Metro Jacksonville

Apparently there are plans, (in this economy, no less) to attempt to move forward with a plan to put every square inch of downtown under 24 hour a day surveillance, leaving no private areas and exposing every visitor to the area to 360 degree surveillance and taping.

Such a move, would kill the downtown, in  my opinion.

Why on god's green earth does our city come up with such rampantly stupid and ass backwards ideas?

Why not just light the damn thing, get rid of the parking meters and stupid one way streets and allow people, life and safety to return to the downtown core.

This will be another multi million dollar rollout, on the taxpayer dime no less, that will do nothing except make it even less likely that people will return.

holy mother of God.

Awesome, the city can no longer afford to offer recycling services to its residents, but they can get this ball rolling.

Quote from: stephendare on January 27, 2009, 04:25:47 PM
Apparently there are plans, (in this economy, no less) to attempt to move forward with a plan to put every square inch of downtown under 24 hour a day surveillance, leaving no private areas and exposing every visitor to the area to 360 degree surveillance and taping.

Not that I support the camera idea in any way....but the streets aren't private....they are public spaces....and the cameras will not be able to see into private buildings (especially if the blinds are shut)!

Amen, JoeMerchant.  And Stephen, agree completely.  Yet another slippery slope.  That the city can somehow afford. 

Even though they can't recycle.  Or do much of anything else.

The cameras may not do any good but they won't kill downtown either see London.

I'd love to know the operating  budget for this program.  Cuz, for 10 % of the budget I'll supply the c city with video tape of empty streets. You've got to be kidding me.

Video survillence of public streets and places is quite common around the country and the world.  I too would question the expenditure given the lousy budget/economy.  But, there is nothing unique or particularly deterimental about this. I know it reeks of Big Brother, but I don't know of one example of abuse, although the opportunity certainly exists.   

I agree its a slippery slope, but not unheard of...

Tampa had a trial program a few years back....they used the cameras installed in Ybor City for face detection of known criminals....in the end, the program was shut down because the software wasn't good and the Big Brother issues....buit the cameras are still there.

And how many buildings do we go into that have cameras....just about every WalMart, drug store, gas station, bank, health club, etc.....in most cases, there are either no tapes or they are destroyed/recorded over after a few days.

What program are you referring to Stephen?  Every square inch?  Really?  Perhaps CCTV located at points of mass transit and mass gathering paid for with federal grant money would be a bit more palatable, wouldn't it?  In areas where there is a steady complaint of lack of police presence and yet a great deal of misdemeanor crime (which required the officer to witness, or have evidence/witnesses), wouldn't such a system where police dispatch could playback, get descriptions, video evidence and such help downtown businesses?  What is happening on DT streets that requires privacy?  The things that I can think of would offend someone and result in complaints to police anyway.  As always, I am interested in hearing other opinions.

The camera = slippery slope is nothing more than a fallacy based on tin foil hat conspiracies. You're in a public place you have no expectation of privacy. And where are you expecting the slope to lead exactly? Cameras in your home? Ridiculous. As is already stated cameras are already everywhere you do business.

Anyway, the real issue with downtown is the high concentration of homeless services. Everyone in the city knows this. That's why they avoid downtown in the first place.

I would also like to see more of this "plan" in order to make an informed decision.  Video surveillance is widely accepted in many various public places and have indeed both deterred and caught criminals.  I am trying to think of a scenario where a camera on a corner would stop me or intimidate me from behaving as I normally do downtown.  I personally would prefer more cops on bikes or walking a beat downtown.

kill downtown? i wasn''t aware of a pulse since I've been living there.  But I agree Stephen.

Video surveillance does nothing but create the illusion of security.

HowStuffWorks.com has a verry good write up on it http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/police-camera-crime.htm (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/police-camera-crime.htm)

Things I found interesting:

QuoteWhile the ACLU and other activists remain vocal about the issue, there are legal precedents in the United States establishing the legality of this kind of public surveillance. Since the cameras are clearly marked in public areas, courts have traditionally ruled that people understand that they are in open places where privacy shouldn't be expected

However,

Quote...the 2005 Home Office study revealed that the cameras did not produce enough bang for the buck. Federal and state governments have poured millions into the set-up and upkeep of crime cameras, but the Home Office study revealed that they were underutilized and not fully integrated into police strategies 

but they can be used to generate revenue!

QuoteThis isn't to say that crime cameras are entirely useless. Evidence consistently points out that cameras reduce auto-related crimes as much as 41 percent

And clearly there is a move afoot in Jax. and all over the country to install cameras at intersections to catch red light runners.

Some cities, like DC, have taken it a step further....they have cameras that measure the speed of drivers....and if you're going to fast, you get a ticket in the mail a few days later!

If the cameras are actually used to reduce crime and vagrancy then I'm fer it. If they are just for show, then I'm agin it. Though what we truly need is a no-tolerance policy on littering, vagrancy, panhandling, etc., more lighting, a little more presence of beat cops and the forced removal of the non-profits. Ya heard me right, put them in Baymeadows!

"city can no longer afford to offer recycling services to its residents" -What exactly has been eliminated?

There have already been quite lengthy discussions on this very subject.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,2006.0.html

Maybe the threads should be merged.

Thanks for posting that link Jason. The points brought forth in that thread are very valid and have not been covered in this new thread.

Thanks Jason... I just reread that entire thread.

No use in making the same comments twice, right?  :)

So essentially someone will be monitoring people getting lunch during the day and then vacant sidewalks at night.

Quote from: Bewler on January 28, 2009, 12:29:05 PM
So essentially someone will be monitoring people getting lunch during the day and then vacant sidewalks at night.

Yes, essentially still life photography will work 70% of the time.

I have no privacy concerns; however I do have return on investment concerns. We would get better ROI by moving the homeless out of the center of the city (if the point of this is the entice people to come downtown by making them feel safer).

It's not that I'm not sympathetic to the plight of the downtrodden among us. Funds could at least be better spent on increase patrols.. etc.

Was it ever determined what the actual costs would be since the equipment is being donated from a private source?

Stephen in your initial posting you mentioned the "plans".  Can we post the plans so we can see cost and locations etc.  It is difficult to make informed decisions when the plan is not available for all to see.

I understand that is your position and the position of others.  But informed decisions require seeing all the facts both pro and con.  Im sure you agree with that.

You said...

QuoteApparently there are plans, (in this economy, no less) to attempt to move forward with a plan to put every square inch of downtown under 24 hour a day surveillance, leaving no private areas and exposing every visitor to the area to 360 degree surveillance and taping.

Myself... and I am guessing one or two others, would simply like to see the plan.  Seems a bit ridiculous that I should have to refer to it as a rumor or something I heard about.  Perhaps you can tell me where the plan is located so I can see the plan.

Just trying to get to the bottom of these plans...  Are these the plans you are refering to?

http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2008/04/14/story2.html?b=1208145600

Downtown vision seems to like the idea.

Ok... it is becoming clearer now.  It is Downtown Vision who is pushing this project.  Sounds like this has not really been discussed in city council or mayors office.  Seems to me before the city can move ahead they would need the OK from legal council.  At some point this proposal must actually turn in to a plan... with actual plans and costs.

QuoteIn any case, this will kill.  I mean kill any possibility downtown.

Stephen, why do you think it will kill any possiblity downtown?  Buisnesses already install their own surveillance systems for their protection.  Why wouldn't they see this an an extension of the security they provide for themselves?  Are the buisnesses downtown operating illegally?  Do they have something to hide?

DVI should be dismantled.

Look, it shouldn't even matter if it would kill downtown or not...the city is at such a shortfall budget wise, why the hell would this unneeded potential expense be on the table?

I'm not convinced that it will hurt downtown. In fact, many of the suburbanites may actually see it as a plus and visit downtown. Do I think the camera's will solve the problems we face downtown? No.. But, I can definitely say there are people that do not come downtown b/c they do not feel safe. My co-worker happens to be one of them.

Video surveillance along with gunshot location systems can help police in doing their jobs. Again, I'm curious in what the cost will be since the equipment is being donated.

Yes, spy. Good point! I think my co-worker may be worried that him and his wife in their 60's are being filmed to tally their every move. Now they'll never come!

I'm not suggesting that the 60's crowd will make downtown a lively spot. See previous post. My point is, some people are scared of downtown. A true statement. I also said that the camera's will not fix the problem. Another true statement. I'm with you on the meters, they need to go, but the camera's will not be their replacement as a deterrent from downtown.

