Big Brother

[crazywolf]

Is it too late? Has technology become too prevalent in our society? Has technology (specifically pertaining to cameras) become so small and wide spread that there is no turning back.

I just read this (http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/041805/loc_20050418027.shtml) article in my local newspaper.....
I knew cameras are widely being used, and I also heard that any “normal” everyday citizen would be extremely shocked, to say the least, if they/we knew how many cameras and satellites were watching us in any given day, but still!!

I don’t really know how I feel about this. I mean it is good if I get robbed or my car is stolen, there could be the possibility of catching the criminal if he/she was caught on tape; but I am also somewhat of a traditionalist and cringe a little at how much technology has completely changed our lives….and not for the better in my opinion. I have no problem with change, but enough is enough!! How safe does everything around us have to get? How safe does saran wrap have to get? Now they are making it without the “unsafe” metal cutting edge on the side of the box.

I just feel that large corporations are so afraid of lawsuits that they make everything so safe, among other things. I could only imagine how different things are now than they were when the “older” guys here were kids; how much less work you actually have to do because everything is being done for you.

[LordThrash]

Erm, I didn't get much of that :confused:
Ill re-read it again in a few hours and see what I think then :rolleyes:

[Jolly McJollyson]

I have no problem with change, but enough is enough!! How safe does everything around us have to get?
??? I am much to the confused as to your qualms with technology allowing you, for instance, to live a longer life.

[Jolly McJollyson]

Nikki Barnett, 31, of Burtonsville, Md., stopped showcasing her "happy dance" in elevators after learning many of them are monitored by cameras. "I stopped doing silly things," she said. "I don't want to portray myself in a certain light."

That cracked me up.

I enjoy how she's changing WHO SHE IS because she doesn't want people to know that she sometimes enjoys being silly. It isn't that technology's bad, it's that people are stupid and petty.

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

Please refer to the song "1000 eyes" by Death.

No,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras.

If someone would like to monitor how often I leave the house or make silly faces at my bathroom mirror,then go ahead and spy away.

I think constant satellite imaging and random privacy invasion is a bit far fetched and has little effect on the average persons life if at all.

so surveillance cams see me buy snickers bars and crap...whatever.

[Jolly McJollyson]

No,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras.
What if they catch the mugging on camera? Wouldn't that help identify the perpetrator?

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

What if they catch the mugging on camera? Wouldn't that help identify the perpetrator?

It would,but most people arn't mugged on camera...your thinking of convenient stores.

[Jolly McJollyson]

It would,but most people arn't mugged on camera...your thinking of convenient stores.
I'm thinking of street corners and alleyways where these new cameras would go, actually.

[Raskolnikov]

No,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras.
Simply not true; installing security cameras on certain streets has cut down crime DRAMATICALLY in New Orleans, specifically on those streets.

[Jolly McJollyson]

Simply not true; installing security cameras on certain streets has cut down crime DRAMATICALLY in New Orleans, specifically on those streets.
WHA CHA!!!! Technology prevails!

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

Pfft...so they have more incentive to take more drastic measures.A ski mask wouldn't cross thier minds would it?Great,the corner of 4th street is saved :rolleyes:

Those cameras don't suture stab wounds and stop bullets...its still better to know how to recognize and eliminate a violent attack.

Thats my main disagreement(not that anyone brought it up)...that a person should feel they have no need to be aware of anything because cameras will deter any threats.

[Akira]

Those cameras don't suture stab wounds and stop bullets

Yeah, but they make the guy with the knife or with the gun think twice about stabbing/shooting someone.

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

Yeah, but they make the guy with the knife or with the gun think twice about stabbing/shotting someone.

well thats the problem,such people don't care.No surveillance will stop all attacks or crimes.I'm simply saying,you shouldn't trust your saftey to cameras..unless there are turret guns on the camera's that shoot offenders once a threat is percieved by the internal CPU... then you should just run(but that might be assessed as threatening movment).

[PonyOne]

i do so little of interest that i don't really care much... i'm really mostly indifferent.

i don't think a camera on a streetcorner is really that big a deal, i mean, if you're walking down the street in a crowd of people, you're surrounded by other human beings. there may be someone staring at your ass behind you, there may be someone sitting there staring at you thinking that you look stupid, it's the sort of thing you risk being a human being and living in society. so having a camera there is, in my mind, really no big deal... same thing as having a cop stand there which most people don't mind anyway.

