What do you think of surveillance cameras

[Shell Beau]

Poll question: What do you think of surveillance cameras

similar to what London has?

[Mutley]

1. I STILL don't like the idea of cameras in public areas like that.

But crime in Baltimore has gone down a bit in the areas they've put the cameras. I can't say it's because of the cameras though.

[Shell Beau]

2. I know it is like a catch 22.

[Mutley]

4. It doesn't work very well unless they have the cameras on every inch

of real estate in the area. There is a notorious "drug corner" near downtown Baltimore where they've put up cameras. Except they didn't put any in the alleys and such behind the buildings, only on the main roads. So, instead of chasing the dealers away, they just hide in the alleys and keep an eye out for known customers.

They also hide out in some of the businesses around there where the owners don't care.

[Shell Beau]

8. Yeah I can see what you mean.

It seems the alleys and such would be the best place to put them.

[sui generis]

3. er, how is it an invasion of privacy?

not to be freeperish, but I disagree that public cameras are an invasion of privacy.

I do think that registered gps chips in our cellphones and vehicles are more so, because there is an IDENTITY component that goes with that, but cameras, at least with today's technology, are passive and don't ID you.

[Shell Beau]

5. Well I was watching Good Morning America

and with the technology they were talking about, these cameras measure the width b/tw your eyes, they measure the length of your nose, your shoe size. They send you image through to somewhere so they can ID you.

[sui generis]

10. that "eigenface" software is highly UNreliable

I read that the failure rate was as high as 30 or 40 percent and that was under perfect conditions. Theoretically it can do the trick if all the conditions are perfect - great lighting, staring directly into the camera, etc., but a camera on a public street can't interpolate an oblique head angle, get a measurement reading on your pupils, and search through a 7 billion record (or even a a couple million record city database) world database for the one true match, much less do all of this for thousands of people at a time at hundreds of thousands of cameras in all U.S. cities.

Also, you have to have a saved "face print" on file to begin with, kind of like a fingerprint.

If cameras are used to track the movements of specific people in public places at all times and then the information sold to marketing organizations and insurance agencies, etc., then I would agree it was a HUGE invasion of privacy, but right now they are used for public safety, and 99.9% of the time "after the incident" to help untangle the who/what/where.

[Shell Beau]

12. I would definitely think it would be hard to do,

but they said they were able to catch someone (some terrorist) by his shoe size that was caught on camera. I think it can be a good thing if not abused.

[Lowell]

6. I'd like to see more of them

especially at many of our dangerous intersections. Red light runners are epidemic here and I remember when I was stationed in Germany they used them to curtail the problem. It worked well there and I think we need to use them for that here.

Locally they tried using them with Face Recognition software. They installed the software in Ybor City and it caused an uproar from the public. Interestingly enough they never caught a criminal in the entire year they used the FRS.

The practice could easily get out of hand, but I do believe it makes us a little safer.

[MadHound]

14. To quote our esteemed Mr. Franklin

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Red light cameras, security cameras, traffic control cameras, all should be abolished. While they provide a little extra safety in the short term, in the long run all they do is breed a better, more wily criminal. Cameras have been a store staple for a couple of decades now, yet suprise, suprise, the shoplifting rate has gone up:eyes:

Meanwhile they are an invasion of privacy. Many of those cameras aren't fixed, and there have been documented cases of the people on the other end using said cameras to peer into the residences of people living adjacent to a camera.

These damn things are nothing but another toy with which to continous slide into Orwell's nightmare, while doing nothing about providing safety and security in the long run. Every damn one of them should be ripped down and thrown away. But sadly many Americans are now living in a constant state of (contrived) fear, and will welcome anything that they think will protect them, even if it is a phantom protection that strips their right to privacy away. Welcome to fascist America.

[sui generis]

16. the shoplifting rate has gone up BECAUSE

the measure is the number of shoplifting violations per year.

We're also adding more stores as municipal and suburban populations grow, not just more cameras, so that's a useless statistic to quote.

Screw Franklin's quote, and I mean that. Nobody has the right to say what protections I do or do not deserve - and I don't consider my "essential liberties" to hold true in public.

