more reliable than human witnesses.

[Arctic Dave]

8. Why do we need them, everyone has a camera phone for evidence.

What will be your reason for tracking chips?

[Warpy]

9. Ah, the right wing slippery slope argument

I was wondering when that one would bubble up to the surface like marsh gas.

Short answer, they're different things, dear.

Camera phones are in notoriously short supply in public places in the wee hours when many crimes occur, thugs preying on drunks of either sex.

You have to admit that the surveillance cameras in Boston played a pretty good part in capturing the bombers.

Or not if you're too concerned with slippery slopes and false equivalencies.

[Arctic Dave]

11. A camera is not stopping anything.

It equivalency is equal. You think some camera is going to " save you" but they don't.

So, what is a security eager country to do? They can track you already with your phone but they can be dropped, why not make the tracking permanent.

[Warpy]

13. Oh, my, this is getting borderline pathological

Of course a camera won't stop anything, it is just more reliable than the average eye witness in identifying the criminal while accurately detailing the crime.

No one can trace me via my phone. It's a land line. Remember those?

[Arctic Dave]

20. And a phone can do the recording.

By 2014 cell phones will outnumber the earths population. I just looked it up.

[mbperrin]

21. Yep, and they're owned by 1/3 of the population. So 2/3 have none.

Not so pervasive as a person might think.

Truth is, public places have no expectation of privacy, and I personally have no objection to a complete and accurate record of activity in those places.

Little doubt that more prosecutions would end in pleas, rather than time-wasting trials where the accused IS guilty, but thinks they can get away with it.

[Arctic Dave]

26. Your front porch is public, should we have a camera watching it?

Why not work on getting cellphones in the hands of more people then trying establish a bigger police state.

[DCBob]

60. your front porch is not public.

[Arctic Dave]

65. Then how did google street get away with it?

Camera inadvertantely get private homes, are they doing something illegal?

[DCBob]

68. its not public in the sense the public cannot freely access it.

good grief.

[Arctic Dave]

69. But public enough for video cameras, which is the point of the OP.

Good grief.

[DCBob]

70. you totally miss the point... there is no reason to surveil porches... they are not public places.

This is beyond grief now.

[Arctic Dave]

71. But it is.

The OP wants MORE cameras to "feel safe".

They stated they want public places where you are not privileged to any sense of privacy to be monitored for "bad guys".

[DCBob]

72. Correct. We need more because the vast majority of PUBLIC places are not being surveiled now.

[Arctic Dave]

84. And guess what, nothing is happening where these aren't.

But once again, the fear peddlers are trying to get everyone to cower in the corner and give up privacy "for your own good".

LOL, only a complete coward thinks in those terms.

[DCBob]

85. are you completely clueless or just pretending?

ciao.

[LanternWaste]

108. I was actually hoping to see a relevant and balanced counter-argument

I was actually hoping to see a relevant and balanced counter-argument, yet you've supplied us only with ad-hominems, slippery-slopes, post-hoc-ergo-prompter hoc, and a handful of other logical fallacies, in addition to petulant melodrama when any point you bring up is itself, countered.

"fear pedders", "cower in the corner", "complete coward". Do try to keep us and realize this is not a drama class, but a message board used to convey complete thoughts-- up to and including, premises, conclusions, and points to validate the two.

Name calling in place of argument is beneath any adult. Name calling itself is beneath any adult. Which then leads me to believe that you either actually thing name-calling is part and parcel of any good argument, or you're not an adult yet (understandable though, as I myself never argue with anyone under the age of 21-- they are not yet quite... mentally and emotionally stable enough to fully grasp logic, debate and the fallacies they base their positions on.

Good luck, and I hope you have a good time at prom!

[Arctic Dave]

109. Oh goody. Glad you stopped by to give all your wisdom.

Which, as you leave, was nothing.

[DCBob]

114. Given the absurd logic you have previously posted on this topic..

you are not one to judge anyone's wisdom.

[Arctic Dave]

116. And given the absurd logic seen from the authoritarion crowd

it is easy to see why bush was able to destroy this country with such ease.

Where is * when we need him! Help! Save us!

[DCBob]

119. "authoritarian"??.. I doubt you know the true meaning of the word.

I also doubt you despise Bush as much as I do.

[Arctic Dave]

120. By all means, tell us all how you were the most put out by *

Authoritarian assholes are all the same.

[DCBob]

122. ..

your problem is you cant think outside your box.. which is very very narrow.. almost invisible. Dude, all is not black and white.

[Arctic Dave]

123. I am thinking outside my box.

I find it hard to believe we are actually debating on this site extending what bush started by his complete incompetence.

We should not be debating how much more State intrusion into our lives is needed but how we got to this juncture in our society. And that seems to be the real issue but we, as usual, refuse to reflect on our actions.

[DCBob]

124. Yeah, it bothers me too these issues seem to be a continuation of Bush policies but..

in this case its simple a matter of common sense.

[treestar]

132. There might be, if it is thought to be a criminal activity safe house

The cops sit in the car and watch for people they suspect to do things or go places.

For that matter you might hire a Private detective to sit outside and follow a person to work to find out where to attach their wages.

The technology that is more troubling would be the infrared? camera they had where they could see Johar under the tarp in the boat. What if they can develop that to look under a roof or behind walls?

[DCBob]

136. There is a new technology that can "see" through walls.

I think its still in development and "secret". I used to work with a guy who used to work for CIA who told me about this.

