You are determined not to understand the nature of debate.
I merely responded to the article with a comment regarding the fact that it focused on the surveillance and why I thought that was the wrong focus because such surveillance is legal.
I further noted that these type systems, when properly designed and functioning under reasonable and legal guidelines can be useful tools for law enforcement.
At no time did I assert that they would reduce crime to a significant degree. There is a difference. That is YOUR straw man that you used to "hijack" this thread, as you put it.
You will recall that I also asked you to cite YOUR sources for YOUR assertions, which, after some attempts at posting news articles, you finally did. They were YOUR points, not mine, I am NOT responsible for researching the proof for someone else's debating claims!!
My points were made as opinions, and not as provable claims, so I made no effort to prove anything. I didn't need to, that's my opinion, and not any kind of assertion of truth.
But I looked at your citation, as you requested, and as I should have since I asked you for it.
And found that your claims are simplistic, and are specifically disclaimed by the authors as a final and reasonable conclusion to the subject. This, in a study YOU cited!!
Your debating technique has consisted of a constant stream of simple repetition, clumsy attempts at logic that have failed to make a coherent point and repetitive ad hominem attacks that prove only that you have no clue how to properly debate anything.
I have looked at your "proof" and have found it wanting, and showed where and how it is diametrically opposed to your position as to the uselessness of CCTV systems.
Go find another thread to hijack, I am finished with you and your poor manners. I will not return to witness your hysteric ad hominem postings.
It would be easy for me to do the obvious thing and answer your desperate ad hominem attacks with my own, but I will not allow myself to be dragged down to your level.
Instead, I will answer you by quoting your chosen study.
From the section entitled "Conclusions: reflections on the effectiveness of CCTV":
"It would be easy to conclude from the information presented in this report that CCTV is not effective: the majority of the schemes evaluated did not reduce crime and even where there was a reduction this was mostly not due to CCTV; nor did CCTV schemes make people feel safer, much less change their behaviour. That, however, would be too simplistic a conclusion, and for several reasons."
"First, crime rates appeared to the authors to be a poor measure of the effectiveness of
CCTV. The problem about measuring outcomes in terms of overall crime rates was that they disguised some important successes with particular types of offense."
"Recorded crime rates were subject to a great deal of background noise from other factors, such as other crime reduction initiatives in the areas being studied, regional and national crime trends, and changes in methods of crime recording, any of which could mask the small impact that CCTV might have."
"Indeed, on the streets, police officers and others including door-staff, were able to remind individuals that cameras were watching them as a way of increasing compliance. Similarly, police officers and the media point to the effectiveness of CCTV in high-profile cases, which are lost in overall crime figures. The importance of the crime-fighting role that CCTV plays in this way should not be underestimated."
"Some weight should be attached to the retrospective use of CCTV images for evidential
purposes. All schemes passed on some images (although only a few in some cases) to the
police, which could be used to identify offenders or eliminate them from enquiries and to
help in the investigation of incidents. Such images could be used either as evidence in court or to help extract a guilty plea, or to identify witnesses and victims at a scene of crime. This focus was outside the remit of the evaluation, but there was little doubt from comments made by the police interviewed, and from other research (Levesley and Martin, 2005; Gill and Hemming, 2004) that the police view was generally positive."
"Cameras produce a lot of pictures and responding to and managing them will be a challenge for the future because this is labour-intensive work. Expectations here, on the part of the police and the public, need to be handled responsibly."
NOTE:
I would insert here that this comment backs up my contention that to fear future intensive surveillance is childish and a result of ignorance of how these systems work. I am reminded of the poster's comment above that one cannot have a society in which one half watches the other. That is exactly what such an intensive system would require!
Back to the quotes:
"However, systems have to be monitored properly or recordings made and stored properly; but the quality of this work varied considerably from one control room to another. Hence the researchers were often not evaluating carefully designed systems which addressed clearly defined crime and disorder problems, so much as failures of implementation."
Conclusion:
Again, this backs up my comments that the system in this instant case was not well implemented, and this should have been the focus of the article, as that implementation is critical to the ability of that system to meet the expectations of its owners.
Your citing of this study, and your assertion that it backs up your point is critical to seeing that you did not READ this report, nor examine its conclusions. You simply took a quote from a news article and decided that it would meet your needs.
