Comments on: Minority Report CCTV

By: stormy

stormy — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:19:00 +0000

“Come on in the year 3000 we are still going to be trying to follow documents from the 1700’s…it’s absurd”

What do those doccuments say that you dissagree with, exactly?

By: samlive

samlive — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:54:21 +0000

who watches the watchmen?

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:56:45 +0000

Were those cameras privately owned or government owned? Private businesses have their right to monitor people going to and from their business for their own protection so long is it does not go too far such as cameras in the bath room.

When the government does it, it is like they are treating all people as criminals. As Briannanna has said, crime has decreased significantly since the early 90′s yet we have all those idiots on the news saying the opposite and the politicians claiming video games are corrupting the kids and making them more violent. It is the 60′s all over again when they claimed music made people do drugs.

I accept security in specific situations. Putting them on public streets is taking it too far. Just like the cameras mounted on street corners that will give you a ticket without knowing all the facts. Those cameras will get you in trouble without knowing all the facts.

By: mountain

mountain — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:09:10 +0000

I think generally people overreact to these kinds of cameras. Three years ago cameras were installed in an area near my house (my house is behind a bar, and there are a lot of bars on that street). In those years, yearly violent assaults on that street went from 105 to 74 to 41, mugging went from 35 to 15 to 7, and drug related incidents (whatever that means) went from 206 to 115 to 89. That’s a large reduction in crime in such a short time, and for dirt cheap considering the cost of cameras compared to the cost of other police tactics.
And what would I be doing on the street in front of a bar that I’m worried would be found out?

By: The Other Parker

The Other Parker — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:53:36 +0000

It’s so easy to say “a little more is no big deal” but somewhere you have to draw the line. Government will always encroach on freedom — that’s it’s nature — but unless the people resist, it will eventually control everything. Each baby step toward that end may not represent much on its face, but the aggregate sum of all of them is what our forefathers called tyranny.

If this issue isn’t worth putting your foot down, what is? What will it take for you to say “okay, enough is enough, I want my freedom back”? And how do you know it won’t be too late by then? It’s like the frog being slowly boiled alive: the gradual increase in temperature is bearable enough, but by the time the water does become too hot, you’re dead. Should’ve jumped out while you had the chance.

By: Briannanna

Briannanna — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:00:38 +0000

I also realize there are grammar errors in my last post. No coffee yet. Please be nice, grammar nazis.

By: Briannanna

Briannanna — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:57:59 +0000

I just love it when people use the “times are a-changin’” argument to insinuate that we need more intrusion into our personal lives. It is a logical fallacy. It allows the individual making the argument to perpetually look to the past and say “VOILA! GOLDEN AGE, GONE!” The reality is that the world today is not nearly as craptacular as is projected by the media at large.
In America, for example, violent crime as a whole has been falling by 0.5% every year since the early nineties (read the uniform crime reports). However, reporting on violent crime by law enforcement agencies and news organizations has increased in staggering amounts.
On the flip side, violent crime, when it does happen, is more likely to be more violent than historical examples. Some would look at this and say that it’s a sign of the decline of society, but let’s look at it logically. If you have fewer people engaging in acts of violence every year, it is far more likely that those who do engage in those behaviors represent a deviant or antisocial population.
This is not to say that violent crime is not real, and that it isn’t horrible when it does happen. However, CCTV cameras and other forms of government monitoring are a result of media and government projection that things are spinning out of control, and we need to realistically assess whether or not this is the case before we give up our freedom of privacy. Otherwise, we are simply letting the talking heads on the boob-tube do our thinking for us.

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:48:21 +0000

The more control you give government the more control they will have over you. It will become the government owns you instead of you owning the government. Instead of being a citizen of the country you will be a slave of the country. They do not trust you so why should you trust them.