[mbperrin]

92. Why would we rely on people randomly collecting video

if we want to get a complete record?

My front porch certainly is public, and we have a bench for folks to rest on as they walk in the evening. Every person on our block has a bench, all facing the street, so that children playing can be watched by those on the benches. We also chipped in and got fire extinguishers for every third house, and they are located in a uniform location in the yard for emergencies.

We also placed yard lights in every yard so that when kids are out after dark, they can still be seen.

Afraid our neighborhood is just the opposite of gated - we're open, know each other, know who belongs, whose kids are who, and have the fun of moving about, resting, and visiting with our neighbors. No hiding inside for us, going on 17 years now.

[Arctic Dave]

93. You should chip in and buy cameras for your street so when your neighbors house burns

down you will have a complete video of it happening.

[mbperrin]

94. Nah, I pay taxes for that sort of thing.

Haven't actually had a fire in the 17 years we've lived here, but we did have someone steal one of the fire extinguishers about 10 years ago. Most video taken in our neighborhood would be fairly boring, I'm afraid.

[Arctic Dave]

95. Now that the bad guys know that all hell will break loose.

Time to put a collar and tracker on all the kiddies. It's for their safety ya know.

[mbperrin]

96. Or we could allow people to continue leaving their kids in the car

while they're in the bar for several hours so the kid can blow their DWI interlock for them.

After all, nothing ever happens to kids, even when they're with their parents. Right?

You seem angry at me for living in a quiet neighborhood where we know everybody and socialize with them in the front yard nearly every day. I don't know why. I really don't feel I owe you an apology for that - we've worked hard as a group to make that happen.

Well, anyway, good luck on your subsidized camera phone project.

[Arctic Dave]

97. "Those" parents are the next block down.

Have fun with your subsidize more cameras to help YouTube have more videos campaign.

[treestar]

131. If your neighbor chooses to put a camera on his front porch recording the doings of your front porch

Is there anything to stop that? And then for him to share that with the government?

It's like Gladys Kravitz, but more accurate.

[Arctic Dave]

133. I believe it is called being a peeping tom.

Can they look in my house with a camera?

[treestar]

134. I really don't know

They have those infrared cameras. But I would suppose the government would need a warrant. Your neighbor Gladys might not, though. If she is just taking pictures of the porch, that's not more than she could do with her eyes.

[24601]

102. So if your picture is taken in a public place, what right of yours is violated? If anyone can cite

Constitutional article or US and/or State law that is violated when the photo is not obscene or even not legally obscene but non-consenting pornographic, for example a covert up-skirt photos.

The information from cameras seems to have aided stopping the BM bombers, and with other IEDs in their possession, stopping them preempted further attacks.

Until we develop the technology to go back in time, they likely won't stop past actions, but assisting capture of bad guys does help.

I have yet to hear the woman in the pink coat insist that her rights were violated because one of the pictures of the BM bombers had her in it.

[Arctic Dave]

103. No.Public video had little to do with it.

An eye witness was the one who helped find the people responsible. That and a who lot of people with their camera phones.

I understand, after a bad thing happens people tend to want to over react.

If we as a nation wish stop things like this maybe we should re-evaluate the ourselves and why people do this. But that would mean we would have to change and I don't see that happening so we get the "more intrusion, more laws, more guns, less privacy" crowd.

[24601]

104. And what was the witness looking at, a sketch? You had no shortage of phone cameras and media

because of the event.

But you also had store security cameras that were used.

So again, what rights are violated by taking a picture in a public place?

Guns? Who did they shoot at the Marathon? You must be thinking of the pressure cooker national registry.

And several days later, when there was a shootout, are you condemning the police for having assault weapons with large capacity magazines?

[Arctic Dave]

105. Right. There was no shortage of phone cameras so putting MORE up is not needed.

More nanny state knee jerk reaction to something that is predictable due to our policies.

[24601]

106. Sure just have a Boston Marathon level media event at every location all day every day - and you

will have no shortage of cameras.

But you really don't have that, do you?

Can you produce one picture, from other than a security camera, from the fiish line at 2:49 PM (EST) on April 10th, 2013 - just five days before the bombing?

[Arctic Dave]

107. Whoa. Now you are talking about indefinate archiving of video also!?

Slippery slope is picking up speed. Just as expected.

And when that doesn't stop the next terrorist event, then what?

How about re-examining our policies that make people lash out in these ways? Too easy?

[24601]

110. In response to the comment about there being plenty of pictures - I observed that the saturation

coverage was because of the Marathon. Then I asked if anyone could produce a photo from the same location 5 days before the bombing. Since the next comment didn't point to one, I'll accept it may indeed be difficult to produce what likely may not exist.

So the point of my question still stands, I'll word it directly and precisely on point: What establishes a constitutional, lawful or regulatory expectation of privacy for anyone planting a bomb in a public place?

Is there a Constitutional Article & Section, a US, State or Local Law, or a federal, state or local regulation that anyone can cite?

If you were instead talking about wiretaps - yes, there are governing laws. But if the person standing next to you in a public place overhears your conversation about robbing the bank, it's still admissible.

Cameras have been around over 150 years - if there is a law establishing individual privacy from being photographed in a public place, what is it?