there are some people nowadays that are absolutely terrified about "their information getting out there" and to be honest i really don't undertand these people at all. when i sold cars, people didn't want to give out addresses, phone numbers, or social security numbers... even though it was for their own protection and they were making a $30,000 purchase! if someone was buying a car in my name i'd want them to ask all the pertinent info so that i didn't get another $30,000 debt on my credit that took me a year to erase. people have been diluted into thinking that if their first and last name gets out there that someone is going to break in that night and rape them or something... the truth of it is that no one really cares and info is easily obtainable by anyone who wants it anyway! my first and last name are up, and you guys know what city i'm in... so... it really would not be a stretch to figure out my address!

i understand the ramifications if the cameras are used in a completely overdone manner; i recall that in parts of London in the late 90's, there was a backlash against a large number of cameras the police delpoyed in certain areas. people were getting ticketed for taking leaks in alleyways because someone would watch on camera and a beat cop would be dispatched; the uproar was that you were on camera with your willy out and that there was no sign warning that someone was watching, so, it was argued that it was an invasion of privacy and entrapment, that even though you weren't supposed to do it, if a camera is supposed to be a deterrent it should be known, otherwise it's really not.

i really hate those traffic light cameras though. i got a ticket sent in the mail from one because i went through a yellow light... it was also a 45mph street going downhill on a right turn and in a downpour :rolleyes: i guess i should have jammed on my brakes and skidded through it sideways, into the opposite lane of traffic...

i got the ticket thrown out though :)

[Raskolnikov]

Pfft...so they have more incentive to take more drastic measures.A ski mask wouldn't cross thier minds would it?
You know, there's a lot of things you can wear the Quarter and nobody will bat an eye at you, but a ski mask is not one of those things.

If somebody is knocking over a 7-11, they can drive up, bail out of the car, do their business, jump back in the car and (hypothetically) make their escape and still successfully hide their identity.

However, in a lot of urban centers (especially, say the French Quarter of New Orleans), you can't do that. You have to park, you have to walk to your target/victim and and if you're walking around in 90+° weather wearing a ski mask, you're GOING to call attention to yourself, so scratch that idea.

So, why not find a victim, put on the ski mask, mug them, get away, take off the ski mask and then make your escape? Well, you can do that but the problem is that you're on OTHER cameras while you're not wearing the mask and you're just as busted just as soon as the police match your clothing to the dude in the ski mask.



Great,the corner of 4th street is saved :rolleyes:
And the net effect is lower crime rates in the city without violating anybody's privacy as they are watching PUBLIC areas.



Those cameras don't suture stab wounds and stop bullets...
Neither do well-lit areas nor most crowds, but both somehow manage to discourage attacks.



Thats my main disagreement(not that anyone brought it up)...that a person should feel they have no need to be aware of anything because cameras will deter any threats.
So we should steer away from doing things that make potential criminals say "ahh, screw it" because if we feel safer by virtue of being safer, then we're not as safe as we were when crime rates were higher?

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

...the problem is that you're on OTHER cameras while you're not wearing the mask and you're just as busted just as soon as the police match your clothing to the dude in the ski mask.

From what ive read,it seems these cameras are in statistical 'hot spots'.They arn't exactly in every nook and cranny...yet.

...And the net effect is lower crime rates in the city without violating anybody's privacy as they are watching PUBLIC areas.

The net effect looks great on paper.Only those 'hot spots' are somewhat safer.



...Neither do well-lit areas nor most crowds, but both somehow manage to discourage attacks.

How much would you bank on such things to keep you safe from threats?




So we should steer away from doing things that make potential criminals say "ahh, screw it" because if we feel safer by virtue of being safer, then we're not as safe as we were when crime rates were higher?

Cameras monitoring statistically high crime areas are fine.Every little bit helps(those areas).It just simply isn't good enough to walk around unaware and ignorant of potential attacks,even if they are 'reduced'.

[Raskolnikov]

...the problem is that you're on OTHER cameras while you're not wearing the mask and you're just as busted just as soon as the police match your clothing to the dude in the ski mask.
From what ive read,it seems these cameras are in statistical 'hot spots'.They arn't exactly in every nook and cranny...yet.
And?

Are you saying we should spend our crime-fighting dollars where crimes aren't being committed?



...And the net effect is lower crime rates in the city without violating anybody's privacy as they are watching PUBLIC areas.
The net effect looks great on paper.Only those 'hot spots' are somewhat safer.
Hot spots tend to be hot spots and cold spots tend to be cold spots for reasons; namely the hot spots are usually easier and more rewarding to operate in. If you can cut back crime in those areas, you can often make a dramatic impact upon crime rates in the whole city.

Say a bad neighborhood accounts for 90% of the crime in a given city, reducing crime only 25% in just that one 'hood is a 22.5% reduction for the whole city which is substantial. If you cut it in half, that's a 45% reduction for the whole city.



