I cannot walk from Grand Central in any direction without being recorded on video. Whether it's a camera set up by the NYPD or one that's used for commercial security, it's a fact of life. An unfortunate but necessary fact of life in this post-9/11 world.
The bottom line is that I have nothing to hide and, weighing the privacy concerns against the potential for protection, I think this is a good idea.
"The purpose of this tool is to deter, detect and dissuade criminal activity," said Police Chief Colin McCormack. "I feel very strongly about the responsibility to use it correctly and I am going to write a very restrictive policy about how it will be used.
"One person will be assigned, there is no facial recognition software and there is no audio recording."
The Chief explained that it is likely that recordings will only be retained for up to 60 days unless it has to be preserved as evidence and subject to the records retention rules that he is still researching. Thereafter the recordings will be destroyed.
The camera is easily moved from one location to another and its motion detection software will enable it to give an audio warning that it's in operation should the Department personnel decide to enable that feature.
"Whether we decide to get more cameras will depend on our success with the first one," said the Chief.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Police Camera A Good Idea
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
Most reasonable people would probably agree that a person walking in a public place has absolutely no expectation of privacy. Although the presence of government surveillance cameras may deter crime in some areas, government bureaucrats will almost certainly go beyond the legislature's original intent (crime deterrence) and abuse their newfound police powers in ways never imagined by lawmakers.
It's happened time and again...
I'm sick of seeing all the vandalism in the Town parks I frequent (and that's all of them).
Surveillance doesn't bother me...I have nothing to hide.
Because they do have something to hide, the vandals will just wear masks and non-descriptive clothing now to thwart surveillance and avoid identification...
Why is the New Milford police chief writing the surveillance camera policy? Shouldn’t the Town Council be specifying the exact purpose of the cameras and how they will be controlled and operated (in a new ordinance)?
And so goes the slow but steady trudge towards a fascist America.
Government will always provide plausible excuses for stripping citizens of their rights. "It's a post 9/11 world." "I'm sick of the graffiti". This is not a right to privacy issue it is a government is in business to protect itself issue.
Now McCormack and his government protectors can sit on their asses and do the job they used to do on the street. Pay close attention to the buzz words and phrases."One person will be assigned, there is no facial recognition software and there is no audio recording."
Government is the clear cause of the problems it claims to want to solve. Government fingers in every pie. Government eyes on all movement. Do you really feel safer. Of course not, but you'd better think twice about speaking out against leviathan, they know who you are.
I agree. Just because I may have "nothing to hide", doesn't mean the government should be snooping on me or my neighbors.
Why not just take DNA samples of every New Milford citizen? That way when a crime occurs the police can simply gather up the DNA evidence at the crime scene, process it in a lab, kick-in the perpetrators' door(s) at 2:00am and cart them off somewhere...
Make that "alleged" perpetrators... It matters little that a few innocent individuals will be sacrificed for the greater good...
As political theories, both fascism and communism share a set of common attributes. Individual liberties must be sacrificed for the greater good; and a single, all powerful, political leader makes the necessary decisions for the well being of society as a whole. As such, the rule of law must yield where the leader determines it necessary. Where I disagree with "Liberty and Justice" is that I believe we are slowly trudging toward the latter (communism/socialism) in the U.S., but this is a mere nuance.
Regardless, it appears that the all-powerful leader in New Milford will soon be the Chief of Police...
"...The camera is easily moved from one location to another and its motion detection software will enable it to give an audio warning that it's in operation should the Department personnel decide to enable that feature. 'Whether we decide to get more cameras will depend on our success with the first one,' said the Chief."
How would I consolidate my power if I had unrestricted access to these cameras? Place them at the homes, businesses and hangouts of local politicians and record (video and audio) all the activities going on. In a few short weeks, I'd be almost certain to have plenty of embarrassing and or illicit information recorded to use/abuse as I see fit.
said Police Chief Colin McCormack. "I feel very strongly about the responsibility to use it correctly and I am going to write a very restrictive policy about how it will be used."
