home

Smile For the Camera

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 06:48:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Your movements are recorded as you walk the streets of major cities. You know that private security cameras watch you shop for sweaters, but city streets have always been anonymous, a place to be lost in the crowd. Until now. The hope of finding private moments in a public setting, you now realize, is so last century.

In New York, "wireless video cameras peer down from lamp posts about 30 feet above the sidewalk." Five hundred of them. New Yorkers paid $9 million dollars so their government could record their public meanderings. And that's only a start.

The city already has about 1,000 cameras in the subways, with 2,100 scheduled to be in place by 2008. An additional 3,100 cameras monitor city housing projects.

New York's approach isn't unique. Chicago spent roughly $5 million on a 2,000-camera system. Homeland Security officials in Washington plan to spend $9.8 million for surveillance cameras and sensors on a rail line near the Capitol. And Philadelphia has increasingly relied on video surveillance.

This pervasive inspection of public movement and social interaction brings 1984 to mind. The omnipresent watchful eye of government helps the investigation of crime, but have cities weighed that benefit against the social cost? Is one dystopia sufficient, or will city governments next try to bring Fahrenheit 451 to life?

< More on Unclassified State Dept. Memo Showing 16 Words Were False | Should the Duke Accuser's Name be Published Now? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Smile For the Camera | 30 comments (30 topical)
    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 07:56:31 PM EST
    Our voices are also going into a huge data base, Every time the This Conversation May Be Recorded For Quality Control disclaimer is uttered your voice print is catalogued along with your personal data which they have on record. Next they will be DNA testing on our spit taken off letters sent through the US Mail. Once they get enough DNA samples they can make littering a crime, Big money maker and good for the prison industry, A war on manners, Huge fine or jailtime. Three strikes 20 years. Guilliani Not for president nor any other public office.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 07:58:12 PM EST
    We may need to bump this sort of spending way up if Iran unleashes 40,000 suicide-bombers on American "sensitive points" -- perhaps subways? -- in the wake of an air attack on Persian military and nuclear sites.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 08:12:05 PM EST
    Are there any civil liberties groups (or other groups?) trying to stop this? What would the best legal argument be that this is unconstitutional or somehow illegal?

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 05:39:22 AM EST
    This pervasive inspection of public movement and social interaction brings 1984 to mind. Indeed it does. Unfortunately, there's not much of a privacy argument to be made in regard to moving about it public, as you can't really claim any expectation of privacy when you do so.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:13:50 AM EST
    It's the notion of being captured on videotape (or digitally) for all eternity that bugs me. Yeah, there is no privacy in public spaces. But I would like the right to not be videotaped on public property. In a store or business, that's private property, they can do what they wish. But being videotaped sunbathing in Central Park? Creepy. NYC has become very surreal with all the cameras and mobile command units where the cops watch us all go about our daily business. Creepy, creepy, creepy.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:23:34 AM EST
    Kdog, No argument there. I didn't say I liked it; I merely said there's probably very little we can do about it. A legal challenge based on privacy rights is almost certain to fail. But if you really want to get creeped out about it, consider this: How many cameras are there that we can't see and don't know about, and who'e looking at those?

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:41:02 AM EST
    People generally see what they expect to see. Any stage magician knows this. To blend into a crowd and go unnoticed is very easy. Don't look at the cameras directly. Be aware of them and their locations with perpheral vision. when you walk into range of one of them. Look the part. Blend into the background. Appear so normal that you become invisible. And go about your business. These cameras will not stop anyone aware from anything. The safety people think they will provide is an illusion being sold by authorities to suckers.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:45:31 AM EST
    Seeing as we have a government by, of, and for the people jpaul..we can do something about it. Demand our local, state, and federal governments stop spying on us. We are the boss. Though I'm probably in the minority opinion on this issue....again:) I doubt I'd find much support for a ban on governement spy cameras.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:58:37 AM EST
    Maybe it's just me but I've never been too concerned with surveillance cameras in public. I've never had any expectation of privacy when I'm walking down a street and I wouldn't behave in a way that required it. The sunbathing example is interesting. It may be a little unsettling that someone may be watching you lay in the grass, but then again, it's still a very, very public place - how much privacy can you expect? Even more, wouldn't you rather have the security to lay out and be (even a little) less concerned of being slashed for robbed? And I just don't understand the rabid paranoia that accompanies the claim that "the government is logging everything and will kick in my door for Thought Crime." It's so ridiculous.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#10)
    by swingvote on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 07:02:29 AM EST
    Sure we can demand anything we want, Kdog, but I don't think it will do much. Because we are a government of the people, we the people are the ones doing this, and until you change the people in office, (and probably not even then), you'll get nowhere with that argument. Unfortunately, this isn't a case of "them" doing this to "us", it is a case of "us" doing it to "us".