It is obvious, further, that this subject is more complex than this article implies, and is not as clear cut as you would have us think. There are a lot of factors that affect the effectiveness of any observation or surveillance system, and any conclusions you make must take all of these into account, as the above quotes show.
Please, next time you quote a study, READ it! It'll make you look much more intelligent.
So why can't you link to his study? You assert that there are numerous studies, LINK to the STUDIES, not news stories or other people's descriptions of them!
And again, more ad hominem, can't you see how you are making yourself look bad?
You have every right to your opinion, and that's fine. Declare it all you wish.
But if you want to actually make a claim to something, you have to prove it with something besides just endlessly repeating that assertion. That proof is a link to that University study you cite, or to any of the countless others you say are there.
YOU are the one making the claim that camera systems don't work.
Prove it with something more than news stories with other people's opinions quoted.
MY point is that the systems commonly used are legal, and are being used in common sense ways to monitor places where active police presence is not always possible. In other words, to extend that presence where possible. As with a live cop and his memory, that temporary taped data is there as evidence for use in cases where it may be useful.
Yes, those systems must have strict controls over who has access to the system, who is allowed to monitor it, where and how that data is stored so that it can be used for legal, proper uses only.
The instant case in Lancaster, as I have noted, is in trouble at least in part, because unsworn, untrained volunteers are being used as monitors, and it is being placed in areas where people do not see them as being useful.
That is how our system works, the citizens will have their say, and if enough of the citizens of that town agree, the extra cameras will be removed. That is how it should be.
My initial point here was that the article focused on something that was not an issue: the legality of the surveillance. It IS legal. Whether it is appropriate or not is an issue the citizens themselves in that town will eventually decide, and that is a matter of opinion.
I have stated mine, you have stated yours. Great, that is also how it should be, but you have repeatedly attacked me and others personally as a debating tactic, and have failed to link to the evidence you assert exists.
So far, it is your opinion vs. mine. I have stated my case, and have labeled it as my opinion, and make no assertions that require proof.
If you insist doing so, then link to proof, not news.
Like I said, you don;t understand the implications of the costs of KEEPING digital or taped data safe in long term storage!
That cute little USB dongle flash drive? Don't try to keep that data there as long term storage, you'll lose it in a heartbeat, the first time a god static charge hits it. Your data will be toast!
Long term storage of data (and MOST surveillance systems use tape) is an expensive proposition.
It takes huge amounts of power, air conditioning to cool those drives, special construction to allow for both of these, and permanent IT personnel to keep it all maintained. Tape storage must be climate controlled, and both digital and taped data needs good physical security to protect it from theft or other unauthorized access.
So, contrary to your assertions, which expose your ignorance of the subject, such storage is NOT cheap, takes huge amounts of both power and space, and frankly is a deterrent to the kind of over-arching surveillance you and anon12 are afraid of.
It will never happen, because we just can't STORE all the data we could collect. The best we can do is watch for current activity and store a month or so for evidentiary purposes in case of a reported crime.
You complain of the costs of such systems NOW? Try permanently storing data for any length of time and you'll change your tune fast.
"WADR, Sneeje, it looks like hellish future is in the eye of the beholder. Like when law abiding citizens start to feel uncomfortable in their daily lives, because some random person is tracking their action. How about this?"
So get these people together and start a movement to change the law!
(and sworn LE personnel manning systems are not random. Agreed, the "volunteers" fit that description tho. So fix the system.)
I wasn't defending "this" case, but the use of them in general. I endorse the use of observation systems as a way of increasing the police presence in areas that need that presence, as long as the systems are used properly, i.e., use sworn police to monitor for real crime, protect the content against abuse and/or unauthorized use or release, and ensure that they only cover public areas. I don't have to specifically SAY that only covers other cases. Look at the circumstances of the instant case and you can readily see the differences.
I have mentioned time and again in my posts to this article that the use of volunteers is a problem, precisely because it violates the principles I just mentioned.
I note again that if you don't like the idea of a general surveillance system covering public areas, launch a movement to change the constitution to make that illegal.
Wrong, ad hominem attacks are used by those with little argument left to make their case, thus to attack the messenger is all that is left. It is the mark of a lazy debater.
If you have evidence to support your assertion that camera systems make little difference, cite them so we can evaluate your evidence. Otherwise, the assertions mean little.
As I said, your problem is with the purpose and operation of the system. thus, you need to look at the law, because that law allows such surveillance, as it is written.
