You Are a SLAVE

25 Responses

1. 22popuser Says:
   November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   Surveillance …
   Surveillance cameras are technology run amuck; a Stalinist, police state concept having no place in America. Because you can, doesnt mean you should. They violate free movement and exchange of citizens, confirming the Founders belief that government, if unchecked, will eliminate freedom.
   Airport shakedowns and spy cameras turn justice on its head; punishing the many for the actions of the few. Mayor J. Richard Gray of Lancaster is a threat to Freedom everywhere. He must resign.

2. notmycity Says:
   November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   TRACKED, TRACED AND …
   TRACKED, TRACED AND DATABASED!

3. mlafon25 Says:
   November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   ,my town a police …
   ,my town a police offficer say the cams does not work on the day i got rob at work:) so yea it so nice there got it up but then it not working….

4. sirlonghair Says:
   November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   how would you like …
   how would you like one hanging outside your bathroom windo

5. tetsubo57 Says:
   November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   How much evidence …
   How much evidence is there that video cameras are actually effective? Do they just shunt crime into the zones that are not on camera?

6. CharBroiled04 Says:
   November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   Point ceded. I …
   Point ceded. I love fruitful discussion.

7. nyXdeathXangel Says:
   November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   Yes, but it would …
   Yes, but it would put money in middle class pockets. Money in middle class pockets=spending. Spending=economic growth in the long term.

8. aTypicalWhitePerson Says:
   November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   What good is a …
   What good is a camera when your being robbed, murdered or raped

9. CharBroiled04 Says:
   November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

   I’m from the Bay …
   I’m from the Bay Area (California) but currently live in Los Angeles.

   I’m only posing a hypothetical here though… assuming it COULD be implemented, would you prefer more cameras or more police (than current), if the police were the ones running the cameras?

   I mean, there are certainly some downfalls to using cameras INSTEAD of police; flexibility being one of the more important ones. A police officer can run down the street if he sees a problem brewing, a camera can not.

10. MISSISSAUGAWATCH Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Hi CharBroiled04, I …
    Hi CharBroiled04, I don’t know where you’re from but I’m from a city in Ontario, Canada. Our province has a powerful Ombudsman that people can turn to for help. Only problem is he has ZERO powers into something called the MUSH sector.

    The “M” is for “Municipalities”. Video surveillance is AT the municipal level. Citizens are BLOCKED from complaining about their city’s use of them.

    Give me police. But the problem is you get way more cams for each officer’s salary.

    Whare are you from?

11. CharBroiled04 Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Again though, that …
    Again though, that seems to rely on the fact that private groups, not public servants run the cameras.

    Let’s say a new public branch was created to run the cameras, or hey, even the police themselves. What if it was the police that were in charge of the cameras (makes sense to me, I don’t know why they wouldn’t be the LOGICAL choice)?

    Then would you say it’s necessarily better to simply hire more police rather than install cameras?

12. MISSISSAUGAWATCH Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    CharBroiled04, you …
    CharBroiled04, you asked, “isn’t it just as likely that a police officer will abuse his power?” This is coming directly from Freedom of Information. At least in my area, City security is different from police. Their security’s Job 1 is to protect the Corporate “assets”. Police serve the public. Our police standards are far more rigorous and then our province ensures an indepedent public complaints system against police. Our city’s security wrote its own complaints policy AND investigates itself

13. CharBroiled04 Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Something I’ve been …
    Something I’ve been toying with in the back of my mind, with respect to this conversation, is that the focus seems to be on the abuse and corruptibility of cameras. I would like everyone to consider the abuse and potential for corruptibility of police officers to balance that argument against cameras.

    Sure, the operators behind the cameras (or wheover collects data) may abuse it… but isn’t it just as likely that a police officer will abuse his power?

14. MISSISSAUGAWATCH Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Hi CharBroiled04, …
    Hi CharBroiled04, Yes, agree absolutely, the problem is not with the cameras. I’d go so far as to say that the use of cams is more positive than “morally neutral”. For example, why have a police officer out in the cold and even in a dangerous area when a cam could support him (notice “support” and not “replace”) And it’s not “oversight” but authentic oversight/accountability. Even the finest police make mistakes. That must be addressed before any cam is installed. Cams are for Police. NOT knobs.

15. CharBroiled04 Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    So can we agree …
    So can we agree that the problem is not with the cameras inherently, but with the current lack of oversight?