Spoke with a few people at London Bridge yesterday.  We all agreed that downtown was as safe as any part of Jacksonville including the suburbs.  There is a perception from non regular downtown visitors that it is not safe.  All agreed that police officers walking a regular beat, riding a Segway on a regular beat, or even bicycle cops on a regular beat would be the prefered method of addressing the security concerns of the area.

However... not one person I spoke with... young and old alike... had any objection to street video surviellance.  This was a non scientific poll of five or six people having a friendly beer... :)

(http://rummage.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/test-pattern.jpg)

OCKLAWAHA

I think it's fair to say that the conpiracists will in fact quit coming to downtown due to the camera's. Therefore, we may swap a few of those for the elderly suburbanites that will have the false sense of security from surveillance. Either way, it doesn't truly help or hinder downtown, IMO. If we could get rid of some of our homeless population or at least hide them a bit more (camouflage paint?), and get rid of the unnecessary parking meters, we'd be much better off.

In my opinion, the camera's are a ridiculous idea, especially in Jacksonville.  I think we need to fix other, more pressing issues; parking meters, the homeless population, and the freeways we call roads downtown before I want to have to worry about the applications that our city would end up using 24/7 monitoring for.  I personally live down here and it's not fair to watch me all day long if you aren't going to watch everyone at the beach, southside, etc... you get the point.  How long till parking enforcement starts zooming in on expired meters?  I most certainly agree that a feeling of security is needed down here for some slices of the population, but patroling cops is the way to go.  I like occasionally seeing them on horse.  And I don't have to worry about Tom Cruise tackling me in the street for something I was about to do

It's just too expensive for something that brings almost nothing to downtown.

By even putting up the cameras, they're basically giving in to the misperception that downtown is not safe.

sounds like a good idea if its not funded by our tax dollars.  In my observation, you need to look at all the facts.  Stop channeling your hate with personal observations on how you think the city should be governed. 

BTW, what are the facts?

I think it's a fact that surveillance can help identify a criminal by reviewing the tape once a crime has occurred.

I am not necessarily for it or against it at the moment, just stating the only fact I know.

I think this will just be another excuse to underfund our police.

how about we take the 2 million dollars we spend on tazers and replace them with flowers and start handing them out to all the homeless,  or maybe spend tax dollars on a giant sprinkler system that waters the st. johns river.  Here's a good one,  A giant penis art sculpture in the middle of hemming plaza that costs a million dollars.  you would be amazed to see where our money goes.  I just would love to start seeing innovative ideas getting tax dollars now!  How can a civilization be recognized if they do not build, create, or innovate?  yea, my privacy is a major concern when the moment comes when my car gets broken into and some damn thief stole my JB bong collection.  I hear all this whining about about "theres no crime downtown".  the flippin "parking meters are driving away business", or "I'm scared i will be caught making out with another guy on camera".  do you think JSO really cares?  your a joke because you don't live downtown and there are no facts.  Didn't we have a shooting in hemming plaza during lunch in broad daylight? wake up, that was just 6 months ago?  If you think crime is not an issue, then shut up and give me my damn bong back.

I see nothing wrong with the cameras unless you plan on doing something illegal you shouldnt be worried. I watch  forensic files alot and alot of crimes would not have been solved if it were not for video cameras.  8)

I think we should channel the money used for this system into renting tour buses, rounding up all the homeless, and driving them to Miami.


.....Well, not really.  But I do agree with whoever said that Downtown has more pressing issues.  I lived down there for two years and finally got sick of the parking meters, lack of shopping/entertainment/food (after 5pm), the homeless, my bike getting stolen (twice), my car being broken into, etc...

Now, my only contact with downtown is when Im zooming down State or Union streets between I-95 and the Arlington Expressway...  In 2 years I went from eager wannabe downtown resident, drawn in by glossy brochures and slick websites and great views, to a couldnt-run-fast-enough-to-riverside resident who never looked back when he realized that he could WALK to Publix.

Has anyone else seen all the garbage that the homeless leave on the sidewalks around Julia Street?

DetroitJax.  I have a sense of humor.  That is rich.  But, let me ask you,  why stop Miami way.  Why not say all the way to South America?  Perhaps Rio during Festival?  We can close the gap in the budget after all vis-a-vis human traffic.

Gatorback, DetroitinJax, maybe you know already, maybe not, but there was a plan being tossed around downtown called "Hometown Destinations" or something to that effect that was sponsored by some of the city's larger landowners; basically they were going to buy all the bums one way tickets out of town.  Pretty funny idea but I would hate to see the retaliation from other cities!

Quotestephendare: No one wants to be outside after a few drinks at a club or a lovers spat at a restaurant with the feeling that they are being watched. Its really as simple as that.
London, the city most famous for this egregious bullshit has found that the cameras are increasingly being ripped right off of the buildings and destroyed by the angry londoners.

Its all manner of things that people do that they don't want captured on video.

QuoteJaxByDefault: It's just too expensive for something that brings almost nothing to downtown.

By even putting up the cameras, they're basically giving in to the misperception that downtown is not safe

First of all, the expectation of privacy is null and void when one is outside, in public view. So there's no violation of one's rights. If someone is concerned about being seen on film, outside having a spat with another, and/or after a few drinks...then don't argue there, taking it somewhere private. As for the drinking, unless you're breaking the law, in all reality, who cares if you've been observed after having a few?

I disagree, that such cameras give the impression that an area isn't safe, in fact, I would say it says the opposite...that it's being watched. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, stores, offices, you name it, they're there. They've been institutional in aiding investigators to solve crimes, when there were no other witnesses to or would come forth. Does anyone recall the incident after the college football game, where several guys beat to death a student from the rival school? How was that solved...yup, the surveillance camera at CSX.

Now I don't agree with the city shelling out money for them, not when there's more pressing issues in need. I would be in favor of it, when downtown becomes more alive with business and such.

CUT AND PASTE over the lens of your favorite downtown camera.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on January 29, 2009, 09:27:55 AM
(http://rummage.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/test-pattern.jpg)

OCKLAWAHA

and your point is....

Quote from: jbm32206 on January 31, 2009, 10:51:57 AM
and your point is....

JOAN! OMG! My friend,  I thought YOU of all people would catch the old hippie coming out____ .

PEACEFUL PROTEST - "The Alices Restaurant Approach".

Can you imagine 5 officers watching all those monitors then suddenly one by one they go to the test pattern? Funny as hell, point made, we won't stand for it.  

OCKLAWAHA

I caught that...I was just wondering if you were making another statement...didn't want to presume. Hell, do they even use those test patterns anymore....that's showing our age Bob

I'm old but not that old.  Where these test images things really used in protests? 

no, they were actually shown on tv when the station lost reception

Yeah, just thought it was a bit freaky... Anyone over maybe 40, kicked back on the screens, coffee and donuts in hand and suddenly TEST PATTERN. Coffee drools back out of the mouth as he trys to adjust his set... donut hits the ledge and bounces to the floor...

"Hey Lou? Do you eh, see what I see?"
"What the hell are you trying to watch Vinnie?"
"No REALLY Lou, I'm just sitting here and dis thing just comes up on the moniter..."
"Vinnie, you been hitting the sauce on the clock again?"
"No Lou, come look, here it comes again"   

This is just too good to miss. Oh and for the younger cops on watch we have this:

(http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2005/01/26/movie_theater_video_for_the_masses/mire-coul.jpg)
Don't forget to CUT and PASTE this in front of the video camera of your choice!

OCKLAWAHA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7862893.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7862893.stm)
Here is a story of cameras being misused.

Quote
Fines fraud hits Italian drivers
By Duncan Kennedy
BBC News, Rome

Ponta Tresa at the border between Switzerland and Italy
Drivers who made mistakes were caught on camera and fined

Thousands of drivers in Italy are expected to seek compensation after it was revealed that a system to catch them jumping red lights was rigged.

More than 100 people, including police officers, are being investigated as part of the fraud.

The T-Redspeed system - a revolutionary camera technology - has been in use for two years in 300 areas across Italy.

Cameras linked to traffic lights capture 3-d images of vehicles if they jump the lights or are speeding.

It can also detect offences like illegal u-turns.

Fraudulent fines

It is believed more than a million drivers have been trapped by the system.

But it is now claimed the lights were rigged to change from yellow to red in three seconds instead of the regulation five or six seconds.

The fraud was uncovered by a senior police officer who noticed an unusually high number of fines being issued.

Instead of an average 15 fines a day in some places, the figure jumped to more than 1,000.

The fraud may have netted as much as $170m (£116.4m) for those involved.

The scheme's inventor is now under house arrest, though his lawyers say he is innocent.

