Slashdot Mirror
Crowdsourcing Big Brother In Lancaster, PA
sehlat writes "From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 165 public surveillance cameras are being set up to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition' of volunteers. The usual suspects, including 'the innocent have nothing to fear' are being trotted out to justify this, and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention: 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.
Before I mention this, I should indicate that I am not opposed to cameras in public places. Any yahoo can wield a video camera and record your actions when you are in public. Hell, private investigators make a living off of it. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. In most communities, I believe that the crime deterrence/solving potential of such devices outweighs the risk of abuse (especially since they only record your public actions anyway). So you want to go to an adult book store - disguise yourself, or buy online.
So you want to commit a crime? Wear a mask before entering a monitored area. So what's the point of the cameras if they are so easily circumvented? Well, lets see. Abductions - we now know that some child was abducted by a man in a mask rather than just ran away. Or that 5 car pile-up, we now have better evidence of who was at fault. That hit and tun? On tape (the driver didn't plan it, so they were more likely to be driving their own vehicle and not wearing a disguise). And so on.
And lastly, if you don't like it? Take action. The ammo is cheap enough you don't even need all that great an aim, and the masks look cool.
I do like the idea of opening up the feeds to the public, but the obvious downside to that is that it could be used by "terrorists" to organize city wide attacks. Not that wireless Internet and some camera enabled laptops are much different, but the improved vantage, lack of need to physically expose yourself to public observation, and reduced cost to the criminal (one computer and Internet connection as opposed to several) does reduce the "barrier to entry" for the potential criminal. But again, I think that the benefit outweighs the risk here too.
I should post anonymously because by disagreeing with the rabid anarchists here, even though I am being civil and reasonable, I'm sure to be modded into oblivion, but I am willing to be associated with my beliefs. I may not (as mentioned elsewhere) be an activist standing up for them, but I won't hide them.
Oh, was that my outside voice?