Email this topic to a friend Printer-friendly version of this topic Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)		Archived thread - Read only  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Conferences Off-Topic Forum (Protected)
Original message

PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-01-05, 06:34 PM (EST) "What price safety?" A lot has been made about the recent success that the Brits have had in apprehending their terrorist cells associated with the recent attacks. This success has been largely or almost totally based on the fact that the Brits have lots of cameras in public places - specifically in their 'tubes.' This allowed them to broadcast pics of the perpetrators and they were quickly identified and arrested. Obviously, it begs the question as to whether or not we would allow or even encourage such an intrusion on our privacy here in the United States. On the one hand, people - myself included - HATE the idea of Big Brother watching them and being able to, concievably, track their every movement electronically. OTOH if you are already in public, aren't you fair game. Those who aren't doing anything wrong don't have anything to worry about. It is once again the age old struggle between freedom and order. How much freedom do you sacrifice for safety? When does the personal rights of the individual override the potential danger of anarchy? Would YOU support, oppose or feel ambivalent about having cameras in the US public transportation system? Personally, I have to admit my first reaction was HELL NO, but the more I think about it - the less I object. After all, if you are already in public is it REALLY an invasion of your privacy? They already tape ATMs, transit card machines, etc. As long as there are stringent restrictions on how and when the data collected can be used, I'd have to say that I think it's probably OK.   Top

Subject     Author     Message Date     ID    RE: What price safety? Estee 08-01-05 1    RE: What price safety? PagongRatEater 08-01-05 2  RE: What price safety? KeithFan 08-01-05 3    RE: What price safety? Silvergirl1 08-02-05 4        RE: What price safety? KeithFan 08-02-05 6  RE: What price safety? cahaya 08-02-05 5    RE: What price safety? weltek 08-02-05 9        RE: What price safety? HobbsofMI 08-02-05 12  RE: What price safety? Ante Bellum 08-02-05 7    RE: What price safety? weltek 08-02-05 8    RE: What price safety? PagongRatEater 08-02-05 10  "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" iatovttotx78 08-02-05 11    RE: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?... weltek 08-02-05 13        RE: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?... Tahj 08-02-05 16        RE: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?... iatovttotx78 08-02-05 17            RE: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?... weltek 08-02-05 20  RE: What price safety? zipperhead 08-02-05 14  RE: What price safety? Drive My Car 08-02-05 15    RE: What price safety? dragonflies 08-02-05 19  RE: What price safety? sittem 08-02-05 18

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

Estee 57126 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-01-05, 06:36 PM (EST) 1. "RE: What price safety?" Define 'public transportation'. Having cameras in places like the NYC subway system can save lives -- not just terrorist threats, but muggings on up. Putting a camera into a carpool van because six people riding to work together may enter a slow burn road rage against the Highway Department is something else entirely.   Top

PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-01-05, 07:03 PM (EST) 2. "RE: What price safety?" I would think that airport, subways and buses (the big city ones) would probably be sufficient. But from there, what about cameras in intersections, Times Square or the Washington Mall. It's a difficult call because once you say yes it becomes harder to draw the line and not include all yellow Rider vans going into Oklahoma - just for example.   Top

KeithFan 7422 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-01-05, 11:40 PM (EST) 3. "RE: What price safety?" I think it depends also on the intended use. Our store videotapes all the registers, but unless something happens, nobody watches them. No reason to, and they just get taped over. For the life of me I can't imagine someone being against this use. Now, if someone was constantly monitoring the camera we could have other issues. Realistically, if this is going to prevent crimes from happening they would have to be monitored and the monitor would certainly have to use some profiling. See a young Arab male with bagging clothing, they would have to act pretty quickly to stop anything from happening. I don't think the ACLU would stand for it, and probably for good reasons. On the other hand if someone were to be under survailance as a potenial terrorist already, I think a monitored camera would be a benifit for tracking the individual. "To educate a man in mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society." -- Theodore Roosevelt   Top

Silvergirl1 9342 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 00:52 AM (EST) 4. "RE: What price safety?" Our store videotapes all the registers, but unless something happens, nobody watches them. Just curious, KF, but how long does the store keep the tapes? I'm not against cameras in very public places all the time. We need to do some monitoring because of the kinds of criminals out there, like people who kidnap children. Sigs by Bob! Like nuthin you've seen before! A/C is cool.   Top

