Slashdot Mirror
Cameras Help Cops Catch a Killer
CrazedWalrus writes "Philadelphia police recently captured a serial killer with the help of a combination of Homeland Security and private surveillance cameras. Police examined video from 50 different cameras and pieced together relevant footage from 12 of them, and eventually were able to identify the murderer. Once caught, he confessed to several other murders spanning the past eight years. Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?"
Just because some intrusive technology was used for good at one occasion, doesn't mean that it completely turnes the tides on the discussion. it's still an intrusive technology.
Move sig!
As long as this is the way they're used, yes. Then again, I live in the UK and these kinds of cameras are pretty prevalent.
I'm intrigued to hear from someone to explain why they don't want these cameras around. Privacy concerns is what I usually hear but as you're in a public place surrounded by the public who can watch you using their eyes, what's the difference between a policeman watching you in person and a policeman watching you by camera?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
I never understand the comment "with such a good result, can we argue against X?".
The point is, you can always justify any intrusive technology by pointing to the good results. "If we lock everyone up, there would be no crime! Can you argue against that?"
We always have to look at the tradeoff between the intrusion on our freedoms and the the results that the technology brings. As for cameras, I think that in some cases/locations they make sense, but that (for example) the UK has gone way overboard. But that is just my opinion.
Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?
In 2005, there were 16,692 murders in the United States. (link)
In 2005, there were 43,200 deaths due to car accidents. (link)
It has been shown that cameras increase car accident rates by between 7 and 24 percent. (link).
So, you tell me. With results like these, is there really a good basis for argument FOR these cameras?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Hey, I'm sold! The government may at will monitor every call, every email, examine my credit history in minute detail, access my library lending habits and even do a physical search of my home (neither without telling me)...but if by doing so one child's life is saved then by gum -it's worth it!
The cameras that were used were a combination of private cameras and security cameras put up around a post office. This is not about a sophisticated government network of cameras used to track people (although those do exist in Philidelphia). It's about a resourceful police department. It's good to see a story about the cops doing some good.
We're loosing sight of the real question.
The superficial issue here is whether or not mass surveillance is acceptable, in that one on hand it can be used to defeat unethical crime, on the other hand, it can be used by the State to defeat ethical crime.
But the real issue, the underlying issue, is *why do people perform unethical crimes?*
I see no one asking this question or wondering how to fix it - and if this problem was fixed or largely fixed, there wouldn't be a need for cameras at all.
With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?
With arguments like that, is there really a good opportunity for a reasoned, proportionate, discussion?
(Not saying cameras are always wrong, just not saying they're always right just because they occasionally give a benefit)
Most people don't object to privately operated security cameras.
As long as the cameras (and personally identifiable data in general) are hard enough to access that they will only be used to prosecute major crimes, most people would be perfectly happy. After all, since the beginning of time, officials could interview other witnesses and find out who was doing what, and when.
The privacy concerns really come into play when the cameras are online, and easily accessible. Then it's a force multiplier for the authorities, allowing them to track hundreds and hundreds of people with only trivial effort, as well as prosecuting every trivial violation of the law the cameras see.
In other words, it's not the cameras, it's the databases.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I have no problems with the police obtaining (possibly via a court order) tapes from privately operated cameras.
It's when the state and/or the police operate the cameras that the problems arise.
" Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today."
How can you be so sure. Did Serial Killers never were arrested before that cameras were invented?
Now, let's see the question from another angle:
As you might be aware, lots of serial killers have been proven to have perfectly normal lives, with jobs, wifes and kids. From the outside, a psycho looks, most of the time, just like your average joe: a good employee, a loving and caring husband and father.
Now, just for one moment, let's suppose your psycho joe works for law enforcement. What a wonder, isn't it? a psycho with lots of data and live footage of just about anyone he decided to chase. Over time, every psycho wannabe will pursue such kind of job. Now, add to this scenario:
Corrupt police officers watching possible informants of their misdeeds.
Blackmailers watching cheating husbands and wifes.
Corrupt elected officers using this data to watch their adversaries.