If there just isn't any, but you just want it to be, it's perfectly acceptable to admit that. All you have to is amend the constitution, or pass constitutional laws, and you'll have what you, Ron & Rand Paul and the libertarians really want. I believe that you probably won't get it - but if that's how you want to spend your time, have at it.

The day that 3/4 of states ratify that Amendment to the Constitution, you'll have my unqualified support.

[Arctic Dave]

112. So you are OK with MORE cameras as the original OP wants.

What we get by doing this runs into a 4th Amandement issue. It becomes a visual tracking mechanism.

You sem to be on the side of more government tracking but you do give a compeling reason why, other then a feel good measure.

[24601]

117. I don't believe that any court has applied the 4th Amendment as prohibiting photographing anyone

in a public area. If it did, red-light and toll booth cameras would be out of business tomorrow.

Here's the 4th Amend text: 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.

The 14th amendment applied it to the States (and local governments). It doesn't apply to non-governmental actions.

The amendment breaks down into two pieces. The 1st is a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 2nd part requires [when the search is actually one that requires a warrant] that issuing the warrant probable cause. The issuing of a warrant doesn't negate the requirement for the search or seizure to be reasonable.

Presume you are assigned counsel for the surviving accused bombers and you want the court to rule that pictures linking him to the scene are not admissible. Here's what you'd have to prove.

1. That the photo was taken by the government, or agent of the government, and
2. The photo constituted an search, and
3. The search was unreasonable or
3. (a) That it was reasonable but required a warrant, and that either
3. (b) No warrant was issued, or that
3. (c) The warrant was defective

There are government run/sponsored cameras - unclear if any were in use in this case. Don't believe it would be dispositive because of the next part.

But the question that would really be in play is whether a photo in a public place is a search hangs on if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. I'd hold that some public places, like restrooms, do have an expectation of privacy and that a filming you there, even to find toilet paper thieves would be unreasonable. On the other hand, if you decide to skip the restroom and urinate/defecate in public, your choice of location makes a difference and you deprived yourself of the expectation of privacy.

Is it a search? I hold that it is not. It does not, in the absence of wearing your pants too low, what style underwear you are wearing or if you are wearing any, how much money is in your bank account, what you said during your last phone call or wrote in an email, who you voted for. It doesn't tell anyone who you slept with last night or will sleep with tonight. It doesn't give me your library records, what files are on your laptop or your college grades. It doesn't even reveal your identity unless it's a close-up and you have an accurate name tag.

What does it reveal - your likeness at a time and location. What makes that a search? I'm not saying it does.

Should the government put up more cameras - I'd rather they double civil-service salaries, but I don't see a legal problem with taking pictures in public places. Yeah, I understand Ron & Rand Paul would likely disagree with me but I really don't care whether they do.

[Arctic Dave]

118. So you are OK with a full video record of your everyday movement?

Which in essence becomes a video tracking tool. Which will run into a fight with the 4th amendement just like using unwarranted tracking device on your car.

[24601]

125. You are referring to the United States v. Jones case decided by the USSC a little more than three

months ago. But the Court's opinion, in explaining why it was s search also explains why cameras in a public place would not be:

"It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information."

So if the government broke into your car, attached a camera and reviewed the pictures to track you, that act would be a search. That's not the same as taking photos of public places, especially since the GPS continued to provide data when the vehicle was not in public areas.

Like I said, I'd prefer they spend the money doubling my salary - and I'd even provide a signed movement log they could frame. Triple it and I'll include "private movements".

But if they chose to film my public movements, I'd still not judge it a search - and they just might incidentally identify those Victoria Secrets models that have been stalking me.

[rhett o rick]

19. I am not surprised that the conservatives among us are willing to give up their freedoms for

a promise of security. Ben Franklin and other founders would be disgusted. Maybe they can get Big Brother to tuck them in at night.

[Warpy]

35. What freedoms are those?

Remember, there is no presumption of privacy in a public place.

[rhett o rick]

57. I am not ready to have Big Bro monitor my movements anywhere. They can search my person, my house,

and my car any time they want.

Implanting chips is the next thing the conservatives will rationalize "for our own security".

Pres Obama is cool with the Patriot Act, domestic spying and indefinite detentions. The conservatives love him for the extra "security".

Big Brother propaganda is scaring the population so they will be cool with giving up their freedoms.

You say "what freedoms". I rest my case.

[Warpy]

59. I see nothing but paranoid ramblings

Video cams placed where there is no expectation of privacy are completely different from all the red herrings you continue to drag across my screen. Some day, one of them might provide information to rule you out as a criminal after unreliable eyewitnesses identified you as such. In this way they are useful.

As for monitoring your every movement, they're just not set up that way. In any case, I sincerely doubt you are important enough to require a full time worker to follow you around, on camera or off.

And if you are caught picking your nose or scratching your arse on the video tape, you can rest assured that you've got plenty of company out there doing the same thing.

Now again, what freedoms were you talking about losing due to video cameras on urban streets?

[rhett o rick]

61. And I see nothing but rationalizations that Big Bro will keep us safe. nm

[treestar]

75. there is no freedom to be in public unobserved

unless you are invisible.

[rhett o rick]

79. Yes but I should be able to choose the level of monitoring my government does.

This level of monitoring is a conservatives dream. Big Brother uber alles.

[treestar]

86. Private business may be doing it for their own use

Then they share that info with the government. I think the two brothers were on Macy's camera.

In which case, the government can always find out.

