I truly believe that the very essence of liberty hinges at least in part on the right and ability of the individual to keep some secrets. Without privacy, you cannot really be free.

Surveillance cameras ought to be an easy issue. The very idea of them carries obvious Orwellian connotations, and goodness knows every freedom-loving American should be automatically opposed to anything resembling the Big Brother. But I find myself stopping just short of total disagreement with the idea.

For one thing, cameras at intersections that are intended to deter traffic violations have been around Houston now for a year or two, and I think they're great. I have witnessed at least two collisions and countless near-misses because of reckless drivers trying to beat red lights. I feel a pang of satisfaction whenever I see that camera flash, because I know that jerk is going to get a little present in the mail. If only we could do something about people who toss their cigarette butts and soda cans out of open car windows.

So what about cameras on streetcorners? I don't like the idea of any city putting cops on every corner; it strikes me as rather paranoid and very much in line with my idea of the "police state." But I don't necessarily see the logic in suggesting that being free means the bad guys have to be given a chance to get away with their crimes. If I lived in a crime-ridden ghetto, I'd welcome an increased police presence with open arms.

So what's the difference between putting actual cops on the beat and installing cameras?

I confess that my opinion is partially influenced by the mugging of a family friend in downtown Houston a few weeks ago. He was walking outside his apartment building around 10 o'clock and was attacked and beaten so badly he almost died; he spent a couple of weeks in a coma. The police are having a hard time with the case. They don't have much to go on. If a camera had been there to capture the act, perhaps we'd have a better chance of getting justice. Or, maybe the attack would not have happened at all.

People in a public setting don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Despite the autocratic overtones, I don't really have a problem with cameras in these areas. There is a definite line between spying on Americans in the privacy of their homes and keeping watch over them in a public place.

A camera which has no ability to indentify individual indentities would not be too bad. However- would you feel the same if the cameras all have facial recognition capabilities, and all your movements would be tracked, recorded, stored and analyzed somewhere? It would be as intimidating as the government tracking your web usage. You might think twice before attending that anti-war protest. Some homeland goon somewhere might decide that you've attended one too many anti-war rallies, and it's time to put your name on the no-fly list.

I guess in principle, I have no objection to video surveillance in public places, since there is no expectation of privacy there in the first place. It is vaguely disturbing to have the sort of data that will likely be available in the near future with data recognition software and massive storage for data.

Eigenvector:

I'd rather have a cop on the beat than a camera in the sky. A cop shows they want to prevent crime - a camera shows they just want to capture it for the trial.

True; or, a camera just means they want to cash in on every fine-worthy offense they can catch.

Anse:

For one thing, cameras at intersections that are intended to deter traffic violations have been around Houston now for a year or two, and I think they're great. I have witnessed at least two collisions and countless near-misses because of reckless drivers trying to beat red lights. I feel a pang of satisfaction whenever I see that camera flash, because I know that jerk is going to get a little present in the mail.

I guess I don't have a problem with this either if they have: a) the camera(s) set at such an angle to capture the identity of the driver in most cases and b) a reliable mechanism for protesting one's actual innocence (e.g. you're driving, but it's your friend's car; should the friend have to pay the ticket?).

haulinsacs:

...a reliable mechanism for protesting one's actual innocence (e.g. you're driving, but it's your friend's car; should the friend have to pay the ticket?).

If the camera catches you blowing a stoplight in your friend's car, they send the ticket to your friend. He/she shows up at the DMV and if the picture clearly isn't them, the ticket is dismissed. They'll ask you who the other person is, but you aren't required to tell them. (This, at least, was my experience years ago in Denver)

Anse:

Eigenvector:

I'd rather have a cop on the beat than a camera in the sky. A cop shows they want to prevent crime - a camera shows they just want to capture it for the trial.

True; or, a camera just means they want to cash in on every fine-worthy offense they can catch.

I always view traffic cameras as precursors to the profanity citations from Demolition Man. Something there to issue citations with no effort, involvement, or consideration of events.

Anse,

You present a series of logical thoughts....and I resent you for them: I don't want anyone to PRESUME to suggest that I need to give logical reasons why I don't want to be under CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE by the POLICE POWER of the state. To give it any more argument or discussion is to be already sliding on my ass down a steep and slippery slope--with razor wire waiting at the bottom.

The other half of the equation is the police power that you mention. Cameras, as Anse points out, are not inherently bad. The abuse that results from them is, however, inherently related to governmental power.

I think that the proliferation of cameras is inevitable; already private cameras are canvassed by police just as eyewitnesses are. Where liberty-minded folks need to focus their efforts is on limiting the power of the state to act on the information. There should be no "no-fly" list, for example, without a reasonable cause that can be demonstrated. That is, the government should have to prove that each individual on the list presents a threat, not just a "maybe" and certainly not a "bad attitude - too many protest rallies" label.

I disagree; and I could only begin to give the most casual thought to possible reasons to agree if you could show me a government that has NOT abused it's power.

The manner in which the dubya administration avoids any and all attempts to keep it in some sort of reasonable constitutional "check" is a blatant example.

Orwell was SUCH a genius in seeing that fear was the key. In the days of 24hr, INFLAMED news coverage, we're led to believe the world is filled with imminent danger. This even while the truth that our streets are safer than they've been in a long time is ignored. GOD HELP US if we were actually living in a world where our "reasonable safety" required continuous police surveillance. MOST people are safe MOST of the time right now, in <name your hell hole>, without such intrusion.

StevieN:

I disagree; and I could only begin to give the most casual thought to possible reasons to agree if you could show me a government that has NOT abused it's power.

Sorry, but that's not a fair prerequisite for you to engage your thought process. It's also a non sequitur - I propose that government power should be limited, precisely to avoid abuse, as well as to mitigate the possible effects of abuse that does occur.

Simply having an enemies list, or an archive of public surveillance footage, is not threatening. It's the ability to act on the information that is subject to abuse.

sorry. I'll rephrase for you: Show me a government that has not exceeded its LIMITATIONS on the use of power...

In this country bush has simply declared as nullified any limits to his power that are not to his liking. The congress has made a whimper of indignation lasting a week or two. Citizens and journalists have mostly shrugged.

Limitations, apparently, don't limit anything. The ABSENCE of power (by the absence of means of surveillance) works perfectly at keeping the limitations you would like.

Stevie, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public forum. What's the difference between a cop fucking you over and a camera doing it? I don't buy this slippery-slope argument. There's a pretty distinct line between a camera on a streetcorner and somebody tapping your phone line.

Again, neighborhoods that struggle with chronic crime problems will eventually see increased police presence (hopefully). Would you be opposed to that, too? The question of liberty comes down on two opposing points: it is not freedom to have cops everywhere, but neither is it freedom to be constantly at risk of criminal activity. Which one do you prefer to live with?

StevieN:

sorry. I'll rephrase for you: Show me a government that has not exceeded its LIMITATIONS on the use of power...

In this country bush has simply declared as nullified any limits to his power that are not to his liking. The congress has made a whimper of indignation lasting a week or two. Citizens and journalists have mostly shrugged.

Limitations, apparently, don't limit anything. The ABSENCE of power (by the absence of means of surveillance) works perfectly at keeping the limitations you would like.