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 07:08:40 AM EST
    The sunbathing example is interesting. It may be a little unsettling that someone may be watching
    Of course, people can see you and watch you...that's not the point. It's the fact that you are being videotaped. A cop on the beat can watch you. A cop viewing you on a screen can watch you over and over and over. If I was a woman I'd be even more creeped out.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 07:14:23 AM EST
    A cop viewing you on a screen can watch you over and over and over.
    But just because he can, does that mean he will? If he does, he risks being caught and fired. I mean there are remedies in place for that. Its the same idea in my mind as the wiretapping issue - sure they can wiretap me (or videotape and watch it over and over), but don't you think they have much better things to be doing that listening into what I'm having for dinner (or watching my pasty self try and get some sun)?

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 07:32:12 AM EST
    Unfortunately, this isn't a case of "them" doing this to "us", it is a case of "us" doing it to "us".
    Can't argue with that. Like I said, I'm well aware I'm in the minority. Most people love it, I'm just not one of them. I think checkpoints and more hassles and infringements are soon to follow. Give an inch, take a yard.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 07:35:25 AM EST
    but don't you think they have much better things
    I think they have better things to do that arrest marijuana users...but they do. Security at private businesses have gotten in trouble for misusing surveillance cameras to spy in changing rooms and what not. A cop using the zoom to look down some blouses is not far fetched, but if that's the society you want Chase...so be it.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 07:45:51 AM EST
    Now, I wish I owned stock in the Groucho Marx fake nose and glasses industry.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 07:56:08 AM EST
    STRAW MAN ALERT!!
    A cop using the zoom to look down some blouses is not far fetched, but if that's the society you want Chase...so be it.
    It might happen, and when it does actions are taken to punish the perpetrators. But it's silly and disingenuous to suggest that every, or even most, cop would do something so inappropriate.
    I think they have better things to do that arrest marijuana users...but they do.
    The major difference is when they arrest marijuana users they are enforcing the law. When someone uses a camera to peer down someone's blouse, they are violating the law. See the difference? One would EXPECT law enforcement to, well, enforce the law. Just because YOU don't agree with the law, doesn't make THEIR enforcement wrong.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:12:36 AM EST
    when it does actions are taken to punish the perpetrators
    If there is any oversight, as far as I know there isn't any civilian oversight of the use of surveillance cameras. Police cannot be trusted to police themselves. I didn't say police were "wrong" to enforce drug laws, merely they should have better things to do. Don't you agree? They also should have better things to do than play candid camera.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:23:46 AM EST
    Some people value "security" and the (illusory) freedom from fear more than they value real freedom.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:28:02 AM EST
    I think police are doing precisely what they are charged to do: enforce the law. So long as marijuana is illegal, they should be arresting users. They have nothing better to do than do their jobs. I don't save the same negative view of police as you. In any population there will be unsavory characters who abuse their power. But the vast majority of cops are upstanding citizens who love doing their jobs, enforcing the law and protecting the citizens. As far as oversight, what oversight exists of private security cameras? Obviously there must be some - abuses have become public. And would it be possible, even with rigorous oversight, to catch all abuses? Of course not. But even given a handful (or fewer) potential abuses, isn't the proven deterrent effect of cameras on crime when they are placed in public places a greater benefit to society on balance? It's also worth noting that nearly all alleged surveillance camera abuses have involved their placement in bathrooms or changing rooms, where there is an elevated expectation of privacy. Walking down a sidewalk, there is no such expectation.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:30:50 AM EST
    Jondee said
    Some people value "security" and the (illusory) freedom from fear more than they value real freedom.
    In line with my above post, wouldn't you agree there is a balance here? Maybe we allow cameras in public parks, busy streets in business districts, or in historically high crime areas but restrict them in residential areas. There has to be an acceptable way to balance both interests.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:42:07 AM EST
    Chase - Maybe Im paranoid, but the implications of this kind of thing gives me the creeps. Half the folks are walking around like aquiescent zombies as it is - at this point I dont want to provide any more tools for potential benign tyrants and the addicted-to-power than we already have. As it is, a good percentage of the population is sh*ting its knickers with fear already - over one thing or another. Of course, there has to be a balance, I'd just like for once to err on the side of sanity and creative, sustainable soloutions instead of moving in the direction of the movie Brazil.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#22)
    by Patrick on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:47:28 AM EST
    I don't save the same negative view of police as you. In any population there will be unsavory characters who abuse their power. But the vast majority of cops are upstanding citizens who love doing their jobs, enforcing the law and protecting the citizens.
    You'll not garner much support in these hallowed halls with that perspective. Better you think all cops as jackbooted thugs who were repressed somehow in their childhood and now use their badge as a club to abuse innocent people and make themselves feel better.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:50:52 AM EST
    Btw, there may be "no privacy in public places" but most people have experienced a feeling and sense of privacy in public and who the hell wants to give that up for "fifteen minutes of fame."?