Change the law. Currently, the law allows what is happening. If you don't like it, take your own advice and change it!
I have noted below that my point here is that the system in the article is legal, and Mike's concerns about the surveillance of a public space is unwarranted, since it is legal.
I DO have concerns, and the article should have focussed on, the procedures, policies and practices that are being used. Yes, using volunteers is an issue. Yes, how the footage may be used is a concern. Yes, protection of that footage and the usage of the system is a major concern.
It isn't the SYSTEM itself, but HOW it is used that you are concerned with, and rightfully so.
Part of the answer is education. People need to know more about how it is designed.
How is the data stored? How long is it stored for? What are the physical protections for access to it? What are the policies that drive that physical protection? What are the policies that drive its use?
If you don't like the answers to those questions, then change the law and make the things illegal which bother you. That is how the system we live under works.
No, my argument is that these systems, when used according to manufacturer's specs, and done according to the law, can be useful tools.
As I noted, the recordings are never kept for long, in MOST cases, sworn police are used to monitor the systems, and there at least should be protections to ensure that they are not abused, even while they ARE kept.
that is how I think this article should have been focussed.
Not on the public observation aspect, but on the policies and procedures behind the system.
I agree that volunteers are a problem. Not only since they are untrained, but because in monitoring the system, they have access to the recordings, and THAT opens the system up for abuse. What protections are there to lock up those recordings so copies can't be made? Is the location secured from unauthorized personnel? So who has access?
THESE are much more important than your fear of being seen scratching your ass.
NOW who's putting word in people's mouths? I never said this specific system in PA is the equivalent to cops on the corner. Nobody ever said these systems are perfect.
Of course, pictures don't always prove a crime, people often are dressed in concealing clothes, and there have been plenty of cases where video didn't help convict anybody at all.
But that doesn't mean that they are useless in all cases. Each system must be judged by how they are installed and how the owner intends to use it. Procedures are as important as technical specs.
Yes, I agree with those who say that this system staffed by volunteers is less than "kosher". Volunteers, of course, won't be trained to recognize a crime, first of all. That's why a really good system must have sworn, trained police officers available to be able to make that determination.
IF the system is even intended to extend the police presence that way.
It may be just for evidence sake, in which case, you point about how useful it is is a good one, depending on its resolution and clarity.
As for the camera resolution, the article doesn't say, these particular ones could be very good, some systems are. But many are just crap, in which case, I would question the usefulness of the whole dang system.
My point is that these systems are not illegal, they serve useful purposes when used correctly and installed as intended by the manufacturer.
All of that is, of course, subject to the circumstances of each individual case.
Where do you suppose anybody is going to get the money, space, equipment and personnel to actually staff, update, maintain, this equipment and system, PLUS store the resulting data?
Obviously, you have no clue as to how much space, even electronic data, uses for permanent storage.
East Germany was as close as anybody has ever gotten to what you describe, and they never could watch everybody. That is impossible, even with cameras.
Modern surveillance systems use tape, cause it is cheaper than digital storage. Tape is rotated, so you don't need either as much tape or storage space.
What you describe is never going to happen, cause the means is not available, either as equipment nor the personnel to staff such a system.
Don't like being watched? Then you'll have to be a hermit, people have ALWAYS been watched, they're just doing it electronically now. Not a shred of difference.
No, cameras don't, but increased police enforcement does. That is what these cameras allow the police to do, increase their presence more cheaply than putting a cop on every corner.
The recordings allow for evidence to be used against perpetrators in court.
On the other hand, if you think any city has the storage space to KEEP all this stuff indefinitely, then you don't have a clue as to what that storage costs!
These kinds of observation systems use tape, and the tape is rotated on a periodic basis, to save money on tape and storage. They rarely keep it longer than a month, unless it is being used for evidence in a criminal case.
Believe me, nobody has the personnel to watch this stuff all the time, even with these volunteers. That's what the tape is for. If a crime is reported, the tapes for that period and location get pulled and looked at. Otherwise, the tape is rotated back into the queue and used again, where the data is overwritten.
If you think your movements are not observed on a daily basis in any big city, think again. You ARE being observed, ALL the time.
To be honest, I'd like there to be a cop on every corner. Life would be safer. I'm not a criminal, I don't run around doing things that are illegal, or questionable, or even slightly off color. I'm a pretty boring guy, in that respect!