The government itself doing it would be a different matter, but there are some locations where it might be fair enough - government public buildings.

[rhett o rick]

90. By the way, a premature congrats on 40k posts.

I am apt to miss the event.

[D Gary Grady]

14. Another civil libertarian who agrees with you

As you note, cameras are much more reliable than human eyewitnesses and hence at least somewhat reduce the likelihood of false convictions of innocent persons. Public and private cameras have also recorded instances of police brutality. Currently animal protection advocates are fighting state "ag-gag" laws meant to stop activists from recording video and photographic evidence of cruelty and the ACLU has gone to court to protect the right of citizens to shoot pictures of cops. Photojournalism depends on the ability to use cameras in public places.

I'm for a moment not suggesting that there are no reasons to be concerned about privacy in public areas, and I'm for example not a fan of paparazzi who amount to stalkers. I'm just suggesting that a reflex rejection of public cameras is naive. It's not necessarily trading liberty for safety; it can be trading an exaggerated fear for a number of practical benefits.

While I'm inviting outraged tirades, I might as well go whole hog and point out that airplane hijackings weren't always rare events; they used to be downright routine until passenger screening was introduced decades ago. I have my own complaints about TSA, but I have to say a lot of those I hear are poorly thought out.

[blkmusclmachine]

39. Then you should LOVE the cameras and recording microphones coming to your TV set.

Is there more "freedom" from scary people for you inside or outside a jail cell?

On second thought, no need to respond. I already know your answer.

The terr'ists won.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

77. Your story reminds me of a Dave Letterman guest who said she was a vegetarian, but likes bacon.

It was amusing to hear from the young actress. She even delivered her lines with apparent sincerity.

So you are "a civil libertarian"? And you don't "mind the cameras one bit"? Thats' not even funny.

[Warpy]

87. Did you bother to read the post?

Apparently you're so busy shrieking "CAMERAS! THE SKY IS FALLING!" that you fail to consider the points I made.

If you can't be bothered to read more than the topic line, perhaps you should forgo replying.

On second thought, never mind.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

88. The part where you said "I am a civil libertarian who doesn't mind the cameras one bit"? Yes,

even with your qualifications.

The young actress on the Letterman show also qualified her statement. She didn't say that she didn't say that she liked to eat all meat products. She qualified her statement by saying that she was a vegetarian who liked to eat bacon.

The amusing part was that she seemed to be oblivious and genuinely seemed to think that she was a vegetarian.

[Deep13]

2. They've been conditioned to accept it. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

40. +1

[Mojorabbit]

52. I agree. It is conditioning. nt

[Quantess]

3. 1984 Big Brother Is Watching

George Orwell. Read it if you haven't already.

[marybourg]

7. BB was watching people in their own homes.

When you're out in public, with hundreds and thousands of other people, you have no expectation of privacy. There's no resemblance to 1984.

[Warpy]

10. Thank you

It's amazing how many people don't get that part.

[marybourg]

16. Warpy, lately I 'm thinking you're the only

mature, intelligent, literate person left on DU. Sorry I didn't know you when I lived in in New Mexico. I think I need a vacation; the average mental age on this site lately seems about 11 (and male).

[Warpy]

18. Well, there are quite a few of us still plugging away

including yourself, of course. It's the only thing that keeps me coming back, trying to point out the obvious to people who have somehow missed it.

[Android3.14]

29. So you are okay with surveillance drones then?

Perhaps patrolling up and down the street with infrared cameras pointed at your walls and windows? The drone is on a public street. So your good with that, right? Listening to you and your family converse on cell phones?
Oh wait. You have a land line. That makes it okay for the government to spy on the rest of the population and it means your land line is secure. I get it.
Wow, you must be the only smart person left on DU.

[Warpy]

34. Every post that starts with "so" is a straw man

and yours is no exception.

You built him. Now take him out and play with him. Alone.

[blkmusclmachine]

41. Then you should LOVE the cameras and recording microphones coming to your TV set.

-1

[Fumesucker]

47. The infrared cameras looking at your home has been happening for more than a decade

They're on helicopters, this is common knowledge and if you are unaware of it then you have no business even discussing this subject.

What I never see people with your attitude address is the fact that a security state is a one way ratchet, the intrusiveness of surveillance can only become greater, never less barring major societal upheaval.

Ten years from now the same people arguing that cameras in all public places are great will also be arguing for the next level of surveillance, not all of them but enough to make it happen.

Why liberals want to hand conservatives power like this I cannot fathom, they'll be using the damn cameras to track (poor) women who sneak out of state for abortions if you give them half a chance.

It's not the liberals who will be choosing how to use these cameras in a great many places and yes, how they are used is a political and social choice that can and will change. So many people have an implicit "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" attitude.

The technology behind the cameras is advancing by leaps and bounds, soon they'll be able to track every given person on a real time basis simply by automatic pattern recognition. The police or whoever has access to the cameras will have a moment by moment track on everywhere you go and everything you do and it could and probably will be any time you're outside your home.

[Warpy]

55. You're grossly overstating this

This isn't a routine thing by any stretch of the imagination.

You have real things to be legitimately frightened about. This is just not real.

[Fumesucker]

56. Overstating what?

The capability to track everyone in real time by camera is just around the corner, it's only a matter of algorithms which are becoming more sophisticated all the time and some computer hardware which is becoming cheaper and more powerful all the time.

Some governments are already using license plate cameras to track cars entering and leaving their jurisdictions.