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:54:02 AM EST
    I think sanity here includes both security and privacy. It's impossible to ignore the fact that when cameras are put up on public streets, the result is a dramatic reduction in street crime. I'm all for reducing crime (thus increasing freedom!) so I support their use in some places. I don't think the police want to put cameras on your street just to be nosy. Believing that is an unrealistic view of police behavior.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    Patrick: Better you think all cops as jackbooted thugs who were repressed somehow in their childhood and now use their badge as a club to abuse innocent people I don't recall anyone here ever saying anything like that. There are some like that, Patrick. Being a cop you would probably have a better idea of what percentage of them are than anyone else here, I think. The majority of cops I've ever dealt with (even ones I've been arrested by) have not fallen into that category, however, and I imagine I haven't been just lucky, rather I imagine they they were representative of the majority of cops everywhere. Blanket categorizations aren't helpful.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 03:23:34 PM EST
    Chase, Look up the legal principle of "selective prosecution." Compare and contrast, then, with the notion that cops should "enforce the law."

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 03:46:47 PM EST
    edger...I used to say things like that. I used to think most cops are thugs...I've changed my mind to some. Thanks in part to Patrick's contributions on this site, despite our differences. I've learned it's a stereotype like any other. Patrick...cheers and thanks to you sir for all the counter-points and occupational expertise. I still must vehemently express my dismay at being videotaped every time I walk the streets of NYC. The cameras in NYC aren't easily visible like in London, they don't act as deterrents. It's more of a domestic surveillance program. Any potential benefit is far outweighed by the potential for abuse and the slippery slope it creates. I still believe, absent probable cause, you have a right to be free from surveillance, even if it's random surveillance. As always, in my opinion.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:45:35 PM EST
    Jondee: Some people value "security" and the (illusory) freedom from fear more than they value real freedom. It's kind of like Mommie, I want my blankie!

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:41:55 AM EST
    Southerner: I understand the idea of "selective prosecution" just fine. The point I'm making is that it silly to fault them for doing their job - arresting those that violate laws. Maybe some believe marijuana possession and use should be enforced as rigorously as jaywalking statutes - but survey after survey shows they are but a minority.

    Re: Smile For the Camera (none / 0) (#30)
    by Johnny on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 06:25:22 PM EST
    but survey after survey shows they are but a minority.
    Link us up cowboy. back on topic, if you like the idea of surveillance, by all means enjoy it. Myself, I would rather live free than in perpetual terror of both my government and the criminal element...

    Smile For the Camera | 30 comments (30 topical)