Comments on: Surveillance society

By: CharBroiled04

CharBroiled04 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:32:08 +0000

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?

By: OhioDemocrat

OhioDemocrat — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:32:08 +0000

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.

By: MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MISSISSAUGAWATCH — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:32:08 +0000

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

By: MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MISSISSAUGAWATCH — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:32:07 +0000

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

By: CharBroiled04

CharBroiled04 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:32:07 +0000

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?

By: MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MISSISSAUGAWATCH — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:32:07 +0000

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.

By: CharBroiled04

CharBroiled04 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:32:07 +0000

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.

By: MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MISSISSAUGAWATCH — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:32:07 +0000

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!

By: CharBroiled04

CharBroiled04 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:32:07 +0000

(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?

By: CharBroiled04

CharBroiled04 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:32:07 +0000

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)