I recognize it's hopeless to try and stop this, I'm just gathering ammo for a nice loud "told you so" when the next level of surveillance comes along. Eventually the surveillance will get to a point even you will say "enough" and no one will be listening to you because you are just an alarmist who evidently must have something to hide.

[RobinA]

80. Likewise

your "no presumption of privacy in a public place" argument is a strawman, since no one but you has brought it up. It's the fact of government surveillence and the fact that people don't seem to mind it that upsets some of us.

You're probably better off not getting it, though. You'll be much happier in the world we seem to be creating.

[24601]

127. It indeed has been brought up, just varying wording - I've said "no expectation of privacy"

from being photographed in a public place (see post 107)

Also, most cops are great men & women. I refuse without reservation to side with those abusive few who try to intimidate law-abiding people who choose to capture public police actions on camera.

[freshwest]

28. The only similiarity is our computers. We pay for them to read our thoughts, listen to us with input

mikes or watch our video talks if we so choose to use our onboard cams.

We give our ISP detailed private data to get this service that we love so much and have eagerly signed up for all they have to offer. People love the convenience and the power of computing and of being online.

We are connected to others round the world in real time, it's intoxicating, like nothing that humans have ever been able to do before. We applaud the latest technology in saving lives or exploring outer space. It is all together of a whole.

We must guide the way we want this new technology that is changing our world into something it has never been. Generations of the past could not concieve of the choices we are being offered today, nor the terrible costs the ecosystem and others bear to make it.

If people are truly concerned that someone is coming for them, they need to get off the internet and give up wireless. But we agree to this.

I don't take the fear seriously from those who haven't gone off and done a John Connor to be invisible. We have to be honest about ourselves. And keep working to make it the way we want.

Many here at DU are working on this technology in their jobs and they are proud of their knowledge and what they can do with it. The human race doesn't want to give it up, so I don't spend time fearing what could be, just find our place within this.

[awoke_in_2003]

36. What about computers...

with built in cameras? It would be child's play to enable the cameras without the user knowing they are on.

[Fumesucker]

48. That's why people put tape over the ones that can't be unplugged n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

78. Good point...

of course, the built in microphones are a little trickier.

[rhett o rick]

58. And the Patriot Act makes us more "secure". Apparently rationalization is the key to happiness

for some.

[Occulus]

63. No, Big Brother was quite clearly watching everywhere, at all times, including in public

I don't know how you're coming to the conclusion you're coming to, but you are absolutely wrong about that one.

[cyberswede]

4. Do cameras act as a deterrent?

Seems like surveillance footage is only employed after some catastrophic event has claimed a bunch of lives.

Is there any evidence that the presence of cameras prevents whack jobs or zealots from perpetrating attacks? If not, how does the presence of cameras make people safer? I'd rather not be attacked in the first place, rather than footage after the fact leading to the capture (or whatever) of the perps.

[Warpy]

15. No, of course not

Most criminals are both stupid and arrogant. Just watch one of those "who's the daddy?" shows to find out how stupid and arrogant, thinking they can beat lie detectors and DNA tests. Of course they don't think they're anywhere near the area a video camera is photographing. They're too smart for that.

[Skittles]

24. do you watch "who's the daddy? shows?

I WILL KICK WARPY ASS

[Warpy]

33. Maybe twice

before I got a satellite dish and it was the same deal as somebody with his zipper down on the subway, no matter how you try, you just can't manage to look away.

I can only plead extreme boredom. It hasn't happened for a good ten years.

[Skittles]

37. OK

I will let you go this time

[D Gary Grady]

30. Well, they CAN beat lie detectors

Lie detectors (invented, incidentally, by the same guy who created Wonder Woman) are largely a joke, which is why their results are not usable in court. (Recall incidentally that Wen Ho Lee was persecuted on the basis of a lie detector test that he both passed *and* failed depending on which examiner you believe.) Lie detectors are routinely used in security screening by U.S. intelligence agencies and they have reportedly never caught a spy -- not a great track record. One Russian agent years ago asked his handlers if he should have training to defeat lie detectors and they actually laughed at his naiveté.

There is actually one type of lie detector test that can be useful, namely the "guilty knowledge" test that identifies a stronger response to otherwise innocuous references to a crime that only a witness or criminal would be aware of. But what we normally think of as lie detector tests are "control question" tests that supposedly detect greater nervousness when telling a lie, and objective studies find very poor results. Don't take my word for this; the information is readily available.

[Warpy]

32. Sociopaths can beat the standard GSR detectors

but just barely. Ordinary dirtbags can't.

[D Gary Grady]

25. Actually, they're used all the time

By "seems like surveillance footage is only employed after some catastrophic event has claimed a bunch of lives," I think you mean "seems like use of surveillance footage gets lots and lots of mention on cable news channels only after" etc. It's actually used quite routinely, and not just in the U.S. but in Europe and elsewhere. Britain, for example, has much more camera surveillance than we do, and in places police can actually talk through loudspeakers mounted with the cameras. There have been cases of thugs shocked into abandoning a crime in progress by a loudspeaker announcement letting them know they're being observed.

More generally, it's pretty well established that upping the perceived likelihood of being caught has greater deterrent effect than raising the severity of punishment. It may or may not have much effect on whack-jobs or zealots, but in percentage terms whack jobs and zealots are a relatively minor problem.