The IRS.
Isn't it too much power over our lives? are you really willing to give your freedom away for the illusion of security?
Your ad could be here!
Numbers of active serial killers, wild guesses that they are, are usually estimated so high a single one found does not make a significant difference. According to the wiki, the FBI offered the number of circa 35 at large at any given time during the eighties. Finding a single one of them is hardly impressive.
Now don't get me wrong, a serial killer found is a good thing, and I congratulate the police. But that doesn't absolve the mass use of surveillance.
Plus, they probably wouldn't have got him for the previous killings if he hadn't confessed. To get confessions for crimes in the more distant past, surveillance is not useful.
blow your mind already
No, but they did manage to find out which pharmacy he used by looking at the reflection on the windscreen of a car 3 miles down the road.
liqbase
I am getting so disgusted with how people's fear, insecurity, and single-minded drive for personal safety is driving public opinion and laws toward a police state. At the rate things are going now, ten years from now we will live in a society of 0% crime and 0% fredom. Surely a state-monitored camera in every house would reduce crime? Think of the lives it would save! Lets do it!
Idiots. They don't realize what they are losing because their fredoms and rights are being nibbled away a little at a time, all in the name of personal safety.
Did you know, if you toss a live frog into a boiling pot of water he jumps right out, that's no surprise. But put him in a pot of room temperature water and he stays there, even while you are slowly turning up the burner. An hour later you have one dead frog. It's amazing how similar this is to how the sheep behave.
The proponants of things like this try to present it as a choice, you either do as we say or you deal with the consequences. You can either be safe OR you can live in a cage. They don't discuss the possibility of being safe without living in a cage. This issue is a small one, but that's how it works, your fredoms are chipped away a little at a time over a long term, and leaves you staring back at 20 years ago wondering who let it happen.
You did.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Law enforcement and politicians will use cameras(and eventually rfid) for control in the name of protecting children or antiterrorism, business will use them to make a buck.
In a truly free society new technologies must come with laws that require transparency, so the watched can watch the watchers(trust but verify).
You have a guy in prison.
He'll tell you where the bomb is if you let him fuck your daughter.
So he fucks her and the bomb doesn't go off at the Lakers game.
With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against pimping your daughter?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Actually, if you're going to be pedantic, the exact quote is "The cameras are correlated with an increase in total injury crashes, with the increase being between 7% and 24%."
So your statement that "more accidents are reported when there are cameras present" is a nonargument, because when people are injured in an accident, the accident gets reported anyway.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
It's the (in some places like the USofA) complete lack of of privacy assurances for the use of the resulting footage that are cause for strong concern.
As long as strong national legal demands are in place about the use of the pictures this system can be of benefit.
Presently such laws are all but missing and abuse is just waiting to happen.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
.. are the problem. I live in the UK, which is one of the most heavily CCTV'd societies in the world (or so I'm told). There are several major problems with CCTV. The first of which is the 'arms race'. I have read that since the various CSI series have come up, criminals are watching them to learn the techniques to defeat forensic scientists. There will be a new generation of CCTV savvy criminals who are aware of the problem and will devise methods of defeating CCTV. There are already methods of defeating CCTV which currently exist - blind spots, changes of clothing, changes of clothing, reflective materials ' dazzle camouflage', operating at times of the day or night when CCTV are less effective, and using decoys. The other aspect is that analysing CCTV footage is time-consuming. I speak from personal experience. As a criminal defence lawyer, I am planning to use CCTV footage to help counter police testimony that my client assaulted a police officer. As far as I can tell, from the CCTV footage, no assault took place. The problem is that such footage can be misused. Potential abuses of such footage hardly need to be stated. The biggest two that come to mind for me are the enormous potential for misidentification and consequences that flow. Imagine if a guy that looked remarkably like you got caught on CCTV doing a robbery? Don't think that's possible? Consider this scenario - you walk into a petrol station (gas station for the yanks), leave two minutes later having forgotten your wallet, another guy looking like you but CCTV savvy evades the cameras and robs the store, the two of you like pretty similar (remember robbers also shop for clothes same place you do), and the footage and other circumstantial evidence, gets you nailed. Misidentification of forensic evidence. Has happened. A policewoman in Scotland was convicted for a criminal offence after the Forensic Lab got the fingerprint ID wrong. The problem with stories like this is that they assume that all CCTV footage is like HOLLYWOOD. The reality is that CCTV footage varies in quality, and the distance from camera has a major impact on the ability to identify the person on it. Mistakes happen but juries might end up being hypnotised by scientists muttering mumbo jumbo. There are plenty of stories of scientists overstating the quality of their research and the evidential material thereof. These guys usually get found out but its no comfort if you'd just had your entire life taken away because someone made a mistake. The other major problem is the potential for abuse by a paranoid state power. Anyone remember the McCarthy era? Nuff said. I guess the problem for most of us is that the potential for crime prevention is so massive that it is hard to argue against it. What scares me is that what is moral and what is legal are not the same thing, and the law is a very blunt instrument. Most of us have done a dumb thing or two in their time. No harm was done. Now there may be no hiding places whatsoever. My £0.02 worth.