...Neither do well-lit areas nor most crowds, but both somehow manage to discourage attacks.
How much would you bank on such things to keep you safe from threats?
More than I would if I were stopping for gas in "Ghost Town" (in Baton Rouge).



So we should steer away from doing things that make potential criminals say "ahh, screw it" because if we feel safer by virtue of being safer, then we're not as safe as we were when crime rates were higher?
Cameras monitoring statistically high crime areas are fine.Every little bit helps(those areas).It just simply isn't good enough to walk around unaware and ignorant of potential attacks,even if they are 'reduced'.
Look, everybody can't be martial arts experts, crack shots, fully trained EMTs and ready to break muggers in half at the drop of a hat -- nothing (outside of the crushing of muggers) would ever get done.

Nothing ever totally gets rid of crime, but cameras have been proven to discourage (and often aid in the prosecution of) everything from traffic violations to violent felonies. If there is less crime then we are safer.

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

And?

Are you saying we should spend our crime-fighting dollars where crimes aren't being committed?

Not at all...i'm simply saying your average street/corner is not monitored and they will never be...they are your 'average' street/corner because its not very troublesome compared to those that are,but your more likely to get attacked/mugged/killed on an average street/corner(obviously depends how much time you spend walking them).

Hot spots tend to be hot spots and cold spots tend to be cold spots for reasons; namely the hot spots are usually easier and more rewarding to operate in. If you can cut back crime in those areas, you can often make a dramatic impact upon crime rates in the whole city.

Say a bad neighborhood accounts for 90% of the crime in a given city, reducing crime only 25% in just that one 'hood is a 22.5% reduction for the whole city which is substantial. If you cut it in half, that's a 45% reduction for the whole city.

Like I said,it looks great on paper/statistics,but the criminal activity is still only reduced in those areas that are monitored and those numbers are ridiculous(yes,your just making a point I know).

More than I would if I were stopping for gas in "Ghost Town" (in Baton Rouge).

Never been to batten rouge...is it a ghost town?What are the crime rates for places considerd to be "boon docks"?Would you feel safer walking at 2:00 A.M in "Upton" Massachusetts(where a fender bender is the talk of the town) or 8:00 P.M in Boston within lights and crowds?


Look, everybody can't be martial arts experts, crack shots, fully trained EMTs and ready to break muggers in half at the drop of a hat -- nothing (outside of the crushing of muggers) would ever get done.

Nothing ever totally gets rid of crime, but cameras have been proven to discourage (and often aid in the prosecution of) everything from traffic violations to violent felonies. If there is less crime then we are safer.

My point is,people shouldn't find a false sense of absolute security just because a camera is in place.It can and does help deter the probability of an encounter,but is no replacement for good judgment and awarness...I didn't say martial arts.Thats the last thing I would recommend to anyone in a confrontation.

[Jolly McJollyson]

Not at all...i'm simply saying your average street/corner is not monitored and they will never be...they are your 'average' street/corner because its not very troublesome compared to those that are,but your more likely to get attacked/mugged/killed on an average street/corner(obviously depends how much time you spend walking them).
what???? So your more likely to get mugged and killed on your average street/corner than on streets/corners where crime rates are higher?
That doesn't make any sense.

Like I said,it looks great on paper/statistics,but the criminal activity is still only reduced in those areas that are monitored and those numbers are ridiculous(yes,your just making a point I know).
A minute ago you were saying criminal activity isn't reduced by presence of cameras now your saying it's reduced only where cameras are. Well, if the use of cameras becomes more widespread, wouldn't that lower crime rates in more and more places, especially on your "average streets/corners" where these new cameras are going?

If criminal activity is reduced in areas that cameras monitor, then you've LOST the argument as to whether or not cameras reduce crime rates. Clearly they DO. If the use of cameras is expanded (the SUBJECT of this thread), it would lower the crime rate, period, end of discussion.

Never been to batten rouge...is it a ghost town?What are the crime rates for places considerd to be "boon docks"?Would you feel safer walking at 2:00 A.M in "Upton" Massachusetts(where a fender bender is the talk of the town) or 8:00 P.M in Boston within lights and crowds?

This doesn't really have to do with anything, but since you brought it up: Lights and crowds are a crime deterent just like cameras, so tell me again why cameras wouldn't deter violent crime if lights and crowds do?

My point is,people shouldn't find a false sense of absolute security just because a camera is in place.It can and does help deter the probability of an encounter,but is no replacement for good judgment and awarness...I didn't say martial arts.Thats the last thing I would recommend to anyone in a confrontation.
What are you talking about? Nobody's going to say: "Oh, there's a camera, so I can be an idiot and walk down the street at three am blindfolded with four hundred-dollar bills hanging out of my pocket."