My life, as I conduct myself in public, is open to scrutiny, and I've NEVER been afraid for a cop, any cop, to watch my movements as part of his job, as I casually encounter them on a daily basis. Usually, they ignore me, unless I run a red light, or speed or something similar.
I couldn't care less if there were cops around almost every corner, I'd feel safer, to be honest. but I know that for budgetary reasons, not a city on earth can afford that level of official scrutiny.
Would I feel uncomfortable in a totalitarian society with that level of observation? Sure, who wouldn't? But we have Constitutional protections to shield us from abuse, at least after the fact.
Our laws allow the government, or anyone else, to observe, either directly or via electronic means, any public space. There is NO expectation of privacy there. NONE.
In addition, your movements may be tracked by the government, if they have evidence of possible illegal activity. It's called probable cause. So they can do that NOW. At any time, electronically or in person.
So there is a difference between observation and surveillance. Observation is simply watching an area for publicly observable illegal activity. Surveillance is tracking specific individuals or groups to directly observe illegal activity.
I have no trouble with either, as long as they are being conducted according to the law.
On one hand, I agree, since unpaid volunteers gave access to the system, it is more open to abuse. That part IS an issue, I think.
But again, the law has been very clear in cases where police have observed illegal activity or substances through open windows or doors.
If the activity is observable from a public space, and the occupant/owner has made no effort to block that view, it is not a violation of privacy.
If you KNOW someone - a neighbor or an often observed runner or walker - that regularly walks by your window and takes the opportunity to peek as they walk by - is that a violation of privacy?
No, cause you have the opportunity to place window coverings to block the view.
Same with that camera. Don't like it? Use the shades or curtains. During the day, that will be less of an issue due to lighting conditions.
At night, close the dang shades, I really don't want to see what you're doing in your bedroom or living room!
But in such cases you can see who's photographing you.
Not always.
And why should government equipment always be in sight? Again, no privacy expectation, so one MUST ALWAYS assume one is under some kind of observation.
I don't see the problem here at all.
Police departments set up sting operations all the time, closed observation posts in convenience stores to catch armed robbers. The only difference here is that the watching cop isn't there in person, and must call patrol cars if a problem is observed. And that is in a privately owned establishment. (with owner's permission of course)
So the police ALWAYS have the power of the government behind them, and they aren't always observable when they watch. It's just that today, the watcher isn't always there in person, but behind a camera miles away.
On the post: If You Don't Want People To Know About Stuff, Maybe Don't Put A Press Release On Your Website With The Info
Re: Mike you are a Jerk
Maybe it is, but the point is in his article - ONCE IT'S ON THE WEB, IT'S OUT THERE. You seem to have missed it...
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
I merely responded to the article with a comment regarding the fact that it focused on the surveillance and why I thought that was the wrong focus because such surveillance is legal.
I further noted that these type systems, when properly designed and functioning under reasonable and legal guidelines can be useful tools for law enforcement.
At no time did I assert that they would reduce crime to a significant degree. There is a difference. That is YOUR straw man that you used to "hijack" this thread, as you put it.
You will recall that I also asked you to cite YOUR sources for YOUR assertions, which, after some attempts at posting news articles, you finally did. They were YOUR points, not mine, I am NOT responsible for researching the proof for someone else's debating claims!!
My points were made as opinions, and not as provable claims, so I made no effort to prove anything. I didn't need to, that's my opinion, and not any kind of assertion of truth.
But I looked at your citation, as you requested, and as I should have since I asked you for it.
And found that your claims are simplistic, and are specifically disclaimed by the authors as a final and reasonable conclusion to the subject. This, in a study YOU cited!!
Your debating technique has consisted of a constant stream of simple repetition, clumsy attempts at logic that have failed to make a coherent point and repetitive ad hominem attacks that prove only that you have no clue how to properly debate anything.
I have looked at your "proof" and have found it wanting, and showed where and how it is diametrically opposed to your position as to the uselessness of CCTV systems.
Go find another thread to hijack, I am finished with you and your poor manners. I will not return to witness your hysteric ad hominem postings.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
Instead, I will answer you by quoting your chosen study.
From the section entitled "Conclusions: reflections on the effectiveness of CCTV":
"It would be easy to conclude from the information presented in this report that CCTV is not effective: the majority of the schemes evaluated did not reduce crime and even where there was a reduction this was mostly not due to CCTV; nor did CCTV schemes make people feel safer, much less change their behaviour. That, however, would be too simplistic a conclusion, and for several reasons."