I can shit on the coffee table in my living room if I like, but I can't do it in public. I can do many many things in the "privacy" of my own home that I "essentially" give up the freedom to do in public, and that doesn't make me any less deserving of liberty or safety.

[MadHound]

26. No, shoplifting is measured as a percentile loss,

Not as a numerical loss. The percentage has gone up, got it?

And nice to see that you're living in such a state of fear that you are willing to chuck not just your right to privacy , but mine and everybody elses' as well. If you are so bloody scared of life, why not just be done with it and put a camera in every single room in your house? Or is that too much of an invasion of your privacy?

And it is obvious that you don't get it either. Many of those cameras have motors, and are mounted on swivels. Get the picture? So that dump you take on your coffee table will be recorded live, in living color, and will be used against you both in the corporate sector and a court of law.

And if you honestly think that the crime rate is going to drop in the long run because of cameras, I've got a bridge to sell you. All that cameras do is breed a much more cunning, smart and clever criminal. Meanwhile, we all continue down the slippery slope to Orwell's nightmare, being cheered on by those who are being scared into giving up their God given and Constitutionally confirmed right to privacy.

Gee thanks, I always appreciate the applause section as I ride this handbasket unwillingly into hell:eyes:

Try growing a bit of a spine, and stop living in fear. It does wonders for your mental health, and gee, it helps to preserve this country of ours. What a concept.

[WeRQ4U]

28. I love it how the insanely paranoid masses accuse others of being afraid

That is such bullshit. Guess what, if that camera swivels into my home and catches me taking a crap on my furniture, or donig anything illegal for that matter, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN. We have certain protections, and they include protections against warrantless searches from electronic devices not readily available to the general public. They can look all they want, they won't be able to do anything with their information. Check out the Supreme Court's decision in Kylo. THAT, my friend is the difference. They CAN use the information they receive in public, becasue I have no legimate expectation of privacy in public. And frankly I don't care if they afford me one or not. I'd just assume they do not.

SImply becasue he doesn't buy into your paranoia, doesn't necessarily make him willy-nilly with his personal rights, and it certaily doesn't equate to some overriding fear. Check you head friend, the fear is coming from someone in there.

[MadHound]

30. LOL friend, you are just so damn naive

First off, yes the officials CAN do many things with those images they capture. Sure, they can't be used in court, but they can serve as the basis for warrants, searches, etc. In addition, we have many examples of camers winding up on porn sites or worse. Gee, how would you like for an underpaid cop to sell the film of you and your SO having an intimate moment spread all over the internet?

It continues to amaze me how many people are so willing to sit by and let our essential liberties be shredded. Go ahead then friend, buy into that propaganda spin, cameras are good for you, we will be a more secure nation:eyes: Just don't come back and bitch when you're caught on tape doing something illegal and/or embarrassing OK. And especially don't be acting all suprised when twenty years from now, people like you have forced us down that slippery slope to having a camera in every room in every home. For this is where we headed with this. Don't you fucking get it? It isn't about security and crime friend, it is about increasing governmental control of the masses. Geez, get a fucking clue:eyes:

[sui generis]

33. sky is falling sky is falling

eek.

looks like someone learned the present pluperfect form of the infinitive "to fuck" AND how to use the eyes smilie today.

How fucking clever. :eyes:

[MadHound]

34. Gee, looks like somebody is comfortable with their head in the sand

And doesn't want to take the time or trouble to pull it out. Gee thanks, for the sake of your own comfort and fear factor, we will all suffer. Good show, good show.

Another person who unwilling to be part of the solution, thus becoming part of the problem. Gee thanks:eyes:

[sui generis]

35. I am quite entertained by you, thank you

hope your day gets better.

-sui

[WeRQ4U]

36. Conspiracy theorists think everyone is naive. No surprise here.

You continue to make huge leaps in your logic and your continue to assume way too much. Noone here is arguing that cameras be placed in every home, in every room. In fact, everyone besides you realizes the difference between public and private use of surveilance.

Besides, have your read the 4th amendment? Put down 1984, and read the consitution instead.

Here, I'll give it to you as a refresher.