My point is: Why would cameras reduce awareness? This, as opposed to crime reduction, is not statistically proven, nor does it make much sense.

[R. Shackleferd]

I hate light pollution, being a stargazer, so consider this perspective.

International Dark Sky stance (http://www.darksky.org/links/seculigh.html)

[PonyOne]

the street corner i live on was one of the most violent areas in Los Angeles County from the late 70's to the early 90's. it was also the corner that you went to to score whatever illicit substance or service you wanted.

the cops stepped up patrol, and eventually the crime went away. now, the street corner is safe. however, if i ever need a hooker, if i head three blocks east then i'm set. if i ever need weed, then the street one block south of me, from one block east to Lincoln Boulevard which is about 5 blocks east, is the place to score in the West side.

my point is, you step up security in one area, the crime doesn't go away; it goes elsewhere. to truly prevent crime takes a lot more than putting in cameras and increasing beat cops; it requires better social services and better education.

[Jolly McJollyson]

my point is, you step up security in one area, the crime doesn't go away; it goes elsewhere. to truly prevent crime takes a lot more than putting in cameras and increasing beat cops; it requires better social services and better education.
What about the fact that these cameras are statistically lowering overall crime rate for the cities in which they've been placed? Perhaps if the United States justice system were a tad less lenient, than overall incentive would be reduced. For example:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/10/02/milwaukee.beating/index.html

Now, I will concede that some of the assailants were minors, and that the child of 10 could not be held as responsible for his own actions in as much as the other perpetrators of this crime. Sadly, this article does not mention any information on sentencing. However, I happen to know that the longest sentence given to those who were proven guilty (ALL of the accused), was seven years. A few members of this group were 18 and legal adults.

"The group caught him on the porch of a nearby house where they beat him with baseball bats, shovels, broom handles, a tree limb, a folding chair, a plastic milk crate and a rake, Jones said."

"The beating was so severe that blood was spattered onto the high porch ceiling. Young tried to get in the door of the home, Jones said, but the boys pulled him back and beat him again."

Seven years for the brutal murder of a human being. Is this the price we put on a man's life? Was Charlie Young so worthless as to give the legal adults of 18 a mere slap on the wrist? Yes, Mr. Young should not have taken matters into his own hands when the egg was thrown at him, but if that's just cause for a gang beating/murder, then the world has come to an end. It's COOL to go to prison thanks to gangster rap, especially for murder and drugs. These sick bastards probably think themselves heroic vigilantes. If the American justice system calls seven year sentences for first-degree, cold-blooded murder appropriate, than it's small wonder we need to lower the crime rate.

Even if you don't believe in the death penalty, the price for horribly, horribly taking a life should be LIFE in prison at the very least. Criminals need retribution, potential criminals need role models, not gangster rappers.
Education is about knowledge, not about humane behavior. Yes, education will reduce crime rate if you can get kids to pay attention in school. Tell me, though, which of the following appeals more to today's youth:

1. Get an education and be something.

2. Get a gun, join a gang, sell drugs and listen to gangster rap.

Unfortunately, option 2 appeals more today because there's no such thing as a "good role model." It's popular to be a criminal, and until that changes, no amount of algebra and French II is going to inspire the youth to be something more than what they see on MTV, even though education ultimately leads to a lower crime rate. I hate to use cliches, but "where there's a will, there's a way" also works in reverse. If no will exists, there's no way something like a lower crime rate can be acheived.

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

what???? So your more likely to get mugged and killed on your average street/corner than on streets/corners where crime rates are higher?
That doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense...average streets/corners are abundant and plentiful.You spend more time on them.You have less a chance to fall off walking 5 feet of really thin rope than 5 miles of really thick(please don't over anylyze that analogy).


A minute ago you were saying criminal activity isn't reduced by presence of cameras now your saying it's reduced only where cameras are. Well, if the use of cameras becomes more widespread, wouldn't that lower crime rates in more and more places, especially on your "average streets/corners" where these new cameras are going?

eh..I never said criminal activity isn't reduced.Heres what I said:quote "No,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras."How will the camera save you?Your 'chance' of being attacked is lowerd,but it won't stop an attack hence "your not safer".And again the 'chance' of the criminal being caught/identified will increase,but the camera dosn't deserve a pat on the lens.Life isn't a "world's most shocking video's" show where every crook is identified and caught by surveillance cameras and everything ends well.Mabey this was misunderstood some posts ago?


If criminal activity is reduced in areas that cameras monitor, then you've LOST the argument as to whether or not cameras reduce crime rates. Clearly they DO. If the use of cameras are expanded (the SUBJECT of this thread), it would lower the crime rate, period, end of discussion.