More than 100 other people including 63 police commanders are also being investigated as part of the scam.

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45432000/jpg/_45432907_italycars226apbody.jpg)

Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on January 30, 2009, 09:16:19 PM
I see nothing wrong with the cameras unless you plan on doing something illegal you shouldnt be worried.

With all due respect, I think there should be a special key on the keyboard that automatically outputs this catchphrase each time the issues of civil liberties and privacy are raised. People, such as myself, don’t deplore surveillance systems like this because they are street hooligans hell bent on “doing something wrong.”

Privacy is a person’s most sacred right. It’s not the ability to commit crime without consequence, but rather the freedom to be a human being. I work hard during the day, but I tense up when my boss is looking over my shoulder. I stress over what websites I visit at the office during my lunch break and censor my emails. I drive safely, but my blood pressure increases when a police officer is following me closely. Stress under scrutiny is one of the most fundamental aspects of human nature. It’s why your pulse is rarely accurate at the doctor’s office. You might be fine with it, but I do not accept being reduced to a lab rat in a maze on streets that my tax dollars fund, and find “the roads are public” to be thin rationalization for it.

Call it a police state, call it a nanny state, call it whatever. These surveillance grids are going up all over the country, thanks in no small part to grants from the Department of Homeland Security. Sure, a few dozen cameras downtown might not seem like a big deal. A few dozen more at intersections. A few dozen more at public parks and communal areas around town. It’s a slippery slope though. Look no further than England. They started putting up a few cameras here and there a decade ago, and now there are cameras on the streets of London with built-in speakers for the police to yell at citizens for jaywalking or littering. Their schools have cameras in the bathroom stalls. And ironically enough, a law was just passed this week in England making it a criminal offense, carrying up to ten years in prison, to photograph or film police officers. That’s not what America needs.

There is an old saying that goes: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Quite frankly, I don’t trust the United States government. With Congressional approval ratings as low as 9% in the last year, it appears as if I am not alone. I don’t trust the Department of Homeland Security and NSA. With illegal prisons around the world, White House-authorized torture, rendition practices, and arbitrary abuse of every type of surveillance on the book, they can’t even seem to get themselves a conviction to back it all up. I have no reason to trust them either.

And God knows I don’t trust the City of Jacksonville. You want to trust the same people to monitor your behavior each and every day that can’t even fix a freakin fountain?

It in no way takes a “conspiracist” to come to the conclusion that Americans are being surveilled in record numbers. It’s black and white fact, backed up by the most trusted news organizations in America. Your phone calls are fair game. Your emails are fair game. Your IM’s, text messages, credit card records, financial transaction, bank statements, library logs, website visits, travel information. All being pumped directly to the NSA. Some it is delivered from the telecoms and financial institutions. Much of it is delivered from cooperative local agencies, who send your information to the NSA through regional Department of Homeland Security Fusion Centers. Ours is in Tallahassee.

The NSA is gathering and permanently databasing information, not on criminals or overseas threats, but on American Citizens just like me and you. Journalists are prime targets. As our those engaged in anti-war or civil liberties groups. Some people’s information is culled and archived simply because they happened to place a couple of phone calls in one day that lasted less that a minute (terrorists tend to make short calls, says the CIA).

To imply that this information is somehow exclusive to conspiracists is instead an acknowledgement that one has simply failed to read a decent newspaper in the last five years.

Once the cameras go up, they aren’t coming down. Historically, they’ll follow the same pattern of suburban sprawl as our fine citizens have as well. You want to permanently cede that type of power over and trust that your local, regional, state, and federal authorities will never abuse it? Be my guest. Even better, you’ll get to fund it yourself. But, if we are foolish enough to use something as slip-shod as “history” as a basis for decision making, these things never tend to end well.

This thread sounds like it was modeled after the movie Eagle Eye.

"The NSA is gathering and permanently databasing information, not on criminals or overseas threats, but on American Citizens just like me and you. Journalists are prime targets. As our those engaged in anti-war or civil liberties groups. Some people’s information is culled and archived simply because they happened to place a couple of phone calls in one day that lasted less that a minute (terrorists tend to make short calls, says the CIA)."

Ken, what is your source for this claim?

"It in no way takes a “conspiracist” to come to the conclusion that Americans are being surveilled in record numbers. It’s black and white fact, backed up by the most trusted news organizations in America. Your phone calls are fair game. Your emails are fair game. Your IM’s, text messages, credit card records, financial transaction, bank statements, library logs, website visits, travel information. All being pumped directly to the NSA. Some it is delivered from the telecoms and financial institutions. Much of it is delivered from cooperative local agencies, who send your information to the NSA through regional Department of Homeland Security Fusion Centers. Ours is in Tallahassee."

And this? 

Both of these statements are false and the actions described are illegal.

It's closing in on midnight and I'm exhausted, but no, these statements are not false. They are backed up by the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, etc. They are also backed up by former members of the NSA, such as Russell Tice. Watch this MSNBC clip for a small sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osFprWnCjPA&feature=related

The fact that the Pentagon and intelligence agencies has been spying on anti-war movements for over five years has been all over the news. A simple Google search will return dozens of stories from the most credible of sources saying the same thing. USA Today broke the story on phone logs nearly four years ago. The New York Times broke the story on phone taps. The LA Times broke the story on Financial Transactions. The Department of Homeland Security website will give you all the information you need to know on the Fusion Centers.

Illegal, yes.

False, absolutely not.

There are limited searchs on some phones which have a tie in with suspected terrorist groups or individuals who are suspected terrorist.  Hardly massive in that usually less that 1000 numbers are targeted.  Think about how much data is transmitted daily throughout this country!  It is impossible to use even automated systems to monitor all of it.  The rules for this program are also easily available via the same google inquiry.  There is no evidence that reporters are being spied on as a rule.  You are describing a limited program and basing the argument on the rantings of Russell Tice, who left the NSA after his clearances were removed due to mental questions.  Of course MSNBC and some others jumped on his stories and thus what we see here.  As for fusion centers,  I am quite familiar with them and their purpose is the laudable one of sharing information between federal, state, and local authorities.  Massive amounts of voice, financial, and private data are not being forwarded by them. 

I understand your concern, but please do some more research and investigate some of the sources used for the claims that you are making.

You are comparing America to Romainia of the 80's?  Really?  You think that the current efforts to identify terrorist and their organization in this country really is the same as Ceauşescu's secret police actions in Romainia? 

Eight years ago there was a demand in this country for an effort to root out and destroy terrorism both domestically and abroad.  I must admit that I am disappointed but not surprised by the short memory of many of my fellow Americans.  Some would recoil from this clash of cultural values.  I will not.  Some men and women are taking seriously the job of searching out those that would cut the throats of your children.  We provided some reasonable tools to do that work.  Politics and a weak minded media (and Stephen) are now portraying these Americans as  evil fascists who seek to become "masters" of all.  Do you remember just before the first invasion of Iraq how unsure of the future most people were?  Were you unsure and somewhat scared?  Some Americans placed EVERYTHING including their lives on the line.  Do you remember how you felt on 9/11?  How scary it was that these animals could do this in our country?  How it felt to see people leaping to their deaths?  Some Americans were rushing to New York to search and help the police and firemen who put EVERYTHING on the line.  Other Americans were leaving jobs and families to go to South Asia and put EVERYTHING at risk.  These are the same Americans who are now being accused of wanting a "police state" in America.  Please take these dire and exagerrated accounts of "sources" and "fascist"  "secret police" with a grain of salt.  I know who I believe in.

Here is the actual report.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldconst/18/1802.htm

They make some very good arguments in favor of CCTV...

Chapter 9 has all the recommendations of the committee.

 :D  Trust me Stephen nobody wants to see the Troll stumbling around the house in his robe... :D  I am surely not advocating cameras inside my or your house... but I have not made up my mind on the public CCTV.

I do not think chapter 9 comes to the conclusion you say it does however...

And the way I read that is... this stuff is here to stay so we better work on safeguards to protect peoples privacy.  They recognize that this information is abusable.  No one is denying that it is.  Simply put safeguards in place to deter and prevent abuse.

QuoteConsent plays a part in the requirement for "fair processing" because it involves the organisation in conveying information to individuals about its processing activities. However, consent is not essential in determining whether personal data can be collected.

And...

QuoteIn practical terms, we recognise that, for many state activities and in the private sector, it is difficult to function without giving one's personal information, and that the scope for the individual to express genuine consent is narrow.

Maybe parking enforcement can get their hands on this system and issue tickets remotely.