1. A private camera footage, can be archived, thus enabling someone to build a pretty detailed account of your life
2. Who guarantees me the cameras are not being used to spy me? once they are there, they can do everything they want.
3. Once you have those cameras, is just a matter of time until facial recognition software gets good enough to be able to pinpoint everyone and build huge databases of personal habits of just about everyone.
4. A private camera in a private space is another thing. A private space is, by definition, private. A street is a public place, and that means it's everyone's property. Just as I can object for being watched at my home, I surely can object being watched and tracked in a place that is just as mine as it's your's place also.
5. If a policeman starts following me, I have a reasonable chance to notice that take protective measures like going to the court. With a camera, what are my chances?
6. If the government wants to unjustly incriminates me (maybe because they *need* to arrest *someone*), what will block them from using carefully selected footage to use as an "evidence" against me?
Your ad could be here!
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is precisely why the rights of citizens (and visitors) to any country need to be
enshrined in some written constitution and enforced by a (hopefully) impartial judiciary
Sigh. I'm English, but from Norfolk so Tom Paine is one of my heroes :-)
I've no problem with a camera monitoring me in a supermarket or at an ATM, but no way do
i think that such things should be in public places in general. Here in Athens, Greece if you
tried to do that there would be a civil war
Andy Allen.
The award for "Best Troll" in 2007 is going to be a tough competition.
-Tommy
"I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
I'm confused. I thought they only needed 1 camera and some really good software. You know, "zoom in on that reflection of the lamp post and enhance contrast, removing noise and distortion based on the shadow information and weather report".
Of course people want to hide things, it's human nature. Unfortunately, folks, what you do in public is public. Period. If you are in a public area, or where you can be seen from one, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. It seems rather silly to complain about privacy violations when one acts publicly.
I can see no reason why a camera in a public area violates anyone's rights any more than a policeman watching from the corner. As a matter of fact, the camera is less likely to bear false witness, which is the only valid concern in this case.
Confined though we are, infinity dwells within.
Being safe isn't a boolean true/false dichotomy. Safety, like security, is a matter of degrees, each degree costing us geometrically more than the last degree. At some point you are face-to-face with the Law of Diminishing Returns.