Make sure a civilian employee is the camera system operator and not a police officer.
The International Police Chief Organization has a position paper on this available for download.
Mark
For the post that believes we are more likely to lead to communism than fascism with these sort of government intrusions. You are correct that it is only nuance. The end result is the same. However in the United States today we exhibit more similarities with a young fascist state than with a young communist state. For instance, a powerful idea of nationalism, overly powerful executive branch, and a military that reigns supreme etc. That being said we are likely to stumble over communism on our way to fascism. The socialism part is already baked in the cake.
Anonymous said; "...Make sure a civilian employee is the camera system operator and not a police officer..."
A "civilian employee" who works for the government?
Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, et al. were civilians too, that didn't make them trustworthy...
This will also be a great way for crooked public officials to go after their political enemies... Blackmail, extortion, coercion, intimidation... the possibilities are endless!
Chief McCormack was probably being very honest and sincere when he was quoted in The News Times saying "I feel very strongly about the responsibility to use it [the surveillance camera] correctly and I am going to write a very restrictive policy about how it will be used."
Unfortunately, the Chief doesn't reside at the police station 24/7. What about everyone else who has access to the equipment? Are all of them as honest and sincere as the chief? What about the chief's eventual replacement? These are reasonable questions that must be addressed BEFORE surveillance cameras are hung up all over town.
The "I have nothing to hide" argument reminds me of one reason many people have no problem with the Patriot Act and are willing to give up freedom for security.
Moves like this by government will surely lead to the installment of face and voice recognition software one day. Once the cameras go up, the police will be free to install upgrades as their budgets permit. The decision to do so will be made by a few people without a public mandate to do so.
The urge to do so will be irresistable...
... and where does it stop?
Article IV of the Articles of Confederation make reference to "free ingress and regress to and from..." However, nowhere in the Constitution can I find similar words in any context because, I believe, the Framers felt it unnecessary to put them there.
In my view, "free ingress and regress to and from" are impinged by the installation of cameras. It isn't "free" if someone is looking over your shoulder.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin...
"Those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither freedom nor security."
I vote cameras OFF the island.
GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY
Anonymous said: "GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY"
Actually, many citizens who appreciate their freedoms here in America detest seeing these freedoms being increasingly infringed upon by "well-intended" government bureaucrats.
If you like police states so much, there are plenty to choose from in many diverse places around the globe... Perhaps you're the one who should consider moving to a police state that's already in existence elsewhere, rather than collaborating for one here.
People do not have a right to privacy in the public arena. This nation was not founded on absolute and total freedom for its people to do as they please. There is no greater freedom that in this beautiful country, even post 911. The need for some intrusion into life is necessary for the safety and wellbeing of all. For those who abuse power there is redress in the legal system. The cameras are a good thing except those who have to fear.
It's certainly true that citizens don't have a right to privacy in the public arena. But it's equally true that our government doesn't have the right to spy on (or search) it's citizens without probable cause.
How will these spy cameras benefit "the safety and wellbeing of all"? We seem to be doing just fine right now in New Milford without the government spying on us, so why do you insist that this "intrusion into [everyone's] life is necessary"?
History shows us that limited government is essential for preserving freedom and individual liberty. Conversely, installing these spy cameras is broadening government power with no compelling justification.
"...If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary..." - James Madison, The Federalist No. 51
How will these spy cameras benefit "the safety and wellbeing of all"? We seem to be doing just fine right now in New Milford without the government spying on us, so why do you insist that this "intrusion into [everyone's] life is necessary"?
I'm sorry Anonymous but you are obviously uninformed of the things that go on here in New Milford.
Ask the Chief how many drug busts, graffiti and other incidents he has to deal with, ask public works how many signs are defaced (I bet even you have seen those stop signs with rumba chup written on them) that render the signs reflectivity usless and wil have to be replaced--or how many street name signs that were STOLEN this week alone that your hard earned tax dollars have to replace-on one night over 10 signs went missing to the tune of almost $200 each to replace! YOUR tax dollars for their fun? In a public place? Sorry I can think of other ways to spend MY tax dollars. I don't have anything to hide when I'm in public (or private for that matter).
