Jump to content

Big brother in your house and public safety tax...


Soback
 Share

Recommended Posts

Kinda like that smoking debate thread. You might think that it's a good idea, having smokers pick up bills that aren't theirs. Well, wait and see, the ball of taxation for a cause will roll around to you one day, and you will be picking up the bills that aren't yours.

Just like in this case. Our privacy taken away a little at a time. First it was cameras at intersections, then it was cameras on bridges and freeways. Now it's cameras at malls and appartments. In a decade it will be cameras in your home.

Like I have said. Wrong is wrong, you give them an inch, and you have already lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameras in public spaces are fine, since the police are allowed to be there the whole time there really is no differance between an officer standing there and a camera being installed.

Cameras in private places are only fine if the resident wishes there to be one (which many people that are suscribed to a private security compnay opt for).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a camera trained on your house windows. Is that fine?

You can liken it to a police officer across the street, with binoculars. You think zooming in on your windows and seeing what's going on inside the house is ok? I mean by that argument, a guy standing outside your home, with binoculars is perfectly legal too, he is on public domain, all he is doing is view something that is readily accessible. Want to blame the house owner for having a spot that his blinds happen to leave open?

Or how about the cameras in public places that can zoom in on your wallet when you are paying for that cotton candy at the park. Security or violation of privacy? Would that be ok if a police officer was peeking across your shoulder? Let me tell you, IT'S NOT LEGAL for a police officer to even look at your license if you haven't violated the law, and if you have, he has to ASK to see your licence, he can't just take it from you.

Are you going to argue that cameras don't zoom in that much. Remember the all important government rule. One step at a time. Or maybe you are going to argue that if you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. Buying cotton candy is not wrong, HOWEVER, I STILL do not want the government to be able to observe what I have in my wallet, or in my car, or where I go. ESPECIALLY since I am not doing anything wrong. Innocent till proven guilty, ever heard of that? Why should I be presumed guilty, and let the government watch me in public 24/7 if I am not doing anything wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything a police officer is allowed to see or look at a camera should be able to see or look at as well (compared to an officer that doesnÔÇÖt have a warrant for any special viewing privileges).

So if an officer is not allowed to stare into your house, neither should the camera be able. Or if said officer isn't allowed to look at your license, neither can the camera. If however you go right up to the camera and stick your license in front of its lens, tough.

Security cameras are not-so-new technology that can be useful to figure who a criminal is. However choosing not to use such a tool because of rights violations that may happen is rather silly. Rights violations will happen simply because the police officers are human and therefore prone to corruption and mistakes. Any evidence gathered from the video tapes (if they actively follow your person) would have to proven that it was done with "justifiable causeÔÇØ. It should be noted that the police are generally considered guilty until proven innocent on evidence they collect.

quote:

Let me tell you, IT'S NOT LEGAL for a police officer to even look at your license if you haven't violated the law, and if you have, he has to ASK to see your licence, he can't just take it from you.

Minor nitpick:

If your broke a crime that he or she can arrest you for, the officer can then arrest you, then search you and then take your license and look at it (At least in Canada itÔÇÖs considered ÔÇ£justifiable causeÔÇØ to search a person after they have been arrested).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Neither should a camera be able..." Should and Could is two different things. Just because a camera shouldn't be looking into your house through an open spot in the blinds, doesn't mean that it wont be. If you see an officer with binoculars trained on your windows, from across the street. You are going to question him as to what the hell he wants, what his badge is, and supervisor, so that you can bring this up in court as a violation of your privacy, unwarranted visual search of your property. If you see a camera on the street lamp post. How are you even going to know if that camera isn't zooming in on your homes interior and looking someplace it shouldn't be looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person might not always notice the police officer right away, that and they could be hiding, looking from a long(er) ditance etc. or are you syaing we shouldn't have police either because of what they "might" do.

Granted officials using cameras might be more likely to use it to look places where they shouldn't be given that its harder to spot the camera sometimes. Of course any evidence they collect unlawfully would be rendered inamissable.