There is no argument that they reduce crime rates.The SUBJECT(which seems to change in threads if you notice)will never come to pass(that being your average street/corner nook and cranny being monitored).Why?Because they are 'average'.


This doesn't really have to do with anything, but since you brought it up: Lights and crowds are a crime deterent just like cameras, so tell me again why cameras wouldn't deter violent crime if lights and crowds do?

Your right,it has nothing to do with anything.Again,I never said cameras don't deter crime.


What are you talking about? Nobody's going to say: "Oh, there's a camera, so I can be an idiot and walk down the street at three am blindfolded with four hundred-dollar bills hanging out of my pocket."

My point is: Why would cameras reduce awareness? This, as opposed to crime reduction, is not statistically proven, nor does it make much sense.

hmmm..in what case would someone do that :confused: (mabey extremely drunk..?)

Your point is:Why would cameras reduce awareness?Because they promote a false sense of security.I personally,will not rely on a 'reduced chance' of being attacked and be unaware of my surroundings,possible threats e.c.t."Oh my GAWD,i'm shocked that something like that could happen.I don't believe it!There was a camera there!" :eek:

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

from the linked report "Young grabbed the boy's 14-year-old friend and punched him in the mouth, knocking out a tooth, Jones said".

Had he succeeded in beating them all to the point where they would have retreated or posed no threat,guess who would be doing time?

I can't critisize his initial reaction/action though.I might have done the same.I'll resist the temptation to describe the end result had I been involved...

[Jolly McJollyson]

It makes perfect sense...average streets/corners are abundant and plentiful.You spend more time on them.You have less a chance to fall off walking 5 feet of really thin rope than 5 miles of really thick(please don't over anylyze that analogy).
I understand what your analogy means, but you are wrong. Your average streets do not have NEARLY as much crime as those that are high in crime, thus, reducing crime on those streets would reduce OVERALL crime. Reducing OVERALL crime means a crime reduction for the entire city, making a city more secure as a whole. Also, the article was about the expansion of camera usage, and their BEING on your average street corner.

eh..I never said criminal activity isn't reduced.Heres what I said:quote "No,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras."How will the camera save you?Your 'chance' of being attacked is lowerd,but it won't stop an attack hence "your not safer".And again the 'chance' of the criminal being caught/identified will increase,but the camera dosn't deserve a pat on the lens.
So, the odds that you're attacked is lowered. Again, the chance of the criminal being caught is increased, thus lowering incentive. However, the camera will not make you safer? Statistically it clearly does. Cameras cannot stop bullets in midair, but neither can hospitals, and no one says hospitals can't prevent you from dying due to a gunshot wound.

Life isn't a "world's most shocking video's" show where every crook is identified and caught by surveillance cameras and everything ends well.Mabey this was misunderstood some posts ago?
Did I say every criminal would be caught? All I said was that more cameras would catch/deter more criminals, it's pretty obvious.

There is no argument that they reduce crime rates.
Excepting the statistic proof, of course. Also, let's look at what you have to say:
"eh..I never said criminal activity isn't reduced."
"Your 'chance' of being attacked is lowerd"
"And again the 'chance' of the criminal being caught/identified will increase"

The SUBJECT(which seems to change in threads if you notice)will never come to pass(that being your average street/corner nook and cranny being monitored).Why?Because they are 'average'.
It will never come to pass?

"Chicago is working on plans to link more than 2,000 public surveillance cameras in a network that would use sophisticated software to alert authorities to potential crimes.

"New Orleans is installing a sophisticated crime-fighting system of bulletproof cameras, each capable of eyeing an eight-block area. So far, about 240 of the proposed 1,000 cameras are in operation."

That's a pretty large number of cameras for NONE of them to be on an "average" street corner. Don't be thick, they're clearly putting these in less criminally active areas than the criminal "hotspots."

hmmm..in what case would someone do that :confused: (mabey extremely drunk..?)
I was being fascicious.

Your point is:Why would cameras reduce awareness?Because they promote a false sense of security.
Prove that point to me. Just because a camera is on a post doesn't mean anyone will lower their guard. I know I would not. Prove that I would.

I personally,will not rely on a 'reduced chance' of being attacked and be unaware of my surroundings,possible threats e.c.t."Oh my GAWD,i'm shocked that something like that could happen.I don't believe it!There was a camera there!" :eek:
So you wouldn't, and I wouldn't. I also doubt Raskolnikov would. PonyOne doesn't seem to be willing to lower his guard. That's four people who won't be unaware of their surroundings when walking around outside. I guess you've disproven your own point by refusing to cite examples. There's a difference between "feeling safer" and "letting your guard down."

[Jolly McJollyson]

from the linked report "Young grabbed the boy's 14-year-old friend and punched him in the mouth, knocking out a tooth, Jones said".