The problem with anything measured in degrees is that we won't always agree on when the limits are hit. Put differently, exactly how many lives must be quantifiably saved before it becomes worth it to see the government put a camera on every street corner? Everyone has a number. For me, the number is higher than that which I think this one serial killer would have killed. It's higher than the cost in lives of 9/11. It's not higher than the cost in lives of, say, WWII, however. Before I saw that many people kiled, I think I'd agree to the cameras. It's always a matter of degrees. My tolerance for risk is higher than most. I don't, for instance, see loss of our liberty worth it when traded for safety from terrorists. Perhaps it's becuase I underestimate what they are capable of. Perhaps not. Either way, the original question is a good one, but inevitably one that we can only answer for ourselves. I guess the beauty of our democracy is that in answering for ourselves we come to a jagged consensus that lets us make a communal decision and move on. It's worth noting that sometimes that consensus doesn't mesh well with our personal ethic (C.f., abortion, stem cell research, the war in Iraq, seat belt laws, and street corner government cameras). In the end, all we can do it make a personal decision and cast our vote. For my vote, I'll be pushing away from street corner cameras. If I'm on the losing side of the issue...well, it won't be the first time.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
I appreciate the privacy concerns that usually drive these discussions. This surveillance business is much to 1984 for my taste, but the reality is elsewhere, as illustrated in a recent report by the NYLCU (see http://nyc.indymedia.org/or/2006/12/80970.html. It reports that:
The NYCLU report not only opposes the expansion of the number of police operated candidates. It proposes an "immediate moratorium on the installation of any and all new surveillance cameras in the city". I think this raises an important question. Don't I have a right to install a video surveillance camera in my window, if only so I can put a live view of the park outside my window on my computer screen? How dare these folks attack my right to bear cameras. :-)
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
You have no legal expectation of privacy on the street. It is in the public domain. If the government points a camera there, there is absolutely no invasion of privacy.
If they point the cameras inside your home, that would be an invasion of privacy and would require a warrant.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
If one killer stopped by cameras is a sufficient argument for cameras, then one killer stopped by an armed citizen is a sufficient argument for repealing all gun control laws. I'm sure the Philadelphia city government will get right on that....
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Filming in public does not go against the Fourth Amendment. Your proposal does. That is the difference.
One of the disadvantages of camera systems is that they create a false sense of security, that actually decreases security. Some people think they are safe because of the camera's, and therefore don't use their common sense and start playing hero (eg fight with a thug holding a knife, instead of just handing over your wallet) under the assumption that the police will arive shortly.
Other people will use the cameras as an excuse for not doing anything themselves. Instead of helping the victim of a robbery, or trying to memorise the face of the robber, they assume that the cameras will take care of it.
A third disadvantage is that cameras only provide evidence of crimes allready committed. They will not step forward to stop a crime, like a real cop would do. They can only help in catching the criminal, if you are lucky. The story above shows that actually getting any evidence from the cameras is not a given fact either.
Finally, if the government turns mad, or we get some kind of dictator, I don't want them to learn that I protested for freedom in the past. They might hold it against me.
I don't really have a problem with cameras in public places, because I am not a criminal. However, I would rather avoid being in the lime-light if possible, aside from being on the internet, I like to avoid paper - or video - trails strictly out of principle. I do think it is an invasion of privacy, though a minor one. But I see it as a snowball effect that will simply get bigger and more far-reaching.
., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police," (Joyce Malcolm, http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html).
Now, this may sound radical, but I think guns are the answer. Bear with me. If every citizen, crimial or not, were packing heat, I think it would make someone think twice before trying to rob, rape or murder. Consider this, "53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S.,
I echo the thoughts of the writer of that article (which is a very interesting read), In that I believe all humans do fear death or injury, and if it can be avoided it would be. Now, I'm not suggesting that arming all of society will end crime, but what I do think it will do is reduce violent crime significantly, leaving only the most violent criminals, which will slowly be phased out either through the justice system or self-defense.
There is no legal expectation of privacy in public.
Yes, that's true. In the US, there's also no legal expectation of help from the government if someone decides they want to beat you to death in the middle of the street, and practically no legal recourse if the government knows that you're going to get beat to death and does nothing to prevent it.
Without some kind of legal guarantee that the government is going to do anything useful with the information, why give them the power to watch you in public 24x7? There is still the probability that the government will abuse that power at some point, and the gains are not likely to be worth it IMHO.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
"They were out in public. There is no legal expectation of privacy in public. Privacy can be expected in a private settomg, but not in public"
It's only "public" if, well, there's public around. There is (or should be) a perfectly reasonable expectation of privacy if there is no one around. Looking into someone's windows from the sidewalk is legal, looking into windows from behind a bush is being a "peeping tom." Hidden cameras are a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording people with non-obvious cameras goes well beyond any small loss of privacy which occurs when simply being observed by another person.