"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." - NOTE: There is nothing about clothing stores or major intersections here.
---------------

Now, you can go right ahead and send me links and citations from the newest version of the Patriot Act. But I am well aware of the invasions on personal PRIVICY rights that it entails. I'm well aware that it authorizes rather clandestine burglarization of people's homes in the name of "national security." And unless you're dense, you must realize that I do not support these types of searches any more than you do. However I do not equate some intersection red light camera-cop or the video tape at the local 7-11 to an invasion of my personal privacy rights. And where you and I differ is merely that your paranoia that police are specifically out to get you, allows you to equate the innocuous placement of a camera at the intersection of 3rd and Villard, with some sci-fi thought police. I don't.

[MadHound]

41. Ahh, another classic label

Those who you don't agree with you, or with the "official" story are conspiracy theorists. Just what they called those people who questioned the official JFK assissnation story. Trouble is, those theorists kept digging and researching until the government finally had to recognize, officially, that they were right, and that the assissnation WAS a conspiracy. Sadly though, that took many years, and nothing was ever done with that proclimation.

So here we are today, discussing the abuse of electronic surveillance, and now because somebody in the REALITY based world is raising alarm bells over abuse, they're labeled a conspiracy theorist. Good show, nice stereotyping, and completely erroneous.

Here, check these out, educate yourself to the abuse of electronic surveillance, both public and private. Then get back to me and tell me how nutters I am:

<http://www.notbored.org/camera-abuses.html>
<http://www.notbored.org/to-the-lawyers.html>
<http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/info2.html>

I find it rather ironic that you lecture on the Fourth Amendment, yet refuse to see the correlation between the increasing use and misuse of security cameras, and the detioration of the Fourth Amendment. Every camera put up has the potential for misuse, and that potential is being fulfilled. To quote from a linked article above "It appears that police monitors just can’t seem to keep it in their pants when it comes to video surveillance. In a Hull University study, 1 out of 10 women were targeted for “voyeuristic” reasons by male camera operators, and a Brooklyn police sergeant blew the whistle on several of her colleagues in 1998 for “taking pictures of civilian women in the area ... from breast shots to the backside." Gee, would you want you, your SO, mother, sister or other female aquaintances to be covertly ogled this way? Or better yet, ogled, and then sold to the highest bidder? This is happening now, as a further quote from the linked article states "In 199X, Barrie Goulding released "Caught in the Act" a video compilation of "juicy bits" from street video surveillance systems. Featuring intimate contacts ­ including one scene of a couple having sex in an elevator ­ this video sensationalized footage of ordinary people engaged in (mostly) legal but nonetheless private acts."

But hey, that's OK with you, for even though you don't trust big business and government over such issues as the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, etc. etc., you will, for some strange reason trust them with the use of security cameras.

Man, I hate seeing an entire nation become slaves. Look friend, you can fit those shackles on willingly if you wish, but don't expect the rest of us to be as joyful about this as you. I personally will be fighting it every step of the way.

[WeRQ4U]

43. Rad

If you are concerned with the "misuse" of otherwise legitimate forms of public safety, then you have one hell of a fight on your hands. It's been happening for eons and it always will, so long as people want rules.

You think only in extremes and want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Let's get rid of ALL cameras, even for legitimate uses, simply because there is a chance those cameras may be used for illegal purposes. Well, I'm sorry. I don't buy that. If we were to live in your idealistic little fantasy land, then we would have no laws or control. We would have no constitution. We would simply have a peice of paper that says "Do what you want." Because ALL methods of public safety have openings for abuse.

Besides that, who says some asshole isn't going to just videotape you having sex in your own home anyway? That happens too.

And Please. This is a quote from your above "source":

"In 199X, Barrie Goulding released "Caught in the Act" a video compilation of "juicy bits" from street video surveillance systems. Featuring intimate contacts ­ including one scene of a couple having sex in an elevator ­ this video sensationalized footage of ordinary people engaged in (mostly) legal but nonetheless private acts."

First, since when is having sex in an elevator a "legal" act. Unless these morons have an elevator in their home, then them having sex in one is NOT something with which they have an expectation of privacy. And THIS IS WHAT PUBLIC SURVELIANCE IS FOR - TO CATCH PEOPLE BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW. And frankly, if you're such as asshole that has to have sex in a public place, then you SHOULD have it broadcast over the net, as well as spend some time in the clink.