    Whether or not abuse will necessarily arise from use of cameras (that is to say, whether or not cameras could EVER be implemented properly) is up for debate, but the fact is the use of cameras is morally neutral.

    The next question is: could they be employed properly? I’d like to hear some responses.

16. MISSISSAUGAWATCH Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Hi, CharBroiled04, …
    Hi, CharBroiled04,

    I believe that video surveillance is an irreplaceable tool for crime prevention and public safety. The problem is any knob-security operation can install/use them.

    And CRIPES the KNOBBERY! (confirmed through Freedom of Information).

    I don’t know if citizens in London are watching Who’s Watching Them, but if they’re not, bet all you own and cherish, there’s ABUSE festering.

    And the people who get abused worst are those who can’t afford industrial-strength lawyers!

17. CharBroiled04 Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    (more)

    It seems …
    (more)

    It seems that you and I are in agreement on this matter, right? We both say it’s not the cameras, it’s the lack of oversight of the people using them… THAT is what makes police officers better.

    OhioDemocrat responded to my 2nd post:
    “No, As I said before, I feel cameras for any reason except traffic control are just asking for abuse. No matter who’s in control of them.”

    NO MATTER WHO’S IN CONTROL OF THEM. Doesn’t that miss the mark that you and I agree on?

    I’m just asking OD: WHY?

18. CharBroiled04 Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Mississaugawatch, …
    Mississaugawatch, you seem to be saying that the problem isn’t inherently with using cameras… it’s that the people currently in charge of said cameras are not accountable (that there isn’t oversight and record keeping).

    Look at my 2nd post in this thread. It reads:
    “So your qualm isn’t with the use of cameras instead of police officers, it’s that the people behind the cameras are only semi-public employees and have limited oversight (if any).”

    (more)

19. CharBroiled04 Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    “I’m done.” Great …
    “I’m done.” Great way to progress a discussion; throw your hands up and walk away.

    What questions of yours haven’t I answered?

    You asked why it’s always about saving money? I said if you can do the same job more cheaply, it’d be silly to spend more. The extra money can go to a myriad of OTHER public interests.

    You said “why can’t it be about doing what’s right and good for the community?” Like I said, you seem to assume that using cameras is NOT what’s right and good. I claim it is.

20. MISSISSAUGAWATCH Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    CharBroiled04 …
    CharBroiled04 regarding, “…but cameras just to watch people are wrong.” You asked “Why?”. Ever wonder What is operating that video surveillance camera? OhioDemocrat is correct when he writes, “The problem with cameras is that who controls them?” Police are one thing. But imagine them in the hands of a corrupt city government –say with a mayor/councillors and staff who want to keep things as is. Imagine no oversight. No record-keeping. And the power to ban, charge trespass and arrest people.

21. MISSISSAUGAWATCH Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    CharBroiled04, I’ll …
    CharBroiled04, I’ll try and answer your questions. I’ve been researching the security practices through Freedom of Information. You asked, “if we get the exact same level of protection from cameras and police officers, why should we spend MORE on police officers?” Where I live (Ontario) we’re blessed with our police services. I’d have no problems if video surveillance were the exclusive domain of police. But it’s not. They’re also used by municipal government security –unaccountable KNOBS.

22. OhioDemocrat Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    you expect me to …
    you expect me to answer your questions, but yet you answer none of mine? I’m done.

23. CharBroiled04 Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    I’m asking you, if …
    I’m asking you, if we get the exact same level of protection from cameras and police officers, why should we spend MORE on police officers? The money saved could go to a myriad of other public interests.

    You seem to assume that getting cameras is cutting corners. You also seem to have this unsupported distaste towards using cameras… that’s its “wrong”… that it’s necessarily going to be abused… overall that it’s “evil”.

    If the same job can be done more cheaply, why spend more?

24. OhioDemocrat Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Why is it about …
    Why is it about always about saving money? Why cant it be about doing whats right and good for the community. Cameras are so Big Brother like, ripe for abuse and what do they do? Intimidate? Police interact, cameras dont.

25. MISSISSAUGAWATCH Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    I’ve been filing …
    I’ve been filing Freedom of Information on my own city’s security operations. Freedom of Information has confirmed that although this municipal security operation bans, charges trespass and arrests people, NO ONE (no person or entity) has ever looked into its conduct and operations. Freedom of Information confirmed numerous violations of Ontario’s “Guidelines for Using Video Surveillance Cameras in Public Spaces”. gsmartremarks asks “Who Watches the Watchers?” In my “efficient” city, NO ONE

Leave a Comment