KeithFan 7422 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 08:46 AM (EST) 6. "RE: What price safety?" I'm pretty sure it's not more than a couple of days. Security rotates them. "To educate a man in mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society." -- Theodore Roosevelt   Top

cahaya 19891 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 04:49 AM (EST) 5. "RE: What price safety?" I would be in favor of CCTV's in major transport systems and in certain areas of some cities considered to be at 'high risk'. There's a trade-off between cost and security, and CCTV's would be not be cost-effective in many locations. There is one caveat to all this. There also has to be strict laws/regulations in place that prevent the viewing and dissemination of recorded CCTV information. It can be archived for a set period of time (a year, for example) and it must require the equivalent of a court-granted search warrant order to open these archives and review them for criminal investigations. Otherwise, the archives are off-limits to anyone for any use. As Estee said, not only would this reduce the terrorism risk, but it would also reduce crime. Recently in Malaysia, the government made it a law that all public parking garages (usually underground) had CCTV's installed after a spate of carjack/kidnap/rape events originating in these garages. Since then, there has not been one case of these crimes in parking garages that I've read of in the papers! The prevention does not come from 'live viewing' (which is highly cost ineffective due to human resources, except in the most critical/sensitive areas), but from 'smoking gun' video evidence that greatly deters most terrorists and criminals. "Timeless at lightspeed"   Top

weltek 16936 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 11:39 AM (EST) 9. "RE: What price safety?" I agree that there would have to be laws on whom could view these tapes.   Top

HobbsofMI 16065 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 12:50 PM (EST) 12. "RE: What price safety?" In Vegas there are strict laws on who could view all the casino tapes and they just busted a bunch of op's trying to look down dresses and such..... Given the chance someone is going to abuse it. sig by Syren and bouncy by IceCat   Top

Ante Bellum 3762 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge" 08-02-05, 11:33 AM (EST) 7. "RE: What price safety?" It has been said that those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of temporary safety deserve neither Handcrafted by RollDdice   Top

weltek 16936 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 11:38 AM (EST) 8. "RE: What price safety?" I don't think taping subway system riders, or bus passengers, equals giving up essential liberties. As PRE said, you are already in public anyway. I don't see the harm that comes from this, unless you are worried about someone seeing you pick your nose.   Top

PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 11:40 AM (EST) 10. "RE: What price safety?" Do you think that is the trade off here? We ALWAYS have to try to strike a balance between anarchy and fascism that protects the freedom of the individual from the mob. In a free society, you can't do ANYTHING that you want to, but how and where you set those limits is a constant struggle for a free country.   Top

iatovttotx78 2645 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Survivor-themed Cruise Spokesperson" 08-02-05, 12:44 PM (EST) 11. ""Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"" >Those who aren't >doing anything wrong don't have >anything to worry about. I've got to vementely disagree with this arguement. Although I am a law abiding citizen (i.e. I'm not "doing anything wrong") it's my rights that are to be sacrificed, and that Is VERY worrisome to me. >It is once again the age >old struggle between freedom and >order. How much freedom >do you sacrifice for safety? I am not willing to sacrfice my rights, ANY of my rights, for increased security. My rights are non-negotiable. To give away my rights is to give away my freedom. And it is my freedom that makes me proud to be an American. > When does the personal >rights of the individual override >the potential danger of anarchy? I don't know that "excessive" individual rights would lead to anarchy, if that's even what you're suggesting. > Would YOU support, oppose >or feel ambivalent about having >cameras in the US public >transportation system? I would STRONGLY oppose public camera systems. >Personally, I have to admit my >first reaction was HELL NO, >but the more I think >about it - the less >I object. After all, >if you are already in >public is it REALLY an >invasion of your privacy? >They already tape ATMs, transit >card machines, etc. As >long as there are stringent >restrictions on how and when >the data collected can be >used, I'd have to say >that I think it's probably >OK. > That I chose to be in public does not give the government the right to watch me and or monitor my movements. Handcrafted by RollDdice. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Who will guard the guards?"   Top

weltek 16936 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 01:01 PM (EST) 13. "RE: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"" But the "right to privacy" is such a foggy iddea. It's something that has been idealized into something other than what the law has intended. I'm not saying you can't have an ideal, I'm just saying there is little consistent legal justification of the IDEAL. I think this explanation sums up the history of privacy nicely (from Cornell University's Legal Information Institute http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/topics/privacy.html ): Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life. Not that I agree with the very broad implications of the last line....   Top

Tahj 4136 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest" 08-02-05, 01:41 PM (EST) 16. "RE: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"" Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life. Yeah, there's lots of wiggle room in this statement and certainly lets the state interpret "compelling interests" as pretty much anything it wants. Moves courtesy of Syren   Top

iatovttotx78 2645 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Survivor-themed Cruise Spokesperson" 08-02-05, 02:52 PM (EST) 17. "RE: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"" I wasn't claiming that the violation of my privacy would be against any law. And my arguements are not of a legal nature. They are my opinion. That's all. PRE asked for opinions, and those are mine. Idealistic they may be. As for the legal issues, I believe I've spoken of them before. And Been informed by some very intelligent people on this board. I'm not going to argue about whether privacy is a constitutionaly guarenteed, because it's not relevant to this thread. Handcrafted by RollDdice. It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.   Top