You still haven't produced anything that I would look at as anything which has lasting effects on my personal privacy based on an abuse of surveliance by the government. And almost all of the instances cited on those web pages refer to legal recourse taken by those injured.

[MadHound]

44. Or how I learned to love the all seeing eye

OK, you think that it is OK that 10% of the police camera monitors are targeting women for their own sexual gratification. You think that it is just fine that commercial tapes of "juicy bit" are being made out of police tapes and being released to the public. You're happy that another form of racial profiling is being performed via the camera. You're comfortable with the repeated instances of abuse that I've linked to and cited. Because you, to the best of your knowledge, haven't been victimized yet, is that right? Get a clue friend, you may have already been victimized, and not even know it! And there is an increasing probability that you will be victimized in the future. The time to stop this shit is now, but since you're not feeling the effects of this(yet, to your knowledge) you're more than happy consigning others to such a fate. Nice to see your humanity towards your fellow human.

It is obvious that you really don't want to see the reality of this issue. OK, great, this one will be fought without you. But if this cause is lost, and all the sudden you find yourself the victim of camera abuse, don't come back here whining about it. You've got the chance now to do something, but instead, you choose to keep your head in the sand on this issue. Thus, you reap what you sow.

So we'll just have to go our seperate ways, and agree to disagree on this one. Cheers.

[sui generis]

32. gosh you are a bit smarmy there but I'll be nice back anyway

I love people who think they're clever enough to posture.

Wrong on shoplifting. The statistic you think you're quoting is the number of recorded police reports. Ding. Try again.

Number two, DO NOT presume fear in my life. I have no fear of anything or any one. I'm not giving up any rights on anyone's behalf. If you want to crap in my front yard, I want your crapping ass on a camera.

Speaking of not getting things, motorized cameras have nothing to do with anything; it seems you are the one living in fear of technology. We're talking about city streets, not living rooms.

Don't roll your "eyes" at me as you ride your handbasket into paranoia hell - you might instead keep a look out for them thar motorized cameras watching you crap yourself while you slip around on your slippery science fiction slope.

I have more spine in my pinky than you have in your entire genetic lineage. Please heed your own advice about living in fear and go get a mental health checkup while you're at it. Paranoia is really bad for your blood pressure.

[MadHound]

39. Ahh yes, there it is, the accusation of boundless paranoia

The last defense of the indefensible. Same thing that people have said of critics of everything from the Patriot Act to telephone taps. Nice to see that chorus is still going strong.

As far as the rate of shoplifting goes, I'm not dealing with police stats friend, I told you that earlier. I'm dealing with the rate of inventory shrinkage, got it? The amount of money and inventory a store loses. Here is one quick article to demonstrate this, followed by a link to Yahoo search so that you can check out several more. They all state that despite the rise of cameras, shoplifting is on the increase<http://retailindustry.about.com/od/statistics_loss_prevention/l/aa021126a.htm><http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=rise+in+shoplifting&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt> Get the picture now?

And your casual dismisal of motorized cameras is most telling. Tell you what, go check out the next public security camera you see in a residential neighborhood. Note the motor attached will you, and note how that camera has a large range of movement. Get the picture now? If not, here is a link to just a few of the many ongoing abuses of electronic surveillance<http://www.notbored.org/camera-abuses.html> Please note that we have abuse being committed by both police and private cameras. Still feeling comfortable about using the changing rooms at your local mall?

I'm not presuming anything though friend, it is your own actions and words that betray you. In your rush to secure your person and possessions, you are willing to flush away everybody elses' right to privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. Gee, thanks for helping Bushco accomplish their goals, we truly appreciate it:eyes: My God, what did we ever do without cameras? The world must have been a hotbed of crime and theft right? Sorry, but these cameras aren't going to make you anymore secure, but they will enable the government and big business to control the population much more effectively. Nice to see that there are people out there who are so willing to be fitted with their own shackles. Pardon the rest of us as we fight this madness until the bitter end, would you?