 :D Your killing me... Did you miss this previous post??

QuoteTrust me Stephen nobody wants to see the Troll stumbling around the house in his robe...   I am surely not advocating cameras inside my or your house... but I have not made up my mind on the public CCTV.

BTW... Thanks for the laugh... :D

QuoteOne never thinks of homeless people in a sexual context.  (Or at least I never did.  And even now very rarely despite the following anecdote.)

O-M-G... :D ;D :D ;D

Stephen, please pay attention to the conversation.  My reply in post #75 was to the charges made in an earlier post which made false accusations of phone taps and spying.  Then you compared our country to 1980's Romainia.  I am pointing out that most of those people that you accuse of criminal activity without any proof are the same people who have put their lives on the line for this country and what it stands for.  You post a youtube of Olbermann as a reliable source?  What a boob!  Then you accuse me of exaggerating and seeing terrorist hiding amongst the homeless?  Are you joking?  Did you just get confused about what we were discussing?  Or are you intentionally misrepresenting what I said?  This is essentially the same argument that we had about your baseless and cowardly accusations of crimes by members of our military.  Without evidence, or any personal experience, those accusations demand an apology from you.  And when you make the same kind of accusations against law enforcement and homeland security professionals who are actually DOING SOMETHING to protect this country and your a**, you are simply demonstrating either your ignorance or a lack of propriety.

But I mean that in the nicest way  :)  And it is always great to see someone with the 'nads to use their real name...Stephen um????

As a Vietnam Vet - Disabled (Poison sucks!) and HIPPIE, (roughly in that order), it warms my heart to think good old Uncle Sam is watching my every move. Those of you that think it's okay, just keep surrendering your freedom bit by bit... It's painless that way.

"The demands on the vanquished citizens should be made in small installments so as not to alarm them to our greater cause..." A. Hitler

Anyway, also as a veteran of more then a few "PEACEFUL PROTESTS" (yeah right), It comforts me nightly to KNOW that somewhere in Washington D.C., is a big file drawer, with a brown envelope in it. Inside that envelope is a photo with my name on it, and some basic detail that basically spells "Trouble-Maker". Well folks I might be old, but if they want my opinion... F--K ALL OF THEM!

Look out the windows
there's cops in the trees
but nobody knows it
but my business and me
I don't care if it's the Narc's or the Fed's
cuz I'm tellin you man, this town is dead!

OCKLAWAHA
If you want me to tell you how I REALLY feel just ask! Hee Hee

The government should not be watching or searching individuals (even in public spaces) unless there is probable cause for the individual to be suspected of commiting a crime.  The primary purpose for having any government at all is to protect individual liberty.  Privacy should not be sacrificed for security.

Quote from: Ben FranklinThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Actually Stephen, if you would check the posts, you would see that KenFSU made charges against the USG in post #69.  In post #74 you compared the USG with 1980's Romainia's government and their secret police.  Your statements were in a thread about installing CCTV downtown.  I was simply responding to that.  So, once again, you either did not read or pay attention to the thread, or you are misrepresenting what was said on this thread. 

As to your Italian "journalist", I found this quote from her wiki bio interesting:


"Harald Doornbos, a Dutch war reporter traveling with American forces, wrote that while on a flight to Baghdad he told Sgrena to be careful of kidnappers, to which she responded “That won't happen. We are siding with the oppressed Iraqi people. No Iraqi would kidnap us”. Sgrena and her companions went on to explain that they were in no danger from Iraqi insurgents saying that Doornbos did not "understand the situation. We are anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, communists, the Iraqis only kidnap American sympathizers, the enemies of the Americans have nothing to fear."[2]

Conversely, anti-globalization activist Naomi Klein reported that Sgrena was "fully aware" of but willing to take "tremendous risks" in order to document the war[3]. Sgrena defended her decision to risk kidnapping as a necessary part of working as an unembedded reporter in a warzone. She points to her reporting on such critical incidents as the Second Battle of Fallujah, where, she argues, only unembedded reporters were able to report the level of destruction in the city and the ferocity of urban warfare, which according to her included the use of napalm[4].

She was later shown in a video pleading that the demands of her kidnappers, the withdrawal of Italian troops from Iraq, be fulfilled. Her release was subsequently negotiated and she was freed on March 4, 2005."



Interesting woman.  I am sure that her reporting is quite honest and is not biased against the USA.  Once again, good work on your part vetting your information.  All I am asking for Stephen is for you to be honest.  Over and over again I see inflammatory statements and threads which prove to be intentionally or thoughtlessly exagerrated or even outright false statements.  Surely you see that this greatly reduces your credibility.  I will point out one more time that your accusations against our fighting men and women in Iraq deserve an apology from you.  I know that you do not understand the sacrifices that are made for you and your families, but when your information is wrong, you should man up. 

Quote from: stephendare on February 08, 2009, 10:54:16 AM
However, this thread isnt about your brand of international politics, I think instead that its about the basic threat to our home grown privacy.

the problem is not about any home grown issues. The problem is that you think to much!  After reading all your BS filled posts on this soar subject, that's not even news worthy.  Its starting to become more apparent to the readers on this blog that you like to cry about the most worthless SH?T.  "Oh, y privacy has been violated", who cares if you smoke pot and like to play grab ass with bumbs!  Trust me,  I dont like the police, but even criminals love the idea of being video taped.  It gives em a chance to become rich.  Remember Rodney King? Ha, maybe this is a good way to watch our local government as well... 
       

I challenge you to show me where I argued that the Republicans would win in the fall.  Once again, you are not only making things up (lying), you are attempting to change the debate subject onto something else.  As for your usual well researched post:

1.  I worship no man or woman.  I have great respect for those that give more than you will ever know in the service of their country.

2.  Your "Hero of the Truth" is an avowed communist and works for Il Manifesto, the communist newspaper of Italy.

3.  Your "Hero" is alive and well.  She was in a car that failed to heed the orders of US troops at a checkpoint blocking Baghdad International Airport and came under fire.  An Italian agent was killed in the incident.  I see that you blame the US Troops for the incident, and not the Italians.  How surprising.

4.  Your "Hero's" name is Giuliana Sgrena.  She made the statements that I referenced (“That won't happen. We are siding with the oppressed Iraqi people. No Iraqi would kidnap us”. Sgrena and her companions went on to explain that they were in no danger from Iraqi insurgents saying that Doornbos did not "understand the situation. We are anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, communists, the Iraqis only kidnap American sympathizers, the enemies of the Americans have nothing to fear.") while on an airliner enroute to Baghdad. 

5.  Your contempt for American fighting men is most obvious when you speak of John McCain.  He was a prisoner of war for five and one half years.  He refused early release by the NV unless his fellow prisoners were also freed.  His heroism during that period is well documented.  Your lack of candor and your contempt in this case and in reference to other men and women who have sacrificed for this country is what our debate is about.  Don't try to change the subject.  I have included a short narrative describing McCain's captivity at the end of this post.  I know that you don't care, Stephen, but others will.

6.  Your "hero", Ms. Sgrena, was held by Iraqi insurgents for less than a month.  The man that you so easily denigrate and demean was held for five and one half years.  Ms. Sgrena has never claimed that she was tortured, why would you write that she was?  She freely states that her statements in support of the insurgents were given freely, and in fact she made such statements both before and after her kidnapping.

7.  Of course, this means that I am calling a living woman a liar.  I hope that you are not a liar, and that your statements are simply mistaken.  Is that the case?

8.  I quoted the post # where the thread veered from CCTV downtown.  I explained clearly what I was responding to and gave that post # as well.  Do you think that by you just saying it was my fault that the scope and subject of the debate changed makes it true? 

9.  Are you honestly saying that predicting that the Democrats would win in the fall elections proves some kind of accuracy on your part?  EVERYBODY knew that.  That call was clear in early summer.  I never claimed the Republicans would win the presidency last fall. 

10.  Manly?  You're questioning my manhood?  Your kidding, right?  I will attribute this to the fact that you mistakenly believed that Ms. Sgrena was deceased and you thought that it was somehow gentlemanly to stand up for her, even if your facts of the entire incident were wrong.  I'll leave this little jewel at that.

11.  And finally, credibility.  Yes Stephen, I have tried to counsel you against making brash statements based on what you hear or read on the internet.  You demean those that have made sacrifices that you have not.  You demean those that have the training, education and experience that you do not.  You insult and demean successful businessmen who do not toe your line in the development of our city.  For years on several local forums we have all seen you make breathless claims of exagerration.  Many, including myself, have tried to counsel patience and open mindedness, only to be insulted or demeaned ourselves.  Gettin' kind of old, son.  I don't mean any of this in an insulting or mean way, I am only trying to help you see how you are hurting your own reputation while insulting men and women who have earned our respect and gratitude.