Of course, the actual point, which seems to have gone over people's heads, is that the argument "the end justifies the means" is easily invalidated by reductio ad adsurdum.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Err, yes you do. If a member of the public decides to follow me around everywhere, then they can be prosecuted for stalking. Are the cameras subject to the same rules ? Or the camera operators ? What about in the middle of the night, when everybody is asleep ? I would have some expectation of privacy then. Or do you suggest we have a curfew between 6pm to 6am ? That way, anybody outside after dark is a criminal. That's the way it's going. If you are caught on camera, then you are part of the data they use to monitor everyone, whether you were committing a crime or not. They have no right to keep my image in a database for just being in a certain place at a certain time. So far that in itself is not illegal.
Freedom to break the law is the whole basis of freedom.
Without that freedom, there is no such thing as "society". Society depends on people behaving in a certain way because they *want to* not because they fear the consequences. Without that freedom, we are all just drones, subject to the whims of our masters.
Where I live, some little assholes think it's clever to break car door mirrors. They often do the whole street. Even if the police were to catch them they would not get any punishment, because they are usually under the age of responsibility. I would like the "privacy" to go out and give them a slap, make the consequences a bit more real and immediate. But I can't do that because I would get prosecuted for assault. Will cameras fix this ? No, they just maintain the status quo. And therefore society suffers.
You seem to be forgetting that the police have a vested interest in catching people doing something wrong. So they are all in favour of using whatever means to watch people as much as possible with as little effort. This is wrong. The way society used to deal with it was within the family. Due to the growth of the nanny culture, parents feel no responsibility for their kids actions anymore. And no-one else should need to feel responsible for those kids actions either. Hence, no-one cares, and the problem grows, then we need more police and more cameras ! It's time to reverse the trend and go back to the way it used to be.
When I was a kid, we all used to get into trouble frequently, riding motorbikes, trespassing, even stealing from shops. We nearly always got caught, and it wasn't the police that were the worry, it was the actions of our parents when we got taken home. After a while, it wasn't worth the hassle anymore so we started acting responsibly. These days, the parents will lie outright to protect a child from the consequences of their own actions. So who is teaching the responsibility now ?
</RANT>
I just don't like an effectively unelected body having control on what I do and when. I don't like being told what to do at the best of times. Especially when I have a need to pursue a certain course of action, and some little hitler says I can't do it. Example - On a flight from LA to Seattle, I have been in the bar at LAX for a couple of hours, after flying in from New Zealand. Consequently while I was waiting for the plane to take off, I felt the need to take a leak. I figured I could wait a few minutes until we were in the air, but as we taxied and slowly starting climbing, the urge became too great. So I got up and went to the rear of the plane to use the toilet. Immediately, the steward started complaining, and said "You have to sit down until the seatbelt light goes out". I explained I needed the toilet, and he just said "Sir, I'm here to tell you that you must remain in your seat until the seatbelt light goes out !". So, I replied, "Well I'm here to tell you that the seat is going to be a bit wet if I don't get into the toilet NOW". He made a face and let me use the toilet. So why all the fuss ? Just the assumption that he was in charge and I was going against his commands. I can imagine doing that these days - I would probably get shot by an air marshal just for needing a piss !
The question is, do the benefits outweigh the costs? Since all the cameras were in public areas, and since there is a lot of precedent supporting the idea that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, I'm not sure what the legal objection could be...
Sure a camera network could be used by an oppressive government to help control a civilian populace...but so could a police force, and no one argues against the police on the grounds that they take away your right to privacy.
Regardless of our feelings about the subject, cameras are getting better, cheaper, and smaller. This sort of thing is only going to get more common, and it's hard to form a cogent argument against it since the privacy you lose is intangible, whereas serial killers being caught based on camera data is pretty tangible.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
From the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm
"Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001 (CDC 2004)."