[sui generis]

42. let's get a couple of things straight here

I know enough about qualitative analysis to know that these reports don't stand up to full analytical muster on the topic, and I speak as a professional in this regard, and could go on about it at length. Without restating, only a very select number of hand-picked variables have been considered here, and you are further adding your own bias to interpreting the results. However, this isn't class, and you apparently don't make a very good student.

Number two. I am not your friend. Make no mistake, you are assuming a level of familiarity that simply does not exist, and moreover misusing the English language in addition to being dishonest and offensive when you make that claim. Please stop with the rolling eyes which I interpret as adolescent, catty, posturing, and otherwise immature in accepted social standards of conversation between adult males, provided that you are indeed adult and/or male.

Got it, get it, good, get the picture; these are not acceptable forms of conversation when speaking, much less when communicating in writing with "friends" or strangers, since they convey disdain, superciliousness and an unwarranted level of arrogance. The only thing you need to "get" is that we disagree. You do not need to assault my courage, intelligence, spine, or anything else as you seem unable to stop doing in your hypergraphic glossolalic stream of pure shit.

If you feel that you need to feel more superior or secure in your opinion by mounting a personal assault based on assumptions you've pulled out of your ass, then you are having the wrong conversation with the wrong person. Take your medicine, the world will be a lot less scary for you. Whatever you choose to do, do NOT assume further that "the rest of us" includes anyone else but the turd in your pocket.

Some of us actually know firsthand what we're talking about instead of making it up as we go. Hint: some of us have actually made deep contributions to the development of that software and know precisely what its limitations and weaknesses are.

If you want to have an ad hominem name calling fest then I question your presence here spewing horseshit on this particular topic. If you still want to have one, I will make sure you lose, because I am competitive to a fault and I will figuratively eat your pulsating liver shortly after I show it to you. Barring figurative dramatic re-enactments of silence of the lambs, the level of discourse at some point has to reach the understanding that we disagree and that has to be enough because there really is nowhere else to go from there.

Do not make me your enemy just because your opinion is different and you can't get past that without name calling. It's just not very grown up, and lessens the discourse for everyone here.

I can only hope that's the bitter end of this since you clearly have nothing new to say. Count backwards from 100 in latin or greek or italian or urdu or german or english or etch-a-sketch before you reply, then decide if you think you will actually accomplish anything.

Otherwise, again, have a nice day.

[MadHound]

46. My my, rather presumptuous of you eh?

Sorry, but this whole post of your simply smacks of one who is on the losing end of an arguement. Make vague pretentions of superior knowledge(with nothing to back your happy ass up), and then have the arrogance to tell me how I should and should not address you. Funny funny stuff, not:eyes:

Look friend, I have linked and quoted noted articles and essays on this matter to back myself up with, yet all you have done is be coy, catty and downright arrogant, yet you can't back any of your assertions up with anything other than hot air. Please excuse me of dismissing your trite little diatribes until you bring in something more substantial.

As for as my terms for addressing you goes, I use the term "friend" with everybody. It is intended to heighten the civilization of the current discourse, and is quite apropo. If you don't like it, too damn bad, for it is something that I have acquired through the years, and I am not going to change just to have the "honor" of speaking with you. So deal, OK

You don't like the rolling eyes smiley, again, deal. I use it because I simply find of your statements, especially with the lack of sources, rather incredulous. Yes, it is meant to be used to display such emotions, we are on an anonymous chat board, and that is what emoticons are for. You wish for me to stop using it, then give me some sources, cites, anything besides your own hot air.

You sound increasingly petulant with each passing post. As you admit, you are exceedingly competitive, and it seems to me that as I pile on source after source, cite after cite, the unhappier you get. Look friend, it is bad form to be whining when you're on the losing end of a discussion. So perhaps you should step back and take a look at your own actions and discourse before you decide to jump all over mine.

And as far as making an enemy of you, please, don't state that like it should mean a damn to me, because it doesn't. Good lord friend, if you take such anonymous discussions this seriously, I would hate to see what you're like in the reality based world.

As far as I'm concerned though, this discussion on this issue has reached its bitter end. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Cheers.

[sui generis]

47. apparently one of those motorized cameras

has struck you in the head and caused a bit of brain damage.