Finally, as several people have said, large numbers of us carry cameras -- at least in our cell phones -- everywhere. How is any any worse for cops to photograph me than for civilian strangers (or a Google mapping car) to do it? There are more legal constraints on the cops.

[treestar]

76. Possibly

People are aware they are there. The Boston bombers were stupid enough to think they would be invisible in a crowd, but not every criminal is that dumb.

[24601]

130. Deterrence probably isn't the right word - prevention could be a more accurate description

when a bad guy isn't stopping because of an independent decision not to engage in a subsequent attack.

Upon apprehension, the decision not to bomb again isn't really a decision since the capability is absent.

So what do we believe about Boston thus far.

Two bombs were set off by person/persons unknown. Because of the Marathon, the area had no shortage of people and the crowd included victims, targets (a common element of terrorism is that the targets are normally the larger population rather than just the victims), witnesses, and possibly bombers.

As police interviewed witness and reviewed pictures, two individuals were picked out of the crowd. Their identity was unknown. It appears that after the bombing, they went home.

Unclear to me of some if the photos were security surveillance from a department store - but I believe that was the case.

Until their pictures were released, they appeared to be going about their normal routines. It was their pictures all over the place that likely convinced them to try and get away from the area. (The inference I draw is that didn't expect to be all over the TV and net.)

The publication of their photos led to a relatively quick identification. As they ran, they improvised and their decisions helped close off their evasion. One died shortly after his apprehension.


Couple of questions and my answers:

Did their pictures play a role in their capture? It appears that's the case.

Did their apprehension prevent another bombing? We probably have to wait for more definitive information; however, there is info that they had additional IEDs. Their track record was that they used them to kill people, so that inference is present.

If better quality or more synoptic surveillance photos had been available immediately after the bombing, would they have been caught earlier? Perhaps, the correlation between the photos and apprehension appears to be present.

If they had been caught Monday or Tuesday, would the MIT officer have still been murdered? Perhaps, not really possible to know from the information we have.

Does anyone planting a bomb in a public area have a right to not be filmed? I have not found such a right in the Constitution or in law.

Whose rights were violated because of the extensive filming at the scene and specifically what right was it? I'll leave this for the discussion and just say that I judge the the right to film isn't absolute - for example in a public restroom or covert up-skirt shots.

[PSPS]

5. In other words, the corporate media has done its job.

[blkmusclmachine]

42. TERROR TERROR TERROR

Now buy our "solution."

The terr'ists won.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. We do NOT need MORE cameras

Given how quickly we caught the Boston bombers we have more than enough already. In fact, every other citizen has a video camera, so I really don't think we need more.

[blkmusclmachine]

43. Governments put up license plate reading cameras around the globe in a span of about 5 years.

What's next? Drones in the sky?

The terr'ists won.

[olddad56]

12. Like lemmings to the sea. Take our rights away, please, for our own protection.

we are a nation of brainwashed idiots

[blkmusclmachine]

44. Or so the MSM wants us to think.

I don't trust the Corporate-owned Media.

[andlor]

54. +1

[MrSlayer]

17. A nation of cowards.

"Home of the brave" my ass.

It's become quite embarrassing.

[4dsc]

53. And its just what corporate America wants

Thanks for saying we are indeed a nation of cowards who are afraid of their own shadows.

It would appear the GOP's campaign of fear is working very well.

[bhikkhu]

22. I don't worry about terrorism or even crime, generally

and I don't have any problem with cameras either.

I don't see it as an attack on my liberty if I'm on camera going down the street, or in a public building or business - why would I? I don't see what cameras have to do with liberty, nothing is different for me. The only people I could see surveillance impacting is people involved in crime.

[blkmusclmachine]

45. Drip drip drip.

Let's record the Wall Street Banksters in action. Bet that won't happen!!

The terr'ists won.

[XVI_Eyes]

23. As a guy who monitors security cameras for a living

I can tell you they prevent very little, but definately help catch people after. As far as privacy goes, if its a public place I have no problem with it. Truthfully, when nothing of note is happening little attention is paid to most people anyway. Again, it's mainly a tool for after something happens.

[blkmusclmachine]

46. And what's the bullsh!t excuse for 30,000 Drones flying the US skies in 7 years? Where's that budget

crisis DC keeps gnashing its teeth over?!!

TRUST US!

[XVI_Eyes]

50. Not sure what you are talking about.

I never said anything about drones. I'm just saying from my experience, cameras in public places aren't a big deal. Flying robots over private areas is a whole different ball game.

[blackspade]

27. The general public's civics grade???

FAIL

[Coyotl]

31. What exactly has been prevented or deterred?

Besides saving public expenditures.

[nikto]

38. This is how Freedom dies----Of COWARDICE

Proof that People Are Dumb.

[Bigredhunk]

49. Bummer

The idea that you are being (or could be) watched all the time is creepy as hell to me.

I live in a small town. I have to drive somewhere to do everything. As such, on the days I'm out doing my somethings, I spend a fair amount of time in my car (in a store parking lot, for example). Sometimes I'm with people, sometimes I'm alone. Maybe we're/I'm eating lunch. Maybe we're/I'm waiting for the next movie showtime. Maybe we/I just want 20 minutes away from the noise and crowds. I'll usually park far out, away from other people. Different times I get the feeling that people drive by, wondering why we're/I'm sitting there. I'm sure most stores and theaters (whatever) have surveillance systems. I'm just not a fan of the idea that I could be a target because I'm not doing what everyone else is doing.