"In 2001, 55% of suicides were committed with a firearm (Anderson and Smith 2003)."
30622x55%=16842 deaths
"Why think about the actual issue brought up by the parent post, when you can just taunt Slashdot like that's relevant"
MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310)
Maybe you need more explanation than that elegant quote provides and you couldn't follow it, so here goes.
I'm not saying we definitely shouldn't have the cameras - in fact, in most cases I'm pro public-cameras but anti-wiretapping. But I am saying that anyone who thinks the topic doesn't deserve continued discussion or doesn't think that quote is relevant doesn't understand the issue.
Liberty:
In some hypothetical selfish dictatorship you might decide to execute 100 people if it's guaranteed to stop that serial killer, because your goal is not weighed against the good for the people.
In some hypothetical benevolent dictatorship you might decide to execute* 2 people even though only one of them is the serial killer - if you think the killer will kill more than 1 more person, the benefit DOES outweigh the cost when viewed across all people.
In the United States as envisioned by our forefathers we value PERSONAL liberties. So the benefits must not merely outweigh the costs but must _massively_ outweigh the costs to the individual. Under their model, the government wouldn't execute 2 people unless it would save not merely 2 but at least tens of other people, or more... This is the principle upon which we have the freedom of one person to speak when no one else wants it and one person to practice a religion everyone else might hate.
Taking away the ability for someone to walk from one house to another without being recorded is definitely a liberty that has largely been removed. Perhaps the benefits do massively outweigh the costs, but that calculation depends on factors such as how much oversight is placed on the camera operators.
Murder:
The only other point I want to note is that some people have said that since death is more or less the ultimate penalty, 1 death = infinite anything less than death. That's simply not the way the world works. If you want to know how much death is worth, perhaps calculate how much it would cost to reduce the average number of traffic deaths by one by improving cars - or more effectively by improving driver's education classes. Even better, simply strengthen the currently idiot-proof tests to get your license. That would cost the governments very little and put the responsibility on the driver to learn how to drive better. (Naturally a nationwide program would cost a lot and reduce deaths by alot - you'd need to divide to find a unit cost.)
Or the costs for better medical accountability to reduce needless deaths during medical procedures. Or the costs to stop someone in the US from dying of hunger. (Not to mention the much-lower costs to reduce some kinds of death in other parts of the world.) Or the costs for meat-safety inspections that are more independent of the meat-packing industry that cause deaths through foodborne illnesses. Or the economic impact of improving the health quality of foods and dividing by the reduced number of deaths from heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer.
The numbers will vary, but they're all lower than you'd think.
*Obviously if you can actually arrest them you could put both of them in jail and hope it sorts itself out - and there are a zillion other tricky police things to do, like letting them go and watching both of them really carefully. That's why this is a hypothetical. Maybe the killer is flying away in a little stealth plane with a hostage and you only have this opportunity to reliably shoot him down.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Yep. Lotsa stories about how a pursesnatcher got caught. Whatever. A steady stream of them, I predict. If cameras are placed on every piece of masonry, you'll find a whole lot of criminals.
Where are the stories about how an executive was caught using cameras? Doubt there will be many, because cameras will be scarce in executive board rooms. About how many anti-Bush protesters lost their jobs because of the copcams? It'll always be little people caught, not the big thieves and killers.A lot of little crimes, marginal ones, will be found, pumping up the safety meme. Kill one man, big story, kill hundreds of thousands, and they cover your state dinner.
And finally, when will we hear the stories about how some innocent person was arrested and imprisoned using circumstantial evidence from Complete Surveillance, USA? I don't think the American Secret Police will be publicizing those stories. I don't think we'll ever hear about those.
Americans. So terrified of crime, so sold on their helplessness. The safest country in the world, and the most terrified through the agency of their own government and a news media turned into the Nancy Grace Anger Hour.
The cameras are not worth the cost. They will be used against those who protest the mounting abuses of the same cameras. It's what police states always do; turn against the very people they insisted they were protecting.