I really don't care if downtown cameras are installed or not.  I think that it could help in minor ways.  There is no manpower to watch them, they would only help after the fact.  Big Brother will not be watching. 

I was not and am not a McCain supporter.  I was a Thompson guy and I don't know yet who I will support in the future.  But I do respect what the man went through and how he handled it.  Please read of that experience below:



John McCain's capture and subsequent imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[33][34] McCain fractured both arms and a leg ejecting from the aircraft,[35] and nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake.[33] Some North Vietnamese pulled him ashore, then others crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him.[33] McCain was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[34]


McCain being pulled from Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi[36] on October 26, 1967Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, beating and interrogating him to get information; he was given medical care only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral.[37] His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of major newspapers.[38][39]

McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33] By then having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[33] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[40] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[41] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[42]

In mid-1968, John S. McCain, Jr. was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and the North Vietnamese offered McCain early release[43] because they wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes,[44] and also to show other POWs that elite prisoners were willing to be treated preferentially.[43] McCain turned down the offer; he would only accept repatriation if every man taken in before him was released as well. Such early release was prohibited by the POW's interpretation of the military Code of Conduct: To prevent the enemy from using prisoners for propaganda, officers were to agree to be released in the order in which they were captured.[33]

In August 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.[45] He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[33][45] Further injuries led to the beginning of a suicide attempt, stopped by guards.[33] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession".[33] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[46][47] Many American POWs were tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements, with many enduring even longer and worse treatment;[48] virtually all of them eventually yielded something to their captors.[49] McCain subsequently received two to three beatings weekly because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[50]


Interview with McCain on April 24, 1973, after his return homeMcCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups seeking peace in Hanoi, wanting to give neither them nor the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory.[51] From late 1969 onward, treatment of McCain and many of the other POWs became more tolerable,[52] while McCain continued actively to resist the camp authorities.[53] McCain and other prisoners cheered the U.S. "Christmas Bombing" campaign of December 1972, viewing it as a forceful measure to push North Vietnam to terms.[47][54]

Altogether, McCain was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was released on March 14, 1973.[55] His wartime injuries left McCain permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[56
-----------------------------from Wikipedia------------------------------------------------------------

I think if you want privacy stay at home.  What goes on  outside a private residence has and will always be subject to public scrutiny.  Actually I'm not entirely correct.  Under the Bush administration...

Notnow, your kung fu is great!  :)  yes for cameras! no for dareface!

Notnow,


   Give it up, you'll learn what everyone else has, its not worth the time or effort.  Its like trying to teach a pig to fly, its a waste of your time and annoys the pig

I guess that you are right, civil.  I have no idea what Stephens last post really means.

Wow Stephen, a real shift in focus there.

Interesting debate style.  Ridicule and call names.  Exaggerate and twist.  Your posts speak for themselves.  There is no point in continuing this. 

Quotewhat people on your side of the fence do.  Slander the victims.

Wow Stephen...You mean "the people on your side of the fence" dont??  Hmmmm.

Huh??? 

Quoteusual right wing suspects

QuotePeople are sick of this constant fear nonsense.

I will agree with this one but it seems the current administration has found it as effective as the last... :)

You forgot part of the CBS report... including the other side of the story...

QuoteThe Army has finished an investigation, but the report isn’t expected until the end of the week. The Pentagon declined to talk with 60 Minutes Wednesday, but the Army issued this statement on the night of the shooting: “Vehicle traveling at high speed refused to stop at a check point.” [The soldiers] “attempted to warn the driver to stop by hand and arm signals, flashing white lights, and firing warning shots…when the driver didn’t stop the soldiers shot into the engine block which stopped the vehicle.”

The above argument has the density of cork.  BUT.  I'm thinking does that matter? 

I am well aware of Coulters work.  She is a bomb thrower... just like Huffington or Kinsley.  As for the name calling... I thought that was all going to change now...  We are both aware of the bomb throwers on our respective sides of the aisle.  They are the ones not interested in a dialogue... just in hearing themselves talk.  I would prefer to emulate neither...

Most every police patrol car, all the city busses, the intersections, most all of the buildings (CSX, BoA, Modis), garages, the banks, ATM's, etc., etc., etc, they all have cameras.  Are they evil, perhaps.  But if you, a family member, a friend, a coworker, an employee, or any of their property is damages, stolen, or if they are beaten or raped, you will be the first demanding the sheriff review every camera in the area to identify the perp.  And this is what matters the most. IF you say you wouldn't you'd be a lier.  Welcome to post-911. 

So Gator... you are saying cameras can serve a useful purpose also?

Ok Stephen, I admit that I was not aware that Sgrena had claimed to be tortured.  And I suppose that death threats would qualify.  I am certainly not ashamed of myself in any way and I consider the woman to be an enemy of my country based on her statements against it.  

President Bush's "expression of regret" is a standard diplomatic gesture and does not imply fault with the soldiers involved.

I stand by all of the other points of my argument in this matter and I again would ask you to apologize to those American men and women whom you falsely accuse.  It is you who should be ashamed, but I fear that it is impossible for me to communicate effectively enough for you to understand.  I will just agree to disagree here.  Oh, and I agree that the "Nancy" comment was wrong and I have removed it.  I still find your arguments factually inaccurate and politically motivated.  I stand by my statements about your exaggerations, ridiculing and name calling of your debate opponents.  I will continue to prove you wrong when you insult that which is important to me.  

I believe that reporting of the soldiers legitimate attempts to stop an unmarked vehicle in an active war zone using standard techniques is important.

I do however, realize that I owe an apology to all those that we hijacked this thread from.  I didn't mean to take it over whith our little tiff, but it was wrong to do it.

You do not seem to object to private entities monitoring the public areas around their businesses... Why is it OK for them and not a government?

Since I have a degree in photography I'd say so. Long before the daguerreotype of 1837 the Chinese philosopher Mo Ti described a pinhole camera in the 5th century B.C and  Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) (965â€"1040) studied the camera obscura.  Remember, those technology led us to the CRT and that flat screen you're looking at right now.  What else can we apply that technology too?  Well, I suppose training monkeys (as Stephen so astutely mentions above) aka deterring crime.

Sure would be nice to have videos of those acts to put this for rest once and for all.

Quote from: stephendare on February 10, 2009, 01:20:22 PM
I mean, why not install cameras in all of the churches so that we can keep an eye on the politics of these tax free organizations?

We do. And it's broadcasted every Sunday morning in HD.

 :D :D :D

After hearing all the arguments offered so far I have come to the conclusion that I would prefer the money to be spent on cameras and recording equipment to be spent on Segways.  JSO would patrol regular beats visiting businesses, getting to know the homeless and vagrants, and being aware of the streets and coordinating with the Downtown Ambassadors.  The Segway cops should be supplamented with bicycle cops performing the same function.  If we can provide downtown ambassadors with Segways... three or four cops on them should be easy... :)

Again, Sgerna's auto was fired on after repeated attempts to stop it with other means failed.  Her "observations" are not what many Marines remember.  The "toture" debate has been done.  I will say that many American lives have been saved using techniques that you would call "torture".  Do you remember how many people have actually been "waterboarded"?  Less than five.  Ah, but once again we venture into an area of expertise in which you have no education, training, or experience.  As for your apologies, you could start with Senator McCain and them move on to every Marine who fought in Fallujah.  All of these people put their lives on the line for this country while you had your "travels".

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2009, 01:55:51 PM
After hearing all the arguments offered so far I have come to the conclusion that I would prefer the money to be spent on cameras and recording equipment to be spent on Segways.  JSO would patrol regular beats visiting businesses, getting to know the homeless and vagrants, and being aware of the streets and coordinating with the Downtown Ambassadors.  The Segway cops should be supplamented with bicycle cops performing the same function.  If we can provide downtown ambassadors with Segways... three or four cops on them should be easy... :)

Whoo! NOT ME!

Let's see, your at Pearl and Duval, and suddenly a guy pulls a knife and says, "Your a dead man if you don't give it up."

Some cop at the JSO office see's this on a TV screen and thinks, "Hum? Wonder what is gonig down?", Finally when your bleeding from 3 huge holes, he decides "Oh God a mugging!" Next he calls the dispatcher and they send out a car which arrives 15 minutes later. You bleed out on the walk, and the perp get's your .50 cent skyway fare.