"First, crime rates appeared to the authors to be a poor measure of the effectiveness of
CCTV. The problem about measuring outcomes in terms of overall crime rates was that they disguised some important successes with particular types of offense."
"Recorded crime rates were subject to a great deal of background noise from other factors, such as other crime reduction initiatives in the areas being studied, regional and national crime trends, and changes in methods of crime recording, any of which could mask the small impact that CCTV might have."
"Indeed, on the streets, police officers and others including door-staff, were able to remind individuals that cameras were watching them as a way of increasing compliance. Similarly, police officers and the media point to the effectiveness of CCTV in high-profile cases, which are lost in overall crime figures. The importance of the crime-fighting role that CCTV plays in this way should not be underestimated."
"Some weight should be attached to the retrospective use of CCTV images for evidential
purposes. All schemes passed on some images (although only a few in some cases) to the
police, which could be used to identify offenders or eliminate them from enquiries and to
help in the investigation of incidents. Such images could be used either as evidence in court or to help extract a guilty plea, or to identify witnesses and victims at a scene of crime. This focus was outside the remit of the evaluation, but there was little doubt from comments made by the police interviewed, and from other research (Levesley and Martin, 2005; Gill and Hemming, 2004) that the police view was generally positive."
"Cameras produce a lot of pictures and responding to and managing them will be a challenge for the future because this is labour-intensive work. Expectations here, on the part of the police and the public, need to be handled responsibly."
NOTE:
I would insert here that this comment backs up my contention that to fear future intensive surveillance is childish and a result of ignorance of how these systems work. I am reminded of the poster's comment above that one cannot have a society in which one half watches the other. That is exactly what such an intensive system would require!
Back to the quotes:
"However, systems have to be monitored properly or recordings made and stored properly; but the quality of this work varied considerably from one control room to another. Hence the researchers were often not evaluating carefully designed systems which addressed clearly defined crime and disorder problems, so much as failures of implementation."
Conclusion:
Again, this backs up my comments that the system in this instant case was not well implemented, and this should have been the focus of the article, as that implementation is critical to the ability of that system to meet the expectations of its owners.
Your citing of this study, and your assertion that it backs up your point is critical to seeing that you did not READ this report, nor examine its conclusions. You simply took a quote from a news article and decided that it would meet your needs.
It is obvious, further, that this subject is more complex than this article implies, and is not as clear cut as you would have us think. There are a lot of factors that affect the effectiveness of any observation or surveillance system, and any conclusions you make must take all of these into account, as the above quotes show.
Please, next time you quote a study, READ it! It'll make you look much more intelligent.
LOL!!
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
And again, more ad hominem, can't you see how you are making yourself look bad?
You have every right to your opinion, and that's fine. Declare it all you wish.
But if you want to actually make a claim to something, you have to prove it with something besides just endlessly repeating that assertion. That proof is a link to that University study you cite, or to any of the countless others you say are there.
YOU are the one making the claim that camera systems don't work.
Prove it with something more than news stories with other people's opinions quoted.
MY point is that the systems commonly used are legal, and are being used in common sense ways to monitor places where active police presence is not always possible. In other words, to extend that presence where possible. As with a live cop and his memory, that temporary taped data is there as evidence for use in cases where it may be useful.
Yes, those systems must have strict controls over who has access to the system, who is allowed to monitor it, where and how that data is stored so that it can be used for legal, proper uses only.
The instant case in Lancaster, as I have noted, is in trouble at least in part, because unsworn, untrained volunteers are being used as monitors, and it is being placed in areas where people do not see them as being useful.
That is how our system works, the citizens will have their say, and if enough of the citizens of that town agree, the extra cameras will be removed. That is how it should be.
My initial point here was that the article focused on something that was not an issue: the legality of the surveillance. It IS legal. Whether it is appropriate or not is an issue the citizens themselves in that town will eventually decide, and that is a matter of opinion.
I have stated mine, you have stated yours. Great, that is also how it should be, but you have repeatedly attacked me and others personally as a debating tactic, and have failed to link to the evidence you assert exists.
So far, it is your opinion vs. mine. I have stated my case, and have labeled it as my opinion, and make no assertions that require proof.
If you insist doing so, then link to proof, not news.