So, your answer is to place a several thousand dollar spy camera at every street sign in New Milford? That doesn’t seem very cost effective… Also, what makes you think the spy cameras won’t be vandalized or stolen?
No, my point was to the other person who thought things were "great" in NM, they are not. We are not all bad, but over $2000 in vandalism in one night? You condone that? That occurs many many times over the course of a year. Multiply out the dollars spent and it is obscene. We have issues. If you think we don't I have a bridge to sell you...
They will be doing alcohol testing at school events. What does that say?
Get your collective heads out of the sand and be the parent! Check your kids room for street signs!!!
I can keep my children under control and out of trouble without the government's help!
It's not trendy to speak about individual rights when the majority is demanding “security” at any price… It's not trendy to respect the Constitution’s limited government ideals… It's not trendy to mistrust the intentions of government… Please count me among the few remaining, exceedingly unfashionable constitutionalists then!
"...They will be doing alcohol testing at school events. What does that say?.."
It says the under-age drinking laws aren't working either - just like the spy cameras won't work!
Sorry, I don't see the reason to panic.
Nor do I see how video surveillance of public places somehow morphs into "spying". I just can't make myself that paranoid.
What I **would** like to see is a few fewer cops. If this works to reduce personnel numbers, I'm all for it. (Doubt it, but I can always hope.)
Denying police video in the 21st Century is a lot like denying them the automobile or the radio in the 20th. Criminals get new tools, so do the cops. Time marches on.
I know it sounds Orwellian, but there’s no reason to trust government - just look at the extensive list of crooked public officials in the news lately.
With untrustworthy, lying, cheating, corrupt politicians running our government, it follows that government itself can not be trusted. This is the sad state of our representative democracy.
I find it troubling that so many people trust government with the power to take over virtually every aspect of American life, from conception to the grave.
Notice how the pro government intrusion crowd immediately makes demands of those who would question government intrusion." Get your head out of the sand." "Go to another country." Condecending comments such as "I cant make my self that paranoid." "You are obviously uninformed about the things that go on here in New Milford."
This is typical of people who don't understand the intent of or the need for a constitutional republic made of laws not emotions. The trap has worked for so long now it is unlikely the government will ever stop. Create a chaotic situation then step in to protect the public. Protect the public from what? From themselves? We know who the government is protecting. And it ain't you or me. Soften up public opinion and chisel away at those pesky individual freedoms. Understand who works for who. Right now we work for them,they take up to 50% of the typical workers income in the form of taxes, another 7% in hidden taxes such as inflation and another 10% in future debt obligations. Be as proud of this great nation as you wish but don't be a fool.
From:
“Unintended Consequences
Spitzer got snagged by the fine print of the Patriot Act.”
By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK, March 15, 2008
“After 9/11, Treasury issued stringent new regulations that required banks to look for unusual transactions.
When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, law-enforcement agencies hailed it as a powerful tool to help track down the confederates of Osama bin Laden. No one expected it would end up helping to snag the likes of Eliot Spitzer. The odd connection between the antiterror law and Spitzer's trysts with call girls illustrates how laws enacted for one purpose often end up being used very differently once they're on the books…”
The last time I checked, the type of vandalism and petty theft we’re talking about are both misdemeanors. Does it make any sense to give the government (police) broad new spy powers over EVERYONE on the slim chance they may observe a street punk commit a misdemeanor (that he’ll get nothing more than a slap on the wrist for in court anyway)?
I say no!!!
To Anonymous, March 21, 2008 8:08 AM (and others):
There are many technologies the police aren’t able to routinely use to spy on or coerce citizens, Forward Looking Infra Red Systems (FLIR) and lie detectors for example. Is your argument that the government should be allowed to use any and all technology at will, with no checks and balances, just because it’s available?