With the Segway, bike, horse, scooter, you could say that cop could show at any second, thus the likelyhood of your buying the farm over .50 cents is slim to none. Nobody will risk being caught for such a small sum and a capital crime.  

OCKLAWAHA

QuoteWhoo! NOT ME!

Let's see, your at Pearl and Duval, and suddenly a guy pulls a knife and says, "Your a dead man if you don't give it up."

Some cop at the JSO office see's this on a TV screen and thinks, "Hum? Wonder what is gonig down?", Finally when your bleeding from 3 huge holes, he decides "Oh God a mugging!" Next he calls the dispatcher and they send out a car which arrives 15 minutes later. You bleed out on the walk, and the perp get's your .50 cent skyway fare.

With the Segway, bike, horse, scooter, you could say that cop could show at any second, thus the likelyhood of your buying the farm over .50 cents is slim to none. Nobody will risk being caught for such a small sum and a capital crime.

I think what most are trying to say is that the criminals knowledge of the cameras would keep them from stabbing you over .50 because even if they were to get away... there dirty mug would be caught on camera as they would be with in 24 hours.

Paul Blart can't be everywhere at once but a camera can.

If cameras make people feel safe than maybe more business's and people will visit downtown more often. I know poeple mugged by bums downtown and read every year about senseless violence on weekends like FL / GA.

On the flip side maybe I'll get busted for urinating in public with a 32oz in ahnd. I'll take my chances.

All this is true, but given the current police state downtown is in, the above would probably go more like this.

You're driving down union on your way to Pearl and Duval.  Some cop at the JSO office see's your car moving down union and runs your tag. Your tag is run thru the system and your name is identified.  An unpaid parking ticket.   Cars are dispatched to follow you. You exit your car at Pearl and Duval to be greeted by the perp.  He stabs you 3 times. You die and the perp gets away because the cops are to busy booting the car.

What a brilliant use of our tax dollar. We need these on every corner in all directions.  :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otT3ZtZMiaM

Quote from: Shwaz on February 10, 2009, 05:50:30 PM
I think what most are trying to say is that the criminals knowledge of the cameras would keep them from stabbing you over .50 because even if they were to get away... there dirty mug would be caught on camera as they would be with in 24 hours.

Have to chime in about this theory, thugs and bums are not usually the most tactful people. There's a good chance they aren't going to think things through before commiting acts of violence and say to themselves "Hey wait, there's a camera there. I'd better not jump this guy even though I'm desperate, starving and possibly completely out of my mind." Hell they might not even notice there's a camera on them at all. How many videos have you seen of someone robbing a convenient store? These aren't exactly criminal masterminds at work.

Quote from: Shwaz on February 10, 2009, 05:50:30 PM
On the flip side maybe I'll get busted for urinating in public with a 32oz in ahnd. I'll take my chances.

:D

I think this is what we're all secretly scared of.

Quote from: gatorback on February 10, 2009, 01:39:33 PM

Quote from: stephendare on February 10, 2009, 01:20:22 PM
I mean, why not install cameras in all of the churches so that we can keep an eye on the politics of these tax free organizations?

We do. And it's broadcasted every Sunday morning in HD.

LOL

Quote from: NotNow on February 10, 2009, 06:56:51 PM
Stephen, I would go through this slowly if I thought it would help.  I have attempted to be civil with you and you continue to twist what I say to fit your own little version of things.  You continue to put out these kinds of statements:

"You start on on some misplaced rant conflating criticism of torture with condemnation of our soldiers and then you descend to this kind of conspiratorial madness and demand apologies for completely fabricated offenses."

You ignore when others prove you factually wrong.
You misstate what is said, on a board where anyone can read what was written!
You ridicule those that oppose you.
You insult those that oppose you.

While I have neither the time nor iclination to train you in how a roadblock works, I can assure you that the vehicle containing Sgrena was required to stop at US roadblocks.   They were in no danger at a US roadblock but were actually at a point of safety.  We don't just let cars zip by!  If you can't figure out why that is, and I suspect that you can't, then we shouldn't even be having this conversation.  

Your insults against Senator McCain are well documented in this thread.  Your accusations of torture and murder against our soldiers are spread throughout this forum and jaxoutloud.  Your active promoting of any accusation against the US military in any rag in the world is evidence of your contempt.  Your promotion of Sgrena in her accusations against the Marines who fought in Fallujah sickens me.  I know you won't apologize.  I know that you will never admit that you are wrong even when it sits in front of you in black and white.  I see what I am dealing with and I would like to say that I am still just trying to help you, but I am through with that.  You are a coward.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  You lack integrity and honesty.  These forums are excellent forms of entertainment and at times education, but your demagoguery against the very country that you take advantage of and those that defend it at great personal cost is just too much for me to take.  

Continue with your lies and cowardly calls from a darkened room in Riverside, but I will no longer be a part of it.  You better keep it on the web or in your little coffee shop though, because if you are not careful a man who has really given something of himself might hear you in person.

Told you so

And I should have listened. :o

Quote from: stephendare on February 10, 2009, 05:58:56 PM
true that, gator.  and considering downtown has the lowest crime rate of the entire city, the whole thing is just thuddingly stupid.

while I agree that downtown get a bad rap, it is hardly the safest (and lowest crime rate) area of the City

10 pages and I'm still trying to figure out how much this costs. The equipment and install is free. How much for the monitoring?

If cost is being an argument against, I think the cost should be notated, otherwise, that argument is void.

As for the request for privacy in PUBLIC, that's just foolish, next argument and I hope the argument comes from someone that doesn't wear a tin foil hat.

Of course, I am still not for or against it at the moment. As I've already mentioned, the only fact I know is...

People have been caught for their crimes by reviewing video tape of the crime and identifying the criminal.

However did retail stores prevent / catch shoplifters?

If you're worried about a lovers quarrel in public it's because of being surrounded by other people… not some donut muncher behind 32 TV monitors.

The only people who have a problem with this is government conspiracy theorist and criminals.

Quote from: stephendare on February 11, 2009, 11:34:36 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138845/Food-writers-online-guide-building-H-bomb--evidence-man-Guantanamo.html

It appears you believe this persons version of this tale.  Somehow you would have to believe that he was arrested and held solely because the CIA felt he might make an H-bomb by twirling uranium in a bucket around his head.  Tell me you actually believe this story Stephen...  I'm not sure why he didn't say the CIA accused him of UFO collaboration or time machine construction...

But... I still would rather spend the money police walking a beat downtown...

Quote from: stephendare on February 11, 2009, 01:21:58 PM
Catching criminals isnt worth the entire society losing its right to privacy.

Privacy in public?

QuoteBut its a great subject for another thread.

I agree... :)

Quote from: stephendare on February 11, 2009, 01:57:35 PM
Btw.  What is your full legal name, date of birth, address and phone number?

If you arent willing to post that online and be verified, then please dont participate in this kind of hypocrisy.

So, that's your argument?

Quote from: stephendare on February 11, 2009, 01:57:35 PM
well im neither a conspiracy theorist or a natural born criminal.  Quick, hide the tin foil hat

But i do have the right to not be video taped by a third party on streets that I own and pay for without my permission.   Really, you own a street? What's it called? Assuming you pay taxes then you contribute to the building of those streets, you don't own it and are entitled to no privacy on those streets. Speaking of permission, have you ever given the government permission to steal your hard earned wages and call it a tax? That is what you should be mad about.

QuoteSchwaz, the full name, date of birth, phone number and address goes for you to

You're comparing apples to bowling balls. My actions /words / screen name are just as public on this forum as my actions and picture being video taped on a public street. They’re not requiring us to display our phone# and full name in plain sight when visiting downtown.

However if you were to do something illegal they would pursue that information with visual evidence taken by said camera's. Or maybe they'll even catch you in the act if all goes as planned.

Speaking of homeless downtown... I went for walk at lunch down to the Landing and back. Right out in front of the Omni an old homless guy said to me "HEY MAN I WANNA ASK YOU A QUESTION... WHAT ARE YOU GONNA SPEND THAT STIMULUS CHECK ON". I literally shot apple juice through my nose. I wish that was on tape so I could watch it over and over again.

Thanks Stephen, I appreciate the lesson and your ego driven attempt to speak down to me about public streets, unfortunately you are incorrect (surprise, surprise)...