If your going to argue that what if they don't use it for evidence. Simple, there's very little differance between a person watching (who might be good at hiding or be able to stay at very long distance) and someone watching from a camera in terms of likeihood of being caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you should know that if the cop is watching your house, it's ILLEGAL. It's called VOYERISM, and it is ILLEGAL. If you catch a person watching your home, you can slam them down, call the cops, have them arrested, and PROSECUTE THEM, which means jail time.

You can also do the same with the cop, if he is watching your house without a cause.

Can you do the same with the camera?

You might feel ok with the government tracking you. Why not just start stapling tags to the ears of people who feel that safe with trusting their lives to the government. Hey, think about it, you never have to carry an ID, not a single piece of paperwork. Applying for a new job, need medical care, re-newing your drivers licence? Just tilt your head sideways and move it side to side for scanning.

People like me, appreciate freedom, appreciate the Constitution, we understand what individualism is, and we are NOT like the rest of you. You all might be the same, we are different. You violate my God and The Constitution given rights, and you have another thing coming. Don't try to justify the unjustifyable, you have nothing to stand on besides the rethoric of "trust the government, they know whats best for you", "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" and "you can't take care of yourself, the government is here to help". I stand on the grounds of logic, Constitution, Individualism, and my own two feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Can you do the same with the camera?

Um, yeah. You should be able to see the camera looking directly at your house given that most outdoor cameras have a fairly obvious orientation. Then you could take a picture. Heck take several pictures from several angles so the angle and where itÔÇÖs pointing for better proof. Then take it to the authorities. If they ignore it, take it to the same place where you would if they ignore your allegations of the cop looking through your window. On the plus side you have more proof on top of your pictures because the film would be in storage, and if theirs a huge gap, then that's more than enough evidence to investigate.

But what if they donÔÇÖt have an obvious orientation you might ask? Simple, make sure your government only allows cameras that have obvious directional marking. Or cameras can only be in non-residential areas. Or that the cameras can only look one way or canÔÇÖt be manually operated.

But they could change the rules you might say. Then IÔÇÖd have to say thatÔÇÖs a non-argument as they could change the rules for the police as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? What are you even talking about? Have you ever operated a camera? Even a simple consumer one? Do you know what optical zoom is, do you know what digital zoom is? Do you know that you can zoom in by, lets say 20x, change the direction by half a degree, and you have just moved the zone that camera is looking at by 20 feet. Are you going to notice a difference of half a degree? You won't even notice a difference of 5 degrees. This justification for government violating your rights, right to privacy, right to be presumed innocent till proven guilty. Why do you need to watch, document and follow people if they are innocent?

Like I have said. You want a tag on your ear, go and sign up for one. DO NOT try to justify violations of personal rights under the banner of "safety and security". Individuals can take care of themselfs. Maybe a lot of you think you are herd animals that need to be tended to every single day. Most of us however, are self sufficient, and are being FORCED to pay for the rest of the herd animals, starting from social security and medical care, and ending up with wellfare and food stamps. Not only are we picking up their slack and taking care of them, we are also losing our rights because of them.

Get it through your head. Individuals rights are NOT to be forefieted just because a couple of socialist nazzis have convinced the herd that they are safer when they can keep an eye on them 24/7, all the time from the first step out of bed, till they get back into it.

Makes me sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give you the fact that cameras can be hard to tell their exact direction.

But...

quote:

Or cameras can only be in non-residential areas. Or that the cameras can only look one way or canÔÇÖt be manually operated.

There are several other rules and restrictions that could be added to help protect citizens' privacy rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... Well I DO happen to know how those cameras are operated. They are not really fancy stuff because most of the time it is not cost efficient to go getting some mounted camera you would find in a military base. The cameras the police/traffic monitors use most of the time are immovable- except by manually taking a ladder and turning them. Most dont have the ability to move back and forth- they have a fixed spot that they watch. The recordings in these cameras are stored in one of two ways: directly in the camera itself, or relayed to the hub at the nearby station or whereever where the data is stored so it can be reviewed if for instance there was a crime at the point where the camera was looking. Only the most high-tech police stations have the ability to remote-controll cameras or actually keep a constant monitor on every camera. It would be very difficult to rig up a way to spy on peoples homes. And probably very easy to find out who did it.

And it is definately illegal for anyone to spy on private homes, and I dont think Aperson is trying to justify that. He is only showing you a different viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...