Two links does not pile after pile and source after source make. Exaggerating your contribution is silly when anyone can read through the record for themselves. Got it? Get it? Get the picture? Good. I would add some smilies here but that would just be tiresome and redundant, and wasteful of smilies.

I still have heard nothing from you but a statement of your opinion on this topic and on my personal attributes. You have nothing but opinion about motorized cameras (really, how silly is that). Besides that, I have seen no great leaps of irrefutable logic, and certainly not even an unfounded opinion of note, much less a qualified opinion.

I was correct several posts ago when I stated that you had finished contributing, and will add to that now to state that you are currently just basking in the glory of negative attention to pass the time. All you have done is assert and derive, and then turn around and accuse everyone else of doing that, between snideness and ad hominem attacks. We disagree. It's pretty clear. What else is there to say?

The biggest mistake I've made is in assuming that you are rational and sane, but after looking at your replies to other posters on this thread I have to conclude that your fifteen seconds is up and your medicine has worn off.

Please, reply and call me some more names and imply some more faults. It's quite all right now that I realize it's the only thing you CAN do and I wouldn't want to take that last fleeting pleasure away from you.

[MadHound]

49. I see, LOL

You discount the links I've provided in replys and comments other than those directed at you. I would suggest that you go back and look at those, especially the one concerning the ten percent abuse rate. Yes, yes, I know, I didn't direct it at you, but hey, it can't be all about you all the time.

Also, I am still waiting for sources and cites from your end, but I suppose that such a wait will be in vain.

So again, we shall agree to disagree, but hey, go ahead and give the last word, it seems to be a compulsion of yours.

[Lowell]

23. I don't think Mr Franklin had traffic cameras

in mind when he made that often quoted statement.

If you have ever been run down by a moron running a red light you might think it is not such a bad idea. Invariably they will try to shift the blame to you.

Shop lifting rate gone up? Why do you think that is? It is because they are being caught because of the cameras. If you owned a retail business I am sure you would want to protect your assets.

As far as cameras in the streets monitoring every indiscriminately . . . well I'm not sure I like that idea. They must have a well defined purpose.

As far as privacy concerns. You have a right to privacy in your own home. But any conduct in the general public is subject to scrutiny. This is why it is frowned on when you urinate at the street corner. Don't do in public anything unless you are ready to face the prospect of scrunity.

[MadHound]

29. Uh yeah, I've been run into by red light runners.

They're epidemic in this city, and the rate continues to go up, even though red light cameras have been up for a number of years. And yes, people are figuring out ways to beat the damn things, mud, covers, etc. Just making smarter and smarter criminals, just what is needed, right?:eyes:

The shop lifting rate isn't measure in the numbers of criminals caught, it is measure in the percentage of loss a store experiences. That percentage has gone up, while the number of boosters caught has leveled out or even gone down. Again, we see the evolution of a smarter criminal.

And the issue of privacy concerns is huge. Just for the simple fact that many of those cameras come equipped with motors, and our mounted on a swivel. Think about it.

The camera is simply the crutch of a lazy cop. We got along just dandy without them until the past twenty years. The cops just utilized other, less intrusive methods of solving the crimes. Seems to me that we need to return to that practice, otherwise we're just going to slide right into Orwell's nightmare of a camera in every room.

[WeRQ4U]

27. That is an unfairly misplaced use of Franklin's quote.

He was referring to essential liberties and freedoms. Those places where we have some "expectation of privacy". That does not include public places, amongst other public citizens. This isn't mind police or cameras peering inside one's dwelling. This is a camera in a public place. I'm perfectly fine with them. And considering the fact that I believe quite strongly in Franklin's quote above, I'm a little ticked that someone would assume I'm some lesser patriot simply because I don't believe public surveilance is Orwellian.

[MadHound]

31. Gee like one's house and home

If you haven't noticed lately, many of these cameras have motors, and are mounted on swivels. Get the picture? There have been a number of instances where cameras were used inappropriately to peer into people's houses.

Get the picture now? I don't think that you are less patriotic if you are in favor of public surveilance, I just think that you're a fool. But congratulations, apparently you have many others joining you in your foolishness, sad to say.

[WeRQ4U]

37. Is "Get the Picture" a horrendous attempt at a pun?

[DBoon]

7. I want one!

I live in a quiet residential neighborhood near Hollywood.