Otherwise, goodbye.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re: Re: image of the future
That cute little USB dongle flash drive? Don't try to keep that data there as long term storage, you'll lose it in a heartbeat, the first time a god static charge hits it. Your data will be toast!
Long term storage of data (and MOST surveillance systems use tape) is an expensive proposition.
It takes huge amounts of power, air conditioning to cool those drives, special construction to allow for both of these, and permanent IT personnel to keep it all maintained. Tape storage must be climate controlled, and both digital and taped data needs good physical security to protect it from theft or other unauthorized access.
So, contrary to your assertions, which expose your ignorance of the subject, such storage is NOT cheap, takes huge amounts of both power and space, and frankly is a deterrent to the kind of over-arching surveillance you and anon12 are afraid of.
It will never happen, because we just can't STORE all the data we could collect. The best we can do is watch for current activity and store a month or so for evidentiary purposes in case of a reported crime.
You complain of the costs of such systems NOW? Try permanently storing data for any length of time and you'll change your tune fast.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
So get these people together and start a movement to change the law!
(and sworn LE personnel manning systems are not random. Agreed, the "volunteers" fit that description tho. So fix the system.)
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
More opinions.
Link to the studies, not secondary assertions by other people. That way, it is merely hearsay and not proof.
So, again, here is your ad hominem attack covering up your insecurity.
Have a nice day.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
You are making the statement that there are studies to support your claims.
Prove it by posting links to them. If you have read them, you know where they are and can easily link to them to prove to us doubters.
If you do not, the assumption here is that you are coming up empty and have nothing to back up your claims.
Again, here you go with the ad hominem attacks, proving, once again, that you have no argument other than your own opinion.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
I wasn't defending "this" case, but the use of them in general. I endorse the use of observation systems as a way of increasing the police presence in areas that need that presence, as long as the systems are used properly, i.e., use sworn police to monitor for real crime, protect the content against abuse and/or unauthorized use or release, and ensure that they only cover public areas. I don't have to specifically SAY that only covers other cases. Look at the circumstances of the instant case and you can readily see the differences.
I have mentioned time and again in my posts to this article that the use of volunteers is a problem, precisely because it violates the principles I just mentioned.
I note again that if you don't like the idea of a general surveillance system covering public areas, launch a movement to change the constitution to make that illegal.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
If you have evidence to support your assertion that camera systems make little difference, cite them so we can evaluate your evidence. Otherwise, the assertions mean little.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
So change the law.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re: Re: Re:
Change the law. Currently, the law allows what is happening. If you don't like it, take your own advice and change it!
I have noted below that my point here is that the system in the article is legal, and Mike's concerns about the surveillance of a public space is unwarranted, since it is legal.
I DO have concerns, and the article should have focussed on, the procedures, policies and practices that are being used. Yes, using volunteers is an issue. Yes, how the footage may be used is a concern. Yes, protection of that footage and the usage of the system is a major concern.
It isn't the SYSTEM itself, but HOW it is used that you are concerned with, and rightfully so.
Part of the answer is education. People need to know more about how it is designed.
How is the data stored? How long is it stored for? What are the physical protections for access to it? What are the policies that drive that physical protection? What are the policies that drive its use?
If you don't like the answers to those questions, then change the law and make the things illegal which bother you. That is how the system we live under works.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
As I noted, the recordings are never kept for long, in MOST cases, sworn police are used to monitor the systems, and there at least should be protections to ensure that they are not abused, even while they ARE kept.
that is how I think this article should have been focussed.
Not on the public observation aspect, but on the policies and procedures behind the system.
I agree that volunteers are a problem. Not only since they are untrained, but because in monitoring the system, they have access to the recordings, and THAT opens the system up for abuse. What protections are there to lock up those recordings so copies can't be made? Is the location secured from unauthorized personnel? So who has access?
THESE are much more important than your fear of being seen scratching your ass.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
Of course, pictures don't always prove a crime, people often are dressed in concealing clothes, and there have been plenty of cases where video didn't help convict anybody at all.
But that doesn't mean that they are useless in all cases. Each system must be judged by how they are installed and how the owner intends to use it. Procedures are as important as technical specs.
Yes, I agree with those who say that this system staffed by volunteers is less than "kosher". Volunteers, of course, won't be trained to recognize a crime, first of all. That's why a really good system must have sworn, trained police officers available to be able to make that determination.
IF the system is even intended to extend the police presence that way.
