41 ms·

I consider myself a "civil libertarian," in the sense of caring about the preservation of liberty -- but I don't have a problem with this. Well-placed targeted

by Kadin 17y ago

I consider myself a "civil libertarian," in the sense of caring about the preservation of liberty -- but I don't have a problem with this. Well-placed targeted enforcement and surveillance are good things; without them, as people start to feel more and more threatened by crime, you start to get more demands for everpresent surveillance and UK-style CCTV. Using targeted surveillance on a case-by-case basis seems like an excellent way to head that off. Also, I think it's good that having cameras pointed at your house still carries a strongly negative connotation. When people stop caring that they're being watched all the time, that's when you know you're heading down the road to a surveillance society.

grandalf 17y ago
I do have a bit of a problem with it. Suppose if rather than a truck it were a giant scarecrow with cameras, placed facing the house of people suspected of having committed a crime. Is the average person allowed to own a vehicle with cameras and park it outside the home of someone they don't like? It seems like blatant harassment.
- tedunangst 17y ago
  "Is the average person allowed to own a vehicle with cameras and park it outside the home of someone they don't like?" Yes.
  - grandalf 17y ago
    I know parking there is legal, but I suspect if the vehicle had cameras trained on the house it would be considered harassment.
    - sokoloff 17y ago
      While I don't necessarily condone it, I don't see how parking in a public place taking camera pictures of things in plain public view would actually be harassment. Google street view mapping of public roads and views accessible from same is perfectly legal, right? (and perfectly reasonable, right?) Why would this not be legal?
      - electromagnetic 17y ago
        Taking pictures wouldn't be illegal from a public place, similar to google's street view. Taking multiple pictures over a prolonged time could likely fall under harassment laws, depending on your state or country. Videoing someone else's property, if done on purpose, is illegal, unless you have a valid reason for doing so. If your neighbour has 'violated the peace', IE noise disturbance (that you called the cops for) or something else but has been warned but not charged, then you can video tape someone else's property. If they're on the sexual offenders list or have a suspended sentence, or have been convicted of any crime that hasn't expired from their record. For example, your neighbour could have shoplifted, which IIRC stays on their record for 5-10 years after their punishment is served, you can legally record them (if you suspect them of other illegal activity, not because you're a pervert) until this time is spent. If you're recording them after this has expired, you're likely breaking the law and you're 100% open to a civil suit. However, if you have a neighbour you feel is dodgy, simply place a CCTV on your property to monitor a part of your property so it accidentally catches the other persons property (this has been proven legal in the UK, USA, CA, NZ and Australia, AFAIK). If you think your neighbour is doing something illegal in their back yard, but can't prove it, well you can legally video tape your back yard with a wide angle lens. Audio recording someone else's conversation is definitely illegal; conversations are considered private, unless you're included in them. Public property is a different matter, but anywhere on private property is a crime, even if it is your private property, if the conversation doesn't include you it's still a crime. Basically, if what you're photographing, and to some extent video taping and even less audio taping, what you could see or hear from the road if you stood there for 8 hours then that's legal. If you're purposely pointing the camera through windows, or any audio recording of their property, then you're getting yourself in a dangerous position. If your neighbour shouts and screams and can be heard on your property, that's legal to record. Laws vary between countries, but generally if there's laws to protect you from the police doing said action, you definitely shouldn't be doing it. Also be careful, it can be illegal to photograph someone without their express permission, even on public property. I know a photographer got fined $1,000 here in Canada for photographing a girl in a bikini without asking. She told him to delete the photograph, he didn't. He was fined $1,000 by the police, and I believe she dropped civil action against him due to the police record, I think he was liable up to $25,000 in the small claims court she was taking him through. So, personally, I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns. There's no sense putting yourself at risk for cash. In this case, if the cops are just sat there in a surveillance van, not surveillancing anyone then it's legal. If they put it on a street with a known high crime rate, it's okay. If they put it on your street because of you, that's harassment.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    That depends a lot on local laws an mores; reaction to Google Street View photos has been been far more negative in some jurisdictions than the US. Also, to the extent focused surveillance reveals anything of interest -- times of comings and goings; activity behind windows; children's play activities -- I suspect most US jurisdictions would have a problem with 24-hour video surveillance of property you don't own.
  - blhack 17y ago
    You may wish to visit this website: http://maps.google.com http://maps.google.com. Pick a location, then hit "street view".
    - grandalf 17y ago
      funny,... but it just snaps a single picture, and in no way monitors what is going on at street level.
      - brandon272 17y ago
        Is there a big difference, from a legal perspective?
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    You might want to educate yourself about harassment law.
- chrischen 17y ago
  Yea but the people were being harassed by the illegal activity first. Also the truck was an eyesore for criminals. normal people would actually like it if cops were nearby preventin' crime.
  - grandalf 17y ago
    Normal people always imagine that there is no way they would ever be considered criminal enough to themselves warrant such treatment... It sounds like this is your view.
    - chrischen 17y ago
      What treatment? It's a scarecrow, not a killer scarecrow. Yes it's my view in that I am not a drug dealer, it is preferable for me to have this in front of my house (granted there is a drug dealing/violent illegal activity in my neighborhood) to warrant it.
      - grandalf 17y ago
        If you trust law enforcement officials to do this, then why not require far more detailed surveillance as a matter of course, in the name of preventing criminality?
        chrischen 17y ago
        Why would I want far more surveillance? I want what's enough to get those damn drug dealers out of my yard! Is that too much to ask without slipping off your slope!?! First of all that truck was not meant as surveillance. You'll have read in the article that they used the cameras mainly as a deterrent. These cops are just trying to help. Why make it seem like they're trying to start the next totalitarian regime? So I ask you, is there anything explicitly wrong about their limited use of cameras and a police van, without going into what it could lead to?
        grandalf 17y ago
Semiapies 17y ago
"as people start to feel more and more threatened by crime" Yes, despite crime rates in a long-term decline in the US, at least there are folks like you to push the idea that people should feel more and more "threatened" so as to accept measures like this.