It seems that the Hollywood prostitutes take advantage of our quiet, tree-lined streets to "conduct business". The clean-up the following morning is not pretty.

I'd love to get a Webcam and point it right at their favorite parking space.

If it doesn't discourage them, I might at least make some money selling subscriptions to a "genuine Hollywood hookers live" cam site.

[sui generis]

13. you may be on to something there

post a snapshot of some street skank here - you may win the street ho photo contest prize.

:hi:

[DS1]

9. I don't mind them

Believe me, I've been on both sides of the lens, and the people watching really couldn't give a rats ass about what you're doing. In fact, they're hardly watching at all, and the cameras are most useful when investigators ask for the footage of a particular date and time, and THAT'S when the data is thoroughly scrutinized. The rest is just fluff.

[Shell Beau]

11. My personal opinion is that

they could do us some good if they are not abused. That is what is scary. But London seems to be doing well with them.

[johnnie]

15. Public places are public places

Once they start putting them in my brain, that's when I will start getting a bit paranoid.

[kick-ass-bob]

17. Or in my TV.

[Shell Beau]

18. That is what is scary. The possibility of

abusing it.

[johnnie]

19. Oh, they do that already!

:tinfoilhat:

*Disclaimer to trolls and moles, this is a joke.

[Shell Beau]

20. Sad that we have to say this is a joke.

But they would have runaway with that one!

[johnnie]

22. Yup

They are good at posting out of context also. Oh well, if that's the best entertainment they can come up with, what ya gonna do?

[Shell Beau]

24. Dislcaim like a mofo!

:)

[sui generis]

25. but the aliens beaming liberal thoughts into my head

from my ionic air freshener is 100% absolutely for real.

It helps if I wrap my head in aluminum foil before I go to bed so they won't try to anal probe my brain while I sleep.

Fer real. Yup.

:evilgrin:

[Allenberg]

21. In public places, I'm all for them.

If in private, it should be up to the property owner. Now, I may be a card-carrying ACLU member, but there are alot of times when surveillance cameras come in handy. Namely, when identifying criminals.

[shugh514]

38. All or nothing

I'm okay with surveillance of the public as long as the public has the same access to monitor their civil servants.

[jmowreader]

40. I like them in my store.

On July 4th, some customer walked up to a manager and told him "one of your employees assaulted me." We extracted a description of the associate in question: "a tall skinny black man with a beard and a mustache." That narrows it down considerably: we've got two of them and one was recuperating from his car crash that day.

"Okay, where were you when he hit you?" Over in the aisle where we sell the concrete.

"And when did he hit you?" About five minutes ago.

Two years ago, it would have been the customer's word against the associate's, and since "the customer is always right," the associate would have been immediately fired. Now we have cameras. We got the loss prevention lady to pull up the cameras that watch the concrete aisle. Not only did my associate NOT hit the customer in the concrete aisle, neither one of them had been in the concrete aisle in the last hour!

After talking to the associate and informing the customer that we weren't going to fire him over a lie, we found out that the customer wanted a 2x6 ripped down the middle. Our safety office won't allow this cut because they say it's too dangerous to do around customers. (They're right--the danger of wood coming backwards out of a saw at 150mph if you don't do a LOT of rips is too high.) The customer got pissed off and decided to "get back" at my guy for doing his job.

A lot of people used to get fired from our stores for "hitting customers" because customers said they did. Now that we can pull up the video and see that the associates didn't hit the customers, that's pretty much ended.

[noonwitch]

45. It depends on where they are.

In dark parking lots, in hospitals, around water treatment plants and nuclear plants, etc., I'm all for them.

I don't have a problem with the security at Nordstrom watching me in the fitting room while I try on clothes. They can watch if they want, I'm not getting naked in there.

I don't like the idea of cameras in places like restrooms (at least in the stalls) or installed by the government to watch me at home. I don't think we need them everywhere, but there are obvious places they need to be.

[Lilith Velkor]

48. They are wonderful

http://notbored.org/the-scp.html

[jody]

50. self delete

[usedtobesick]

51. I hate it

too much of our lives are already too "watched over for our own good"