I'm not claiming they would not supply the videos to be shown in the courtroom to the defense. The problem is that they might either not supply, or more likely just not look sufficiently for, evidence to prove your innocense. With the obvious danger of using incomplete analogies this corresponds to having a number of witnesses, but the police decides who you are allowed to question - even worse actually, as they can completely ignore the presence of any given camera you don't know about.
Also a key point in you subpoena reasoning is that you need to know there is a camera. I don't know where all the cameras are, and most likely neither will anyone but the police.
Finally, a public camera can easily document your whereabouts - in a public or private place. If the crime took place across town from your appartment and a camera records you entering your appartment 2 minutes before the crime was committed you are home free... if you have the recording, or know it exists.
These cameras ARE Constitutional
Your title is an assertion. The constitution has been interpreted by the courts such that the right to be secure in our persons is a right to privacy to some, unspecified, degree. Further, the right to privacy is regarded as a basic human right by most of the civilized world. The constitutionality and the ethics of these cameras are very, very questionable.
Your arguments boil down to, cameras allow the government to protect the people from other people, so they are good. You don't address two important points. First, it is the job of every citizen to protect themselves, not the government. The government has never had the power to protect you and trying to consolidate that much power into so few hands in not without some very large risks. You completely ignore these risks. Mandatory gun registration in Germany reduced the number of illegal guns in circulation, preventing a crime. Does that mean it "worked." Sure, but it also made it easy for the Nazis to confiscate all those guns from the Jewish populace later on. Putting a given power into the hands of the government can have immediate benefits, but you must pay attention to the long term risks.
Consolidation of power to the government is, in principal, a dangerous thing and all such power will be abused eventually. Thus, you need some really, really strong benefits that cannot be accomplished in other ways before I'll support any such consolidation. I think if you want to reduce crime, you're a lot better off attacking the motivations for crime than trying to police everyone. Other countries have amazingly lower crime rates without surveillance. Britain with it's move towards a police state still has fairly high crime rates despite all the cameras and gun control. They also have instances of those cameras being abused by government agents. Why then would you think that they are a good way to deal with the problem?
I am cool with having cameras in all public places.
However, lets do it right. First we need cameras on all police cruisers and even on the police themselves (I believe the UK is starting this). We also need cameras mounted in the police stations, holding cells, and interrogation cells. These videos need to be made available in their entirety and in a timely manner to the public over the Internet (bluetube.com maybe?). Obviously some videos would be important to investigations to the police can petition a judge (after reviewing it) to hold it from publication for a specific period of time (renewed until the investigation is over and releasing it would no longer compromise anything). There needs to be absolutely NO time ever when a citizen is in contact with a police officer where it is not filmed and kept for record, any "missing time" should be cause for severe punishment. I don't want to hear anything about the privacy of the police, they have no privacy on the job. They are public servants who are given powers and authority above other citizens and need to be held to a much higher standard.
Now that we can watch the watchers, let's roll out the public cameras. I have nothing to hide about how I go through my daily life in public, but first I want to ensure that those in power who request this do not either.
(one can only dream about a day when elected public officials have to be similarly accountable in their public life)
Finkployd
I'm fine with everyone getting to watch me and have recordings but ONLY if I get to watch _everyone_ else too and have access to the recordings. AND you should only have access to a recording if you are also being recorded and logged while accessing it ;).
;).
And that includes the politicians, the judges and the cops. Everyone gets to watch everyone else the same way, no more, no less.
If the politicians don't want to allow anyone and everyone to see the inside of their homes, then same goes for my home and everyone else.
If Mr Prime Minister/President doesn't want his journey through public areas recorded by cameras and viewable by everyone and anyone, then same for me and everyone else.
If you get to post embarassing videos of me on the internet, I get to do that too. Lets see if you never do anything embarassing or shameful or illegal or sinful in your life. I definitely won't be the first to "cast the stone" but here's to Mutually Assured Embarassment...
If you get to see me typing my passwords, then everyone should be able to see you watching me type my passwords
Not that most people would or should care. But if people think cams everywhere are such a great idea, this my opinion on how they should do them.