Fortunately, our nation’s prudent founders ratified the Bill of Rights to prevent the government from doing exactly what you’re advocating…
Wow, can you say "paranoid"?
“Wow, can you say ‘paranoid’?”
Wow, can YOU say extremely gullible and blissfully unaware?
The police should also be allowed to wiretap everyone’s phone lines in town because it’s possible they might be able to catch these petty street punks planning their next misdemeanor!
I have nothing to hide, so I’m not worried about the government listening to all my conversations...
Anonymous said.
Wow, can YOU say extremely gullible and blissfully unaware?
March 22, 2008 9:37 AM
Sorry boss, I dont see it that way. I have nothing to hide, I am not worried if they are watching my children play. I will actually feel safer knowing that they might be looking over my shoulder seeing things I might miss. I really don't think this is as extreme as some of you are making it out to be. Ever had a cell phone or a cordless phone. Think your conversations are secure? Atleast this way I know who is watching me. Next thing you will be telling me the sky is falling.
Why not just declare martial law? The government can then impose a curfew (nobody outside from sunset to sunrise) and suspend the writ of habeas corpus. That will put an end to the vandalism and other petty crime in New Milford.
As someone mentioned in a previous post; “The need for some intrusion into life is necessary for the safety and wellbeing of all…”
What a great post! This how the conversation should go.
Good job on both sides.
This is however, how it starts to begin to take away from freedom.
Next they will come after the guns in your homes under the same cloak. Am I right?
Germany 1939, Italy 1940, Japan 1938 did the same thing under the banner of security.
Ask anyone over 50 from Poland if they would agree to this camera. Let me know what they say. I am interested in how they respond.
PARANOID!
The naïve advocates of routine government spying on law abiding citizens are confusing paranoia for vigilance.
10 to 1 odds the “GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY/PARANOID!” poster is either an elected official or works for the government…
I agree. Who else but a slick bureaucrat would feel comfortable with greatly expanding the intrusiveness of government into our everyday lives?
"...Next thing you will be telling me the sky is falling."
As I recall, the sky was falling a few months ago when our state and local governments overreacted to the new FAA airspace proposal. In fact, there's ALWAYS a new "crisis" looming where government readily advocates overstepping its bounds to "help".
Ronald Reagan frequently quipped that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." It would be prudent for all of us to heed the warning of this wise and perceptive man by thinking twice before seeking the government's help on anything...
Who gave Colin McCormack the authority to spy on the citizen population? This type of unilateral decision making is precisely the type of thinking that got us into the Iraq War without a formal declaration.
What happened to the concept of "checks and balances?" Do we still call this country America or has Russia or China hijacked debate and discussion in this country?
This would set an enormously dangerous precedent. Put it to a referendum. Have a Town meeting. Anything. Do NOT give the those sworn to protect and serve the power to make unilateral decisions like this that are patently UN-American!
I do have an expectation of privacy in public. I expect not to be intruded upon.
Put up a camera... the crime will move. Proof's in San Francisco.
I've nothing to hide, but don't need anyone watching to find a reason.
I'm with Ben Franklin. I want more Liberty, not less.
I know wireless conversations are monitored, and I'm ashamed of George.
I differ from many of these opinions, but I won't go to another country-been there- I'll fight to make this one even better.
I don't trust my government, been unhappy about 7 years. Hope the Supreme court gets the gun argument settled in my favor. In case we need to form a militia. Again.
The government should be able to, and be trusted to, help those in need.
I know Colin and trust him very much, but find some police to be 'overzealous'.
Under age laws don't work? What alcohol law does?
Well, I got those off my chest.
JJ
Do you have bars on your windows and multiple locks also?
We won't need bars on our windows and multiple locks on our doors until the government starts taking our guns away - you know, like safe, gun-free Washington, DC (where armed criminals need not worry about getting shot breaking into an unarmed, law abiding citizen's home).
Post a Comment