3 ms·

People who argue very strongly against government intrusion often seem to ignore the distinction between private and public spaces. I have no problem with any a

by ppod 13y ago

People who argue very strongly against government intrusion often seem to ignore the distinction between private and public spaces. I have no problem with any amount of recording equipment in public spaces. Anywhere that a policeman could stand and watch; I see a camera as an efficient aid. I won't let a policeman into my house unless they have a warrant - and not because I have anything to hide, but because upholding the principle is important.

bennyg 13y ago
Then surely those cameras should be available to the public as well. If anywhere a policeman can stand also counts as anywhere anyone can stand, and if it's a public space as you say, then the people have just as much right to see what's going on as the police. Public is public, right?
- BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
  Is that not already the case with, for instance, police dash cams? Can't those be requested via the FOIA? (Except when the department decides the footage is "missing"/"corrupted"/"accidentally deleted"/etc., of course)
MereInterest 13y ago
There is a distinction between public and private places, but there are also grades of privacy. If I am in my own home, I expect that no one will be watching me. If I am on a podium in front of a crowd, I expect that everyone will be watching me. If I am walking in a public area, I expect that only people who know me will notice me. It is that last expectation that omnipresent cameras shatter.
nitrogen 13y ago
The difference between a person and a camera is that people get tired, miss things, have to eat, and cost a lot more money to maintain. For this reason, people are deployed only where necessary, while cameras can be deployed much more widely. It is the weighing of cost associated with sending a person that used to protect privacy in public places, but with electronic surveillance we lose that cost consideration as a check against surveillance.
betterunix 13y ago
"I have no problem with any amount of recording equipment in public spaces." I do, because it increases the power of an already too-powerful police force. America is the world leader in throwing people in prison, we really do not need to give the police any more tools.

by ppod 13y ago

bennyg 13y ago

Then surely those cameras should be available to the public as well. If anywhere a policeman can stand also counts as anywhere anyone can stand, and if it's a public space as you say, then the people have just as much right to see what's going on as the police. Public is public, right?

BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
Is that not already the case with, for instance, police dash cams? Can't those be requested via the FOIA? (Except when the department decides the footage is "missing"/"corrupted"/"accidentally deleted"/etc., of course)

MereInterest 13y ago

There is a distinction between public and private places, but there are also grades of privacy. If I am in my own home, I expect that no one will be watching me. If I am on a podium in front of a crowd, I expect that everyone will be watching me. If I am walking in a public area, I expect that only people who know me will notice me. It is that last expectation that omnipresent cameras shatter.

nitrogen 13y ago

The difference between a person and a camera is that people get tired, miss things, have to eat, and cost a lot more money to maintain. For this reason, people are deployed only where necessary, while cameras can be deployed much more widely. It is the weighing of cost associated with sending a person that used to protect privacy in public places, but with electronic surveillance we lose that cost consideration as a check against surveillance.

betterunix 13y ago

"I have no problem with any amount of recording equipment in public spaces." I do, because it increases the power of an already too-powerful police force. America is the world leader in throwing people in prison, we really do not need to give the police any more tools.