It may be just for evidence sake, in which case, you point about how useful it is is a good one, depending on its resolution and clarity.
As for the camera resolution, the article doesn't say, these particular ones could be very good, some systems are. But many are just crap, in which case, I would question the usefulness of the whole dang system.
My point is that these systems are not illegal, they serve useful purposes when used correctly and installed as intended by the manufacturer.
All of that is, of course, subject to the circumstances of each individual case.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re: image of the future
Obviously, you have no clue as to how much space, even electronic data, uses for permanent storage.
East Germany was as close as anybody has ever gotten to what you describe, and they never could watch everybody. That is impossible, even with cameras.
Modern surveillance systems use tape, cause it is cheaper than digital storage. Tape is rotated, so you don't need either as much tape or storage space.
What you describe is never going to happen, cause the means is not available, either as equipment nor the personnel to staff such a system.
Don't like being watched? Then you'll have to be a hermit, people have ALWAYS been watched, they're just doing it electronically now. Not a shred of difference.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
The recordings allow for evidence to be used against perpetrators in court.
On the other hand, if you think any city has the storage space to KEEP all this stuff indefinitely, then you don't have a clue as to what that storage costs!
These kinds of observation systems use tape, and the tape is rotated on a periodic basis, to save money on tape and storage. They rarely keep it longer than a month, unless it is being used for evidence in a criminal case.
Believe me, nobody has the personnel to watch this stuff all the time, even with these volunteers. That's what the tape is for. If a crime is reported, the tapes for that period and location get pulled and looked at. Otherwise, the tape is rotated back into the queue and used again, where the data is overwritten.
This is a lot of hoopla for nothing.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't illegal, is it? Your privacy is NOT being violated, because in public, you have NO expectation of any privacy at all.
So what is the problem? What is that difference?
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re: Re: Re: Re: what issues?
To be honest, I'd like there to be a cop on every corner. Life would be safer. I'm not a criminal, I don't run around doing things that are illegal, or questionable, or even slightly off color. I'm a pretty boring guy, in that respect!
My life, as I conduct myself in public, is open to scrutiny, and I've NEVER been afraid for a cop, any cop, to watch my movements as part of his job, as I casually encounter them on a daily basis. Usually, they ignore me, unless I run a red light, or speed or something similar.
I couldn't care less if there were cops around almost every corner, I'd feel safer, to be honest. but I know that for budgetary reasons, not a city on earth can afford that level of official scrutiny.
Would I feel uncomfortable in a totalitarian society with that level of observation? Sure, who wouldn't? But we have Constitutional protections to shield us from abuse, at least after the fact.
Our laws allow the government, or anyone else, to observe, either directly or via electronic means, any public space. There is NO expectation of privacy there. NONE.
In addition, your movements may be tracked by the government, if they have evidence of possible illegal activity. It's called probable cause. So they can do that NOW. At any time, electronically or in person.
So there is a difference between observation and surveillance. Observation is simply watching an area for publicly observable illegal activity. Surveillance is tracking specific individuals or groups to directly observe illegal activity.
I have no trouble with either, as long as they are being conducted according to the law.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re: Note to self: Never move to Lancaster, PA
But again, the law has been very clear in cases where police have observed illegal activity or substances through open windows or doors.
If the activity is observable from a public space, and the occupant/owner has made no effort to block that view, it is not a violation of privacy.
If you KNOW someone - a neighbor or an often observed runner or walker - that regularly walks by your window and takes the opportunity to peek as they walk by - is that a violation of privacy?
No, cause you have the opportunity to place window coverings to block the view.
Same with that camera. Don't like it? Use the shades or curtains. During the day, that will be less of an issue due to lighting conditions.
At night, close the dang shades, I really don't want to see what you're doing in your bedroom or living room!
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re: Re: what issues?
Not always.
And why should government equipment always be in sight? Again, no privacy expectation, so one MUST ALWAYS assume one is under some kind of observation.
I don't see the problem here at all.
Police departments set up sting operations all the time, closed observation posts in convenience stores to catch armed robbers. The only difference here is that the watching cop isn't there in person, and must call patrol cars if a problem is observed. And that is in a privately owned establishment. (with owner's permission of course)
So the police ALWAYS have the power of the government behind them, and they aren't always observable when they watch. It's just that today, the watcher isn't always there in person, but behind a camera miles away.
Not a lot of difference.
Next >>