weltek 16936 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 05:18 PM (EST) 20. "RE: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"" Thanks for clarifying that your arguments were based on opinion and not on legality.   Top

zipperhead 3442 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 08-02-05, 01:13 PM (EST) 14. "RE: What price safety?" Obviously, it begs the question as to whether or not we would allow or even encourage such an intrusion on our privacy here in the United States. Would allow? We have allowed wiretaps for decades. Infra-red surveillance is all the rage. Traffic surveillance video is now common. They're in your personal space whenever they want to be, my friend. ... people - myself included - HATE the idea of Big Brother watching them and being able to, concievably, track their every movement electronically. So I'll be seeing you at the next big protest against the Patriot Act? OTOH if you are already in public, aren't you fair game. No. Stalking by another citizen is illegal. It should be illegal for the government to stalk you as well. Those who aren't doing anything wrong don't have anything to worry about. Are you joking? When does the personal rights of the individual override the potential danger of anarchy? Always. The "potential" to committ a crime is not prosecutable. It is, however, justification to go to war - so this one is a toss-up.   Top

Drive My Car 20045 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 01:17 PM (EST) 15. "RE: What price safety?" Why not train stations, bus stations and airports? There are already cameras in most of the stores, the banks ( not just the ATM) at road intersections, on freeways. On your childs school bus, and even in the hallways at many schools. Worried about cameras on public streets? They are already there! Cameras in train stations and airports put there to protect the public don't bother me as much as any yahoo with a camera phone that can be snapping pictures of me or my child anytime they feel like it.   Top

dragonflies 8051 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 08-02-05, 04:42 PM (EST) 19. "RE: What price safety?" Buggy said what I was going to. There are cameras and other surveillance in so many places, the average person really has no idea. I was in DC 10 days ago, and was told we were 'scanned' at least a dozen times in the 5 days I was there. I know for a fact I was when we pulled into a parking structure at the Reagan Building. Did it infringe upon my privacy? Well, I had to give my driver's license to the guard, who promptly gave it back, and had to wait about 1 minute before entering the lot. Is this any different from our luggage being screened at the airport, or being filmed at an ATM machine or while driving down the road? My only concern has been mentioned, regarding access to the tapes, and possible misuse (which does already happen, if I recall correctly seeing on a show about Vegas videotaping) siggie by Slicey This is about as deep end as I've gotten since I was in a pool IRL.   Top

sittem 4186 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest" 08-02-05, 03:20 PM (EST) 18. "RE: What price safety?" Without looking at other responses, I am ambivelant. For myself I don't care. In fact, in my neighborhood since it's so high crime, the City of Chicago has already installed video equipment every other block with long range cameras that are supposed to be able to pick up license plates. As a law abiding citizen I'm not fearful or concerned about this for myself. As one who may be a victim of crime it's a comforting situation, especially as it's lowered the incidence of drug dealing in some areas. Of course, it has ponly moved crime around to different locations. But, I also see a downside for people who'll be profiled whose actions may be interpreted even with the best of video equipment. The operative word here is MAY. I know personally of some who have been TOTALLY innocent of a crime who have been arrested AND prosecuted (and found not guilty because they weren't). That doesn't give me much comfort when it comes to this issue. However, I still tend to fall on the ok side of this one. Does this put us on a slippery slope for more and more intrusion? Again, for me I'm not concerned. And, if we don't do one more security thing and even go back to no video, no observation I'm not concerned either for myself since I believe my days are already numbered. I may go out by a terrorist or it may be in my bed when I'm 120 years old. That's not my concern. I just try not to presume when and where it'll happen and conduct myself in as safe a manner as I can so as not to invite a conclusion to my life. I don't want my family to suffer a premature loss if I can avoid it. OTH - a good friend my age passed a couple of weeks ago due to a heart attack and he had more responsibility in life than I do, a wife with probably terminal cancer and dependent kids just like I do. It's not under our/my control and I feel the same way about terrorists. Either way I'm looking forward to a great future! 2002 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.   Top

Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Select another forum Lobby The Amazing Race Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--The Amazing Race Fanatics Forum (Protected)   |--The Amazing Race Basher Forum (Protected)   |--The Amazing Race Spoiler/Speculation Forum (Protected) American Idol Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--American Idol General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--American Idol Individual Contestant and Judge Discussion Forum (Protected) Big Brother Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Big Brother Fanatic Forum (Protected)   |--Big Brother Bashers Forum (Protected)   |--Big Brother Live Feed Updates And Spoilers (Protected) Survivor Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Survivor Fanatic Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Basher Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Spoilers Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Games Forum (Protected) Other Reality TV Shows (Conference)   |--The Bachelor / The Bachelorette Forum (Protected)   |--Dancing with the Stars Forum (Protected)   |--Other Reality TV Shows Forum (Protected) Off Topic (Conference)   |--The Help Forum (Protected)   |--Off-Topic Forum (Protected)