Had he succeeded in beating them all to the point where they would have retreated or posed no threat,guess who would be doing time?
No one. He could claim self defense after the other boys attacked him.
He might get a fine for punching the one kid initially, but he wouldn't be doing hard time.

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

He might get a fine for punching the one kid initially, but he wouldn't be doing hard time.

thats the thing.Had he mopped the floor with them,potentially killing one of them,he would be doing time.Unfortunately attacking minors is frowned upon no matter the situation.

(The system)"so Mr.Young,one boy is dead and the rest badly injured...whats your defense?"...(Mr.Young)"They assaulted me with an egg"...Later!

[Jolly McJollyson]

thats the thing.Had he mopped the floor with them,potentially killing one of them,he would be doing time.Unfortunately attacking minors is frowned upon no matter the situation.

(The system)"so Mr.Young,one boy is dead and the rest badly injured...whats your defense?"...(Mr.Young)"They assaulted me with an egg"...Later!
Had he mopped the floor with them and had a good lawyer, he could prove that the punch in the mouth was uncalled-for retribution but was not going to be followed up by any further violence. Also, not all of this group were minors.

Also, only the boy he hit was involved with throwing the egg, once the other kid hit Young in the head with the baby stroller, it was a different ballgame.

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

...Your average streets do not have NEARLY as much crime as those that are high in crime, thus, reducing crime on those streets would reduce OVERALL crime.

yes,on paper it looks nice overall.A camera has no impact on a neigborhood 5 miles away.(affirmed by ponyones description of hardened security in specific places and crime going elsewhere)


Reducing OVERALL crime means a crime reduction for the entire city, making a city more secure as a whole. Also, the article was about the expansion of camera usage, and their BEING on your average street corner.

Yes,once again,secure on paper.The article said no such thing(about cameras on low crime rate streets and corners...)Also if you read the article "Cameras are not routinely monitored, and video is stored for a brief period, to be watched only if a crime is reported."...


So, the odds that you're attacked is lowered. Again, the chance of the criminal being caught is increased, thus lowering incentive. However, the camera will not make you safer? Statistically it clearly does. Cameras cannot stop bullets in midair, but neither can hospitals, and no one says hospitals can't prevent you from dying due to a gunshot wound.

Yes,lowered...on those streets that are monitored.I have nothing to say about the added prevention cameras can bring,but the camera will do nothing to save you in a attack.YOU will still need to fend for yourself and either eliminate the theat or run to saftey.


Did I say every criminal would be caught? All I said was that more cameras would catch/deter more criminals, it's pretty obvious.

And all I was saying is that they are not the 'super savers' that some make them out to be(not that you do).

It will never come to pass?

"Chicago is working on plans to link more than 2,000 public surveillance cameras in a network that would use sophisticated software to alert authorities to potential crimes.

"New Orleans is installing a sophisticated crime-fighting system of bulletproof cameras, each capable of eyeing an eight-block area. So far, about 240 of the proposed 1,000 cameras are in operation."

That's a pretty large number of cameras for NONE of them to be on an "average" street corner. Don't be thick, they're clearly putting these in less criminally active areas than the criminal "hotspots."

How many blocks in chicago or new orleans?...they are NOT putting them on the average streets(those with statistically low crime rates)and why would they?They are average and that is not the goal of law enforcment or the state/federal budget.Only 240 of the cameras in new orleans are operating and all 'hot spots' no doubt.


I was being fascicious.

you were?No kidding...


Prove that point to me. Just because a camera is on a post doesn't mean anyone will lower their guard. I know I would not. Prove that I would.


So you wouldn't, and I wouldn't. I also doubt Raskolnikov would. PonyOne doesn't seem to be willing to lower his guard. That's four people who won't be unaware of their surroundings when walking around outside. I guess you've disproven your own point by refusing to cite examples. There's a difference between "feeling safer" and "letting your guard down."

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v101/fa/n028/cam.securitycam.corey.html

also "Many CCTV situations promote a false sense of security. A good example is the use of "dummy" or false cameras. This may lead an individual to believe the area is being monitored and any criminal activity will generate an immediate response. Signage might also lead to a false sense of security. Signs which convey a message the cameras are utilized for the "safety and security" of patrons can lead to potential liability problems if the public believes cameras are monitored at all times and help is on the way if they become victimized. Use of "dummy" cameras, or not monitoring real cameras due to staff shortages or restrictions can create liability. It is important to determine the exact purpose of the camera and monitoring procedures. Share that information with those who may be impacted by it, generally the employees."form http://www.opkansas.org/_Bus/Business_Safety/cctv.cfm

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

Had he mopped the floor with them and had a good lawyer, he could prove that the punch in the mouth was uncalled-for retribution but was not going to be followed up by any further violence. Also, not all of this group were minors.