The federal government owns roads serving national forests, parks and dams. State governments own most of the highways between cities and towns and the Interstate highways. Cities and counties own the local roads. Private roads are a different story, so I'm quite sure the road you believe you own must be private, it must also say Stephen Dare somewhere on it and it probably has your birth date, phone & address listed.  

https://www.crab.wa.gov/wsace/Documents/AOKArticles/Article18-04WhoOwnsRoads.pdf

This is an actual government website with that information. A little more accurate then wikipedia, maybe you can update wikipedia. You could reference it with the wikipedia link you updated or you can simply put "ask Stephen Dare, he knows all, even when he doesn't"

Stephen... a CCTV camera does not require that you wear a nametag containing your personal info...

First, your wikipedia article says nothing of the sort, the government article I provided clearly stated it is owned by the government or land owner, not the public tax payer. Debating with you is like speaking to a child with their fingers in their ears saying "lanalalana i can't hear you"...

Also, I've never once stated that I agree nor disagree with the cameras, I need some facts to determine that. You on the other hand continue to argue with opinions or the lame-ass last name, ph# and address line.

The camera's would help to identify criminals caught on tape (FACT). Your lame remark about finding out my information can be found as well. If I started telling of some kind of criminal act and the FBI wanted to find out who I am, the information can be had. If a camera catches you stabbing your neighbor for standing on that magical street owned by Stephen Dare then they still have to figure out who your face belongs to.

I'll begin again...

Privacy in public?

If you own the streets of downtown, when you move can you sell your portion and recoup your portion paid + appreciated value? Maybe i could just sell my portion of SanJose Blvd. - that's prime realstate and I never use it and I would promise never to again if I can just get my money back.

QuoteStephen... a CCTV camera does not require that you wear a nametag containing your personal info...

That's what I said.

QuoteWhat is your full name and address?

Like I said before my posts/ actions on this forum are just public as my walking down any video surveillanced street downtown. Even with so called "face recognition technology" my identity still wouldn't register. My "actions" would be recorded JUST AS THEY ARE ON THIS FORUM.

I have posted my full name, address and phone# on other forums when necessary… for in person meetings, or for packages to be delivered etc. My facebook is open to public viewing and I have my picture plastered all over 40ozmaltliquor.com.

You're welcome to go after that info - just as the police are welcome to come after me if I’m caught on camera committing any crimes.

Public space is not private space, like the roads your family owns.

Therefore, public = no privacy... no?

Also, as already mentioned, the camera's being installed does not force us to wear name tags with our information on them (yet). Actual police work would be required to determine who's face it is that belongs to the person committing the crime, same as with finding out who ANY person on this forum is, including yourself because it is simply a screen name and who knows if you are really Stephen Dare. I know at one time there was a Mayor Peyton on this thread, but it was quite obvious that was not John Peyton.

Above, I mentioned 'yet' in regards to the requirement of having our info displayed. Do I think eventually we will be getting to that stage? Yes. Do I think these cameras can be used in a way I do not agree with? Yes. I think by that time, it won't matter what our opinion is though, as long as we do not voice them. That will be the government we live with. We have already given them too much power, they already run the show, not the people.

Your whole argument about streets, I think that is where you are confused. You believe the street belongs to us. In a round about way, they should as we should also own the government. They are here for us. Truth is, that is not the case. The government is it's own entity and it runs the show and owns the street, not the other way around. Just like Shwaz said, you could sell it or destroy it or paint it to make it more attractive. You cannot do any of this and if you try to change it, the government will penalize you for it. Because, they own it, which is why they clean it and maintain it.

...and I disagree with your idea of "public privacy".

You don't even have my screen name correct  ;)

Public: pronounced Pub-Lick - adjective, definition

open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public

Well, that's not exactly what we were talking about. In fact, that's kind of my point, since I'm neither for or against it until I have all of the facts.

The point is, you are bringing in opinions and what-if scenarios. My whole argument stems from your original statement about them spying on your privacy, which you've pointed to repeatedly. Privacy in public does not exist, that's a factual statement. So is the point that cameras can help catch a criminal.

I'm still waiting to hear the costs for the monitoring of the system.

QuoteHowever did retail stores prevent / catch shoplifters?

If you're worried about a lovers quarrel in public it's because of being surrounded by other people… not some donut muncher behind 32 TV monitors.

The only people who have a problem with this is government conspiracy theorist and criminals.



Quote from: Shwaz on Today at 05:02:12 PM
...and I disagree with your idea of "public privacy".

You don't even have my screen name correct  


well are you a government conspiracy theorist or a criminal shwaz?

Why so shy?

Neither. I'm not shy like I said (again) my info is out there for the finding. It's not hard at all. I would challenge you but any monkey with a pc and quick read of this thread could find it in minutes... and the best part is it doesn't scare me.

QuoteLong after you are dead, the record of your chancest actions will be available to be edited or changed or simply left as is, to use against you or flatter you beyond your control

Statements like that let me know exactly which one you are though. I don't believe surveillance cameras lead to sub dermal micro chips.

Privacy in public does not exist, that's a factual statement. So is the point that cameras can help catch a criminal.  - my statement from above

simply restating your position and then calling it a fact does not make it a fact. - your statement


hmm...

So, just to make sure I understand you... PRIVACY does exist in a PUBLIC space?

It is a police state.  Yup.  Do the camera's do any good?  Again, I'm for them personally--see prior post; however, I am for you not wanting them. I can see how you have a problem with them and I'm sorry for that.  I think what Stephen said sums it up most.  "It's bullshit."  I think constitutionally,   they're legal.  Think of them as high tech. "guns."  City has a right to use them.  If you don't want them, well, let's just say they...they could start to... well you know, nuf said.

Quote from: stephendare on February 11, 2009, 05:40:49 PM
And Im not the one relying on a screen name to protect my identity.


How do we know that?

QuoteShwaz thinks he can evade capture by looking away from the cameras.

This argument has become laughable and you're losing ground by trying to twist opposing words.

I just flat out disagree that private companies holding the tapes are going to use the images maliciously for slander, a frame up or any other crazy conspiracy notion.

Don't kid yourself Shwaz. You think for one second that shady people don't work for the big companies....how about Stan in operations catching you with that new bimbo you picked up at the Centerfold.  Extorts money from you because he knows who you are.  I'm sure this has happened before. Lemme googlesome.

Pefect.  Jett Travolt.

You got maggots like this with access to those video tapes...

Quote
While it is OK to sit from afar and question the impact of Scientology practices and dogma on the death of John Travolta's son Jett, trying to profit from it is wrong and unethical. It appears that Bahamian "ambulance driver" Tarino Lightbourne and Bahamian Tourism Minister Obie Wilchcombe (not to be confused with Obi Wankanobe) tried to extort $20 million to keep a cell phone image of the dead teen (taken by Lightbourne) from being released to the public.

QuoteWell sure it does, Johnny.  Would it be ok to strip you of your clothes because someone objected to not being able to see your genitals?

Even if you were in public?

Another blown out comparison... that's like saying the new camera's are piggy backed with a law that requires you to put on a 30 minute variety show when visiting downtown public spaces.... with celebrity guests included.

Quoteshwaz stop clowning.

do you think you arent entitled to this basic privacy while in public or don't you?

Steve, I'm being completely in honest when I say it doesn't bother me. I've never felt a strong feeling of privacy when on any downtown street here or abroad. I don't think "they're out to get me or you".
If it makes people feel safe / stops or solves even one serious crime, I think it's worth it.

QuotePefect.  Jett Travolt.

You got maggots like this with access to those video tapes...


Quote
While it is OK to sit from afar and question the impact of Scientology practices and dogma on the death of John Travolta's son Jett, trying to profit from it is wrong and unethical. It appears that Bahamian "ambulance driver" Tarino Lightbourne and Bahamian Tourism Minister Obie Wilchcombe (not to be confused with Obi Wankanobe) tried to extort $20 million to keep a cell phone image of the dead teen (taken by Lightbourne) from being released to the public.

Is it a perfect example as this maggot now face criminal charges for extortion? Just as one of these private companies holding the tapes would if they tried something similar.

Seems to me privately made video is more susceptible to misuse than video recorded by the government.  Could not safegaurds for the information not be put into place?

Both of the xray pix show people hiding weapons... Are you saying these cameras should be forbidden at airports?

What does x-rays have to do with the police state downtown?  Are there x-rays downtown at this point?

Is there documentation that these are xray camera's being installed locally?

As for the video, that was taken on private property and in fact not against the law to distribute. Unless maybe the teens were underage than it might be considered distribution of child pornography.

Also, aren't you further violating this teen couple's privacy by sharing this video with others or is fair when you're just making a point... because the police will use the video to make their point when the images become visual evidence. Quite the conundrum.    