[RobinA]

81. Well, Hop To It

and start doing whatever everyone else is doing! Who do you think you are, anyway? Everyone knows that anyone not doing the majority-approved thing in any given situation is up to no good. Straighten up and fly right!

I get where you are coming from. I tend to be early for things, so I might have occasion to sit in my car and play Angry Birds for 15 minutes. I hesitate because I picture somebody sitting around observing me on a camera feed somewhere and dialing up the local constabulary to come rap on my window. Then I would have to tell him, no he does not have permission to search my car, and I can only imagine where THAT would lead.

[graham4anything]

51. I want MORE and MORE cameras. Transparency

it is so interesting that the people who call for transparency for everyone mean everyone but them.

why is that not hypocritial. Answer=because it is.

Gimme me more offical cameras, more camera mean any abuse is seen.

And if you are not doing anything wrong, it might save your life.

Besides, if you see something, call it in, report it. I do.
The life one saves may be their own.

Remember Teddy said "Walk softly and cary a big stick-he was talking about drones
Franklin said "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

We can keep our republic if we don't lose it to terrorists and thrillkillfameseekers like the two from Boston.

9-11 could have been prevented with 2013 type security.
Oklahoma City could have been prevented if we ban conspiracy theories.

And if we ban guns/bullets from private citizens, then all gun happenings can be prevented and only official law enforcement can have them whilst on duty-therefore corrupt cops
couldn't carry, vigilantes couldn't have one, Danzinger Bridge and Dorner the corrupt cop couldn't have them.

etc.

[RobinA]

82. In All Fairness,

9/11 could have been prevented with 2001 type security, had only it been paid attention to.

[neverforget]

99. "We can keep our republic if we don't lose it to terrorists"

The only way we will lose our republic is if we let the government take away our rights. Terrorists win when people are scared.

How is it "transparency" to have more cameras? How do you stop a terrorist with a camera? Is there a certain profile that fits a terrorist?

[graham4anything]

100. It was cameras everywhere that led to people spotting the two thrillkillers in Boston

How many times did we over the years see 1000s and 1000s of criminals caught on America's most wanted after their picture was shown.
Since day one, the FBI posted pictures of most wanted.

Cameras everywhere give a 24-7-365 view and law enforcement can then go back and look and spot the people before/while/after a crime is committed.

Had NYC had the cameras back then, the child who was snatched on the street, Eton Paitz
might have been instantly found.

If there are mounted cameras on every police car in full use from all angles, police abuse can be stopped.

If there had been full cameras and 2013 in Dallas back in 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald would have been seen entering and leaving the area, along with the event itself and the actual shooting.

Every conspiracy theory would instantly have been stopped with security2013 back then,
and every current one will be with even better security.

[neverforget]

126. And who is going to watch the watchers?

The cost to implement this and the people to watch these cameras would be huge.

And those cameras you are talking about are private cameras in Boston from stores and people on the street.

[graham4anything]

128. The people who got Oliver North out of jail&caused Iran/Contra never to be looked at(ACLU)

[DCBob]

62. I agree. Surveillance cameras in public places stops crimes.

no doubt about it.

[geek tragedy]

64. Cameras do deter crime in areas without a lot of foot traffic.

our apartment building was repeatedly vandalized until we installed a security camera.

for a while we had to get it serviced

while it was gone, our building was vandalized again.

[Blandocyte]

66. How else would they respond to the poll when they know they're being watched?

Heh

[Ash_F]

67. Great. Terrorists win again. /nt

[L0oniX]

73. I wish there were cams on all these fucked up asshole drivers who are endangering my life.

Of course then I wish they'd get some bad ass tickets too. Chances are that you are going to get it from the other driver before any sort of terrorist gets you. I believe you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than getting killed by a terrorist. BTW is knowing the details of the Constitution and Bill of Rights a requirement in school? I'm beginning to think that Bush was right ...it's just a damned piece of paper. Oh yea all those old historical founding father people with their lofty ideals and wisdom ...that doesn't apply now ...we are living in 2013.

[treestar]

74. If out in public, who can expect privacy?

Either cameras or people, you are under observation.

[siligut]

121. But the cameras can be combined with other technology

Like automated identification software, face and eye scans, and computer-readable tags. The cameras also retain the information for whatever future use.

[treestar]

129. In the days of small towns when everyone knew who you were

you could not be in public without being recognized. We've become used to the anonymity of crowds. But in theory anyone who knows us can recognize us. So it's a matter of technology allowing more people to know us, but in public, should be complain about that?

[siligut]

137. The ACLU laid it out in 2007

In recent years, the government has dramatically expanded its surveillance capabilities through the proliferation of government-funded camera systems in public spaces. On its own terms, pervasive video surveillance threatens privacy and other constitutional rights. the threat multiplies when surveillance cameras are combined with other emerging technologies such as automated identification software, face and eye scans, and radio frequency identification (rfId)
tags. In that context, video surveillance provides a critical pillar of a surveillance infrastructure and creates the potential for the government to monitor people in public space in a way previously envisioned only in futuristic novels. It is particularly troubling that while the technology has improved along with the government’s ability to infringe on constitutional rights, the legal landscape has not kept pace.
https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/police_practices/under_the_watchful_eye_the_proliferation_of_video_surveillance_systems_in_california.pdf

More

Privacy and freedom of expression in public places are the values on which american society was forged. Without them, it would be very difficult to speak freely, join and support causes, and assemble to criticize government and safeguard democracy. People have a right not only to engage in speech and protest on public streets, but also to do so anonymously so that they can speak without fear of reprisal from the government. This right to anonymity, or namelessness, is necessarily tied to privacy. a person cannot remain anonymous if personal information and identity do not remain private. Video surveillance cameras may make it easier for the government to identify people in public, but that does not make video surveillance acceptable.