By: tripleX

tripleX — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:51:46 +0000

@HollywoodBob: a camera on every street-corner is the same as a police-officer on every corner. Actually worse, because camera images are kept. There is no difference with a police-state.
You are expected to behave like everybody else. Spontaneous behavior is suspicious. Act like the crowd. Whatever you do, do not stand out.
Do not jump in the air if you’re very happy. Don’t dance on imaginary music with that girl you haven’t seen for a while. Do not stop on the street and play music, or sit on the curb with a friend. Don’t sit on the bonnet of your car with a friend. Do not stand on a bridge and daydream while watching the water or the birds. Do not walk playful touching every second brick or lamppost. Do not act out movie scenes when you leave the movie theatre. Do not offer anything to people, no flowers, no chewing gum, no money. Don’t walk on your hands. Don’t juggle. Don’t tie your shoelaces in public. Do not argue or talk too loud in your mobile phone. Do not talk with your hands too much. Don’t be too happy.
If you do, you will be watched closely. Your face will be registered and your identity checked. You are potentially disturbing the peace. Possibly drunk or on drugs. Next time a microphone on the camera will record your conversations. Also your behavior on the internet and your telephone conversations will be monitored.
And it will all happen automatic, by computer.
Your big brother is looking after you. He knows what is best for you. He watches after your safety. He’s your elder brother and he loves you. He knows you are passionate about your freedom, and you get carried away sometimes. Trust him. No need to get paranoid. Don’t worry and sleep. Big Brother is watching you.

By: Evilbeagle

Evilbeagle — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:24:55 +0000

It’s the idea that no crime has to be committed in order for someone to get in trouble. Something like this can only end badly, and you know what? If implemented, I hope that it does. People have no appreciation for their own freedoms and that’s pathetic. This isn’t going to prevent crime at all. It’s just going to make people smarter about committing crime, and get a lot of “suspicious” people arrested for doing nothing.

By: Ola Amigo

Ola Amigo — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:05:31 +0000

I also love how lame the example is. If the camera’s had caught someone about to be raped or murdered, I’m sure the so called libertarians wouldn’t mind – as long as its not them. Fine with me.

By: Ola Amigo

Ola Amigo — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:13:44 +0000

I love the whole ‘camera’s are the tool of the Man’, meme. It’s so 60′s. Cory Doctorow makes a living out of this.

Personal vids keep everyone on their p’s and q’s. What you do in public spheres is the public business, thats what public means.

I have my phone, my cameras’, my recorders. I expect the city to do the same. They want to protect the people who live there.

Don’t like it? Stay off the street.

By: DOJ

DOJ — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:29:08 +0000

CCTV being used by computers bothers me

By: raina_c

raina_c — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:01:02 +0000

This is a great idea! If it prevents crime or gets the dirtbags who are committing the crime then I’m all for it. Yeah, it’s more government, but so what…times have changed, and we can’t keep trying to follow documents that are soooo outdated. I don’t think our forefathers knew how bad crime would get, and the technology that would be invented to help stop crime. Come on in the year 3000 we are still going to be trying to follow documents from the 1700′s…it’s absurd, and it’s absurd we are still trying to follow it. It’s time to create a new Bill of Rights, and Constitution.

By: sigh

sigh — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:54:47 +0000

Britian really is headed towards Nineteen Eighty Four.
It’s like one way vid-screens.

By: Evilbeagle

Evilbeagle — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 02:07:24 +0000

Exactly, Josh.

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:32:59 +0000

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

By: Evilbeagle

Evilbeagle — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:01:23 +0000

Max, I have barely have the sense of balance enough for a bicycle. I do race cars for fun, though.

By: HollywoodBob

HollywoodBob — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:00:22 +0000

Would you prefer police on every street corner?

If you go into a store, office building, or walk past a bank you’re on camera, is it really so bad that they’re on the street?

CCTV cameras, while not really deterring crime, they do aid in catching and convicting street criminals. I’d say considering the minimally invasive nature of CCTV on the everyday lives of people, it’s a fair trade off.

By: Ali S.

Ali S. — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:29:41 +0000

You know this is just getting even more crazier. What next? CCTV cameras in your house to stop potential fights in the home? Jeez!

By: lurky

lurky — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:06:34 +0000

This disgusts me. If the public keeps on accepting this sort of thing who knows how our lives will be in 100-200 years?

By: Max Power

Max Power — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:01:55 +0000

Evilbeagle, do you drive a motorbike by any chance?

By: AD PR New York

AD PR New York — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:28:57 +0000

Of course, sooner of later, someone will respond by developing another gadget to neutralize those cameras without them being able to send alerts – in the name of privacy

By: Evilbeagle

Evilbeagle — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:15:08 +0000

@Orjan

Yeah, Daily Mail does say it all, doesn’t it?

By: Orjan Morjan

Orjan Morjan — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:12:32 +0000

Daily mail…

By: Evilbeagle

Evilbeagle — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:12:00 +0000

Time to move deep into the Spanish countryside.