Also, only the boy he hit was involved with throwing the egg, once the other kid hit Young in the head with the baby stroller, it was a different ballgame.

He still would have got time for the assault.A cop witnessing that would have arrested him on the spot and mabey give the kids a scare like making them sit in the cruiser.Others wern't involved until he punched the kid,so he did initiate the mass attack that killed him.

[Raskolnikov]

Like I said,it looks great on paper/statistics,but the criminal activity is still only reduced in those areas that are monitored
An overwhelming majority of crime happens in a very few small areas -- impacting only those areas makes a HUGE differnece; but when does improvements in crime fighting/deterence only effect one area?

Crime in the United States as a whole has been dropping for the last 20 years. The US has been less violent than the UK since 1996. It has to do with a lot of factors (harder sentences, higher conviction rates, concealed carry laws, etc...), but what helps, helps.

The only thing that is increasing here is our perception of violence.



and those numbers are ridiculous(yes,your just making a point I know).
Really?
Between 1994 and 1999, the murder rate fell 63 percent, assaults dropped 60 percent, and armed robberies were down 49 percent.
The above is in direct refference to the city of New Orleans. All but one of the numbers used are greater than what I was using as rough examples.



Never been to batten rouge...is it a ghost town?
"Ghost Town" is what the locals call one of the especially dangerous neighborhoods. A friend of mine was actually mugged on one of the fringes recently.



What are the crime rates for places considerd to be "boon docks"?Would you feel safer walking at 2:00 A.M in "Upton" Massachusetts(where a fender bender is the talk of the town) or 8:00 P.M in Boston within lights and crowds?
I don't waste my time and energy worrying about what might or might not happen to me.



My point is,people shouldn't find a false sense of absolute security just because a camera is in place.It can and does help deter the probability of an encounter...
Then why be so dismissive?



but is no replacement for good judgment and awarness...
What ever is?



the street corner i live on was one of the most violent areas in Los Angeles County from the late 70's to the early 90's. it was also the corner that you went to to score whatever illicit substance or service you wanted.

the cops stepped up patrol, and eventually the crime went away. now, the street corner is safe. however, if i ever need a hooker, if i head three blocks east then i'm set. if i ever need weed, then the street one block south of me, from one block east to Lincoln Boulevard which is about 5 blocks east, is the place to score in the West side.
All of that is "vice" crime.



where. to truly prevent crime takes a lot more than putting in cameras and increasing beat cops; it requires better social services and better education.
Those numbers I quoted for New Orleans -- they all stem mostly from restructuring the police department.

Obviously, the ultimate solution is better education and better oportunities for people, but the harder it is to be a criminal, the fewer people who will do it.

[6strngs_2hmbkrs]

Your average streets do not have NEARLY as much crime as those that are high in crime, thus, reducing crime on those streets would reduce OVERALL crime. Reducing OVERALL crime means a crime reduction for the entire city, making a city more secure as a whole.
ok, I agree with you jolly except for this statement... statistically, the crime rate for the whole city drops, but in actuality, only the crime for the one street corner drops... example, let's say that there is a street corner that accounts for 10% of an entire city's crime, well, they put a camera on that street corner, and the crime on that corner drops to 2%, so, on paper, it looks as though the crime rater dropped 8% in the entire city, but really it just dropped 80% for that one street corner alone... this is really the only place I disagree with you, other then that, I agree totally

[Jolly McJollyson]

ok, I agree with you jolly except for this statement... statistically, the crime rate for the whole city drops, but in actuality, only the crime for the one street corner drops... example, let's say that there is a street corner that accounts for 10% of an entire city's crime, well, they put a camera on that street corner, and the crime on that corner drops to 2%, so, on paper, it looks as though the crime rater dropped 8% in the entire city, but really it just dropped 80% for that one street corner alone... this is really the only place I disagree with you, other then that, I agree totally
The people on that corner don't deserve a lower crime rate?

[PonyOne]

i think we both know that's not what he means by that... maybe i'm wrong but i think that he means that installing a camera on that street corner and makin gthe crime go down there, but not doing anything about the crime in the rest of the city, just isn't really enough. yeah of course people who live or work around that corner deserve the safety everyone else does, but, what about the people who live on the street corner that gets less crime in the first place? if they only have one shooting deat ha year and the "bad corner" has 10, does it mean jack to the one guy who still got shot on that other streetcorner?

also, just as a broader thought... if crime has been gonig down nationally for the past decade and particularly so in a certain city, and someone puts a camera in on a "bad" streetcorner so over the course of the next year the crime rate drops, i don't think it's fair to assume that installing cameras will make the streets safe. if there's been a steady drop over the past few years, and you put a camera on a "bad" streetcorner and it reduces crime on that streetcorner, is the drop for that year proportionate to the steady drop the city has experienced over the last few years, or is it a sudden, additional 10% or whatever drop?
i'm not saying the cameras are bad, if you note a few pages back i more or less said i think that people who flip out over "their privacy" are kind of stupid and i personally don't think they're all that bad an idea... i just think that cameras on streetcorners are more of like a Tylenol for the crime; they don't prevent anyone from getting a gun, they don't prevent anyone from joining a gang necessarily, they just stop people from doing things in view of the camera.