QuoteShwaz, I assume that you were unaware of this fact

I'm fully aware that on most commercial private properties I am under their watchful eye. Maybe that's why I'm not hosted on these websites doing any ridiculous.

Sorry...I hit the remove button...my post was:

That's staged.  Girls don't act like that.

Well, given new information I have and all that discussion above, I may just have a problem with the cams downtown. 

Quotewhich means that you would avoid downtown while having fun i suppose?

If I was worried about losing control of my actions and the public footage being hosted illegally on the web. Yes... but I'm not. The videos above were taken on private property.

If by chance both of these instances were to occur than I would be entitled to sue the city for defamation of character and invasion of privacy.

I'll pose the same question to you. Will the cameras stop you from having fun downtown?

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.  Are cameras a volations of this?

Quote from: gatorback on February 12, 2009, 04:24:00 PM
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.  Are cameras a volations of this?

No more than x-ray at the airport.

QuoteNo, because they arent going to get installed.  Otherwise, yes.

Why would anyone in their right mind go out with people for drinking dancing and carousing with the guarantee that they will be filmed?

Which is my point.

You've definitely piqued my interest and have me wondering what constitutes a crazy night of partying with you esteban. I'll be up at burrito gallery around 6 call me if you're blowing it out downtown tonight before the camera's get installed. 535-1352  8)

Quote from: Johnny on February 12, 2009, 04:36:25 PM
No more than x-ray at the airport.

That's not fair at all.  For decades, it has been deemed that your 4th Amendment rights are not being infringed upon if you are screened at airports. In fact, in the 70s it was determined that as long as you have a right to refuse the search and leave, then you may do so.  Recently, however, if you have passed through the magnetometer and/or placed your baggage on a belt, you and it are subject to search.  United States v. Aukai, 04-10226

As Johnny stated much, much earlier in this thread, it is a well established standard that there is no right to privacy on public streets or in public areas.  Therefore, there is no fourth ammendment block to installing cameras which observe such areas.  The question is not CAN CCTV be installed, but SHOULD CCTV be installed?

Here is a discussion from California that I think logically discusses both sides of this controversy, it has good case histories and was written with real facts by people with real educations:

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/05/

Morality?  Honor blood and principles?  I thought you didn't wan't to be seen partying with a 32?  Are we honoring ALL of the principles that this country was founded on?  Or just the ones we like now?

And here is a link to the actual guidelines.  Of course, these do not carry any power of law and must voluntarily be adhered to:

http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=L8L%2BrgmpfWQ%3D&tabid=423

I still believe that more police officers on the street would be far better than a CCTV system, but as a deterrent and system of identification of suspects and evidence of criminal activity, these are a cheaper alternative.

Quote from: CMG22 on February 12, 2009, 05:50:32 PM

Quote from: Johnny on February 12, 2009, 04:36:25 PM
No more than x-ray at the airport.

That's not fair at all.  For decades, it has been deemed that your 4th Amendment rights are not being infringed upon if you are screened at airports. In fact, in the 70s it was determined that as long as you have a right to refuse the search and leave, then you may do so.  Recently, however, if you have passed through the magnetometer and/or placed your baggage on a belt, you and it are subject to search.  United States v. Aukai, 04-10226

You're not required to go downtown either.

* I know I'm 5 days late on this response, but I have been busy.

Ah... the slippery slope of police intrusion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1148244/Pubs-ordered-install-Big-Brother-CCTV-cameras--risk-losing-licences.html#

QuotePubs ordered to install Big Brother CCTV cameras - or risk losing licences
By James Slack and Dan Newling
Last updated at 8:27 AM on 18th February 2009

Big Brother-style plans to force pubs to install CCTV cameras raise ‘serious privacy concerns’, the surveillance watchdog has warned.

Police are telling pubs, clubs, restaurants and off-licences they will not support their licensing applications unless they agree to train the intrusive cameras on their customers.

Owners also have to promise to hand over to the police any CCTV footage requested.

Pubs are being ordered to train CCTV cameras on customers if they want police backing for liquor licences
The blanket policy has been introduced in the London boroughs of Islington and Richmond, where all applicants for permission to sell alcohol are being told they must fit CCTV.

Other forces are adopting similar tactics. Martin Reed, a licensing officer for Essex Police, said the force asks that every licensed premises in the county open beyond 11pm should have CCTV cameras that take head shots of customers coming into the building.

He explained there should be cameras on all public entrances and exits and all licensed outside areas.

A spokesman for Northamptonshire police said that in Northampton town centre they recommend that any licensed premises open after midnight must install CCTV.

The Information Commissioner’s office, the UK’s privacy watchdog, said it was seriously concerned by the development.

David Smith, the deputy Information Commissioner, said: ‘Hardwiring surveillance into pubs raises serious privacy concerns. Installing surveillance in pubs to combat specific problems of rowdiness and bad behaviour may be lawful, but blanket measures where there is no history of criminal activity is likely to breach data protection requirements.

‘Use of CCTV must be reasonable and proportionate if we are to maintain public trust and confidence in its deployment.’

The moves came amid renewed concern about the lurch towards a surveillance society under Labour.

On Tuesday the Mail revealed how the ex-head of MI5, Dame Stella Rimington, warned that the Government was using the public’s fear of terrorism to try to pass laws which risked turning the UK into a ‘police state’.

The Tories tonight backed the Information Commissioner’s concerns about the pub plan.

National security spokesman Crispin Blunt said: ‘CCTV can be a useful tool against crime and anti-social behaviour but it is no substitute for having a real police presence on our streets.

‘This Government has sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people.

‘The police need to be specific about why CCTV is needed in this case.

‘On this issue, as elsewhere, evidence is required so a proper balance can be struck between privacy and security.’

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: ‘Boroughs may impose blanket rules to prevent crime and disorder and to assist the investigation of offences.’

Agreed.  But... This is being done at many establishments already and with NO safegaurds.  Whats to stop the night manager of BT's tacos to download and post silly videos of his silly patrons on the net... or selling them to americas stupidest patrons?  We are so worried about big brother we are forgetting little bro...

True... but the damage has been done.  If the recordings are private property I can do what I wish with them... no?

Just tossing about ideas... How about a law.  A license to video survielle.  The license is not intended to prohibit or limit private property surviellance but to set the rules of use for the recorded data.  May only be used for...  may not be used for... etc.  Protects property owners and patrons... cans still be used as evidence by police.  Win, win!

Jeez... Stephen... I am not THAT old! :D  Perhaps I was not clear on my last post.  My proposal was for people who wished to own and operate their own surveillance equipment.  As it stands now owners can do as they wish with the recorded data.  The license would lay out rules of use and misuse.

Hmmm... another dilemma.  We do not want state sponsored surveillance in our downtown because of the many abuses possible against the ordinary citizen.  Unmonitored and unregulated surveillance occurs now by merchants and private citizens but these entities are free to use the recorded data as they see fit.  We are also against licensing or limiting the data recorded by private citizens.  This seems nearly as creepy as letting Rutherford watch me...

I got it.  They want to tax you for each mile on your car now right? So, why don't we have a video tape tax. For each inch of video tape used, we tax?

Ohio studies vehicle-miles tax to replace or supplement fuel tax
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/01/ohio_studies_vehiclemiles_tax.html

Videotape is so 20th century, man.  Digitize yourself.

A bytetax? Brilliant!

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 19, 2009, 01:25:19 PM
Just tossing about ideas... How about a law.  A license to video survielle.  The license is not intended to prohibit or limit private property surviellance but to set the rules of use for the recorded data.  May only be used for...  may not be used for... etc.  Protects property owners and patrons... cans still be used as evidence by police.  Win, win!

so then you need a license to put a video camera at your front door as part of your security system?

Quote from: KenFSU on February 03, 2009, 11:44:11 PM
It's closing in on midnight and I'm exhausted, but no, these statements are not false. They are backed up by the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, etc. They are also backed up by former members of the NSA, such as Russell Tice. Watch this MSNBC clip for a small sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osFprWnCjPA&feature=related

The fact that the Pentagon and intelligence agencies has been spying on anti-war movements for over five years has been all over the news. A simple Google search will return dozens of stories from the most credible of sources saying the same thing. USA Today broke the story on phone logs nearly four years ago. The New York Times broke the story on phone taps. The LA Times broke the story on Financial Transactions. The Department of Homeland Security website will give you all the information you need to know on the Fusion Centers.

Illegal, yes.

False, absolutely not.

Ken, I apologize.  You were absolutely right.  I am shocked and ashamed of my government and my elected officials.  [/color]