And

Personal information captured by surveillance cameras is at risk through both lawful public access and theft on the networks over which it travels. Many cities rely on wireless Internet systems to handle footage from surveillance cameras. these systems control the cameras remotely and transmit images to police stations and individual squad cars. technological vulnerabilities in wireless networks drastically compound the privacy risk by making it possible for anyone to break into the system to control the cameras and gain access to the footage.

Go to the link, 20 pages similar to what I have posted, everybody should read it.

[Duer 157099]

83. Well then Congress can simply vote against it

Since they seem to do the opposite of what most American's want done anyway...

[GeorgeGist]

89. There are people right here on DU ...

praising the fear that paralyzed Boston.

[Fearless]

91. And the more we believe fearmongering the more that will be true.

[DeSwiss]

98. When it hits 80, sell!

- So sad. So many frightened people. As the Ugliness takes off its mask further, they want to look away. They want Big Brother to protect them. And so the world's supreme bully-nation turns out to be the nation of the scared, easily frightened and spooked. Sheeple, searching for a shepard to keep the wolves away. And who somehow think the shepard won't shear them. Won't make them into a stew. They would like to think they can avoid the pot altogether -- and can get out of all this, alive. Ha! Into the Pyramid of the Hopeless they go....

The End....

“There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.”

― Aldous Huxley

[Tien1985]

101. This is a subject

Some people are absolutely rabid about. I'm not particularly afraid of being the victim of a crime. I also don't presume privacy in public spaces.

It seems some are upset by the idea of cameras operated by the govt in particular, but are fine with private businesses and such having them and giving them to the govt. That just seems paranoid to me--a camera in a town could just as likely be used to prove me innocent of a crime I didn't commit. A business cannot be counted on to have a complete video, and who's saying they won't be bias and choose when they will and will not give the video away (if say the perpetrator of a crime was a family member).

What are people so afraid of the govt. doing with these cameras? How is
London doing with their camera system, anyway?

[Melinda]

111. Well lookee there.... Bin Laden wins again!

America appeared so mighty ... but it was actually weak and cowardly. Look at Vietnam, look at Lebanon. Whenever soldiers start coming home in body bags, Americans panic and retreat. Such a country needs only to be confronted with two or three sharp blows, then it will flee in panic, as it always has. ... It cannot stand against warriors of faith who do not fear death. - Usama Bin Laden. Cite: Lawrence Wright (2006). The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Knopf. p. 246. ISBN 0-375-41486-X.

[Chico Man]

139. You do realize you just posted this

On a publicly accessible website, that is indexed and archived for all eternity?

Imagine some camera picked you up spouting some Bin Laden quotes in public.. Is there any difference?

[alarimer]

113. Idiots

Let's just let that camel's nose under the tent, shall we?

The same mindset that says "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

How about a little human dignity? How about not being watched everywhere you go? I find it utterly creepy.

[Kablooie]

115. I'm an exhibitionist and find the idea kind of thrilling.

[WestCoastLib]

135. The ideas of what liberties are and what oppression is, needs progress too.

I see too many "progressives" that are simply not actually progressing with the times. In today's day and age, cameras in public places, controlled by the government is not treading on any liberties that we have.

The reality is that in George Orwell's 1984, or similar themed speculative fiction, the entire culture of the internet, cell phone cameras, youtube & twitter wasn't anticipated as playing the roles they do in our lives.

You aren't free from being unrecorded in public places anymore. It's just that the general public and businesses are doing it.

And that's the real issue, that's being subverted by outdated ideas inspired by dystopian science-fiction that's three quarters of a century old. The real issue is who do you want doing the surveillance? You want it just left up to the public & corporations like it is now? Because don't kid yourself- the redditt which-hunt we saw during the Boston bombing is only going to become more and more common for all kinds of crimes.

Us Progressives are quick to point out that government regulation is needed, because Corporations simply can not be trusted to do the right things. Reality is this issue is closer to one of regulation than it is of liberties or oppression. The "right" to be unrecorded in public has left the building long ago. Youtube is filled with people that have become the butt of jokes doing things that never would have been recorded 15 or or 20 years ago. People's crimes have been caught for crimes by the thousands with cell phone videos.

The choices aren't public recording vs. unobserved in public. It's Regulate, or allow the corporations and internet mob-mentality to control it.

Pick your poison, but this is not Orwell's 1984.

[Chico Man]

140. Good post

It's a "big data" problem and it will be taken advantage of by fear mongerers looking to profit.. the mob mentality will be very difficult to overcome...

[Chico Man]

138. There are also cameras here on DU

No really, there are.

So all those worried about surveillance, why are you here talking in public, when every word you type is captured and traceable, even more so than a few frames of your likeness stored on some hard drive?

Seems ridiculous and ironic to me that you are complaining about privacy in a public forum that could be regarded as an epitome of modern surveillance technique!!