[6strngs_2hmbkrs]

The people on that corner don't deserve a lower crime rate?
no, I didn't say that they didn't, but like somebody said earlier(I'm too lazy to go back to figure out who) the crime just moves, so if you are making one street corner safer, all you are actually doing is making the surrounding street corners less safe. but what I was saying is, that you are only dropping the crime for one street corner, not the whole city unless you put cameras on EVERY street corner

[Jolly McJollyson]

but what I was saying is, that you are only dropping the crime for one street corner, not the whole city unless you put cameras on EVERY street corner
Which is why I support expanding the use of cameras.

[lateralis]

I think cameras in public areas are fine by me. I don't get why people are so paranoid over that. They must be doing something illegal if they're so afraid. I mean who cares if a camera watches you buy a snickers bar? Sadly some people would consider a camera watching them chew a snickers bar an "invasion of privacy."

[R. Shackleferd]

Your employer has the right to install cameras in the bathroom at work. I'm sure most don't, but you never know? Hell I don't let my girlfriend I live with watch me wipe my ass!

[6strngs_2hmbkrs]

Your employer has the right to install cameras in the bathroom at work. I'm sure most don't, but you never know? Hell I don't let my girlfriend I live with watch me wipe my ass!
that's... disturbing. I don't think I ever have... erm... gone number two... in a public restroom before, but now I never will

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

Some bathrooms at a mall in massa2sh*ts has these little clear dots on the toilets that act like sensors(as in,it flushed when you are done)...I always gave it the finger just in case(yeah,like that would show em')

[lateralis]

You better watch out. It may pop out a gun and start shooting at you just for disrespecting the censor lol.

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

Nah,too small for that...mabey a laser pointer though?

[Jolly McJollyson]

Nah,too small for that...mabey a laser pointer though?
It could do some serious retinal damage.

[6strngs_2hmbkrs]

Some bathrooms at a mall in massa2sh*ts has these little clear dots on the toilets that act like sensors(as in,it flushed when you are done)...I always gave it the finger just in case(yeah,like that would show em')
yeah, they have those all over here in california... I don't flip them off, I figure that making them look at me peeing all over the sensor has got to be good enough...

[PonyOne]

i carry a little placard with me that says "all this and brains too" on one side and on the other "don't be jealous."

on a more serious note i am completely indifferent to the little black dots on toilet flusher things and am also indifferent, mostly, to cameras mounted on the street/in stores/in banks/etc. who cares.

[6strngs_2hmbkrs]

I don't think that the little black dots on the toilet are actually cameras... that would be pretty gross... I'm pretty it's just a sensor that when something goes in front of it, then nothing happens, then when the thing in front of it moves, then it flushes... I guess they made it to cut back on toilets that never get flushed... tee hee

[Jolly McJollyson]

I don't think that the little black dots on the toilet are actually cameras... that would be pretty gross... I'm pretty it's just a sensor that when something goes in front of it, then nothing happens, then when the thing in front of it moves, then it flushes... I guess they made it to cut back on toilets that never get flushed... tee hee
Yup, that's what they do.

[6strngs_2hmbkrs]

Yup, that's what they do.
yeah, I was 99% sure of that... I mean... why would anyone want to watch you piss?

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

yeah, I was 99% sure of that... I mean... why would anyone want to watch you piss?

And yet,you still piss all over the sensor lol.

So are there actually plans to expand cameras to every street or what?

[crazywolf]

Cameras are getting put up in schools too; and busses.

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

Unless they wind up on my street,i'm not giving them any more thought.

[R. Shackleferd]

Unless they wind up on my street,i'm not giving them any more thought.

What if it's on a couple of streets over, but has a telescopic lense? :D Or there's always satellites if someone important wants to watch you.

[chucklivesoninmyheart]

If someone wants to watch me,they better pay up!

[6strngs_2hmbkrs]

What if it's on a couple of streets over, but has a telescopic lense? :D Or there's always satellites if someone important wants to watch you.
even if they did try to watch me, they would quickly look away because of the things I do when no one is around *evil smile*