by Kadin 17y ago

grandalf 17y ago

I do have a bit of a problem with it. Suppose if rather than a truck it were a giant scarecrow with cameras, placed facing the house of people suspected of having committed a crime. Is the average person allowed to own a vehicle with cameras and park it outside the home of someone they don't like? It seems like blatant harassment.

tedunangst 17y ago
"Is the average person allowed to own a vehicle with cameras and park it outside the home of someone they don't like?" Yes.
- grandalf 17y ago
  I know parking there is legal, but I suspect if the vehicle had cameras trained on the house it would be considered harassment.
  - sokoloff 17y ago
    While I don't necessarily condone it, I don't see how parking in a public place taking camera pictures of things in plain public view would actually be harassment. Google street view mapping of public roads and views accessible from same is perfectly legal, right? (and perfectly reasonable, right?) Why would this not be legal?
    - electromagnetic 17y ago
      Taking pictures wouldn't be illegal from a public place, similar to google's street view. Taking multiple pictures over a prolonged time could likely fall under harassment laws, depending on your state or country. Videoing someone else's property, if done on purpose, is illegal, unless you have a valid reason for doing so. If your neighbour has 'violated the peace', IE noise disturbance (that you called the cops for) or something else but has been warned but not charged, then you can video tape someone else's property. If they're on the sexual offenders list or have a suspended sentence, or have been convicted of any crime that hasn't expired from their record. For example, your neighbour could have shoplifted, which IIRC stays on their record for 5-10 years after their punishment is served, you can legally record them (if you suspect them of other illegal activity, not because you're a pervert) until this time is spent. If you're recording them after this has expired, you're likely breaking the law and you're 100% open to a civil suit. However, if you have a neighbour you feel is dodgy, simply place a CCTV on your property to monitor a part of your property so it accidentally catches the other persons property (this has been proven legal in the UK, USA, CA, NZ and Australia, AFAIK). If you think your neighbour is doing something illegal in their back yard, but can't prove it, well you can legally video tape your back yard with a wide angle lens. Audio recording someone else's conversation is definitely illegal; conversations are considered private, unless you're included in them. Public property is a different matter, but anywhere on private property is a crime, even if it is your private property, if the conversation doesn't include you it's still a crime. Basically, if what you're photographing, and to some extent video taping and even less audio taping, what you could see or hear from the road if you stood there for 8 hours then that's legal. If you're purposely pointing the camera through windows, or any audio recording of their property, then you're getting yourself in a dangerous position. If your neighbour shouts and screams and can be heard on your property, that's legal to record. Laws vary between countries, but generally if there's laws to protect you from the police doing said action, you definitely shouldn't be doing it. Also be careful, it can be illegal to photograph someone without their express permission, even on public property. I know a photographer got fined $1,000 here in Canada for photographing a girl in a bikini without asking. She told him to delete the photograph, he didn't. He was fined $1,000 by the police, and I believe she dropped civil action against him due to the police record, I think he was liable up to $25,000 in the small claims court she was taking him through. So, personally, I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns. There's no sense putting yourself at risk for cash. In this case, if the cops are just sat there in a surveillance van, not surveillancing anyone then it's legal. If they put it on a street with a known high crime rate, it's okay. If they put it on your street because of you, that's harassment.
- gojomo 17y ago
  That depends a lot on local laws an mores; reaction to Google Street View photos has been been far more negative in some jurisdictions than the US. Also, to the extent focused surveillance reveals anything of interest -- times of comings and goings; activity behind windows; children's play activities -- I suspect most US jurisdictions would have a problem with 24-hour video surveillance of property you don't own.
- blhack 17y ago
  You may wish to visit this website: http://maps.google.com http://maps.google.com. Pick a location, then hit "street view".
  - grandalf 17y ago
    funny,... but it just snaps a single picture, and in no way monitors what is going on at street level.
    - brandon272 17y ago
      Is there a big difference, from a legal perspective?
- Semiapies 17y ago
  You might want to educate yourself about harassment law.
chrischen 17y ago
Yea but the people were being harassed by the illegal activity first. Also the truck was an eyesore for criminals. normal people would actually like it if cops were nearby preventin' crime.
- grandalf 17y ago
  Normal people always imagine that there is no way they would ever be considered criminal enough to themselves warrant such treatment... It sounds like this is your view.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    What treatment? It's a scarecrow, not a killer scarecrow. Yes it's my view in that I am not a drug dealer, it is preferable for me to have this in front of my house (granted there is a drug dealing/violent illegal activity in my neighborhood) to warrant it.
    - grandalf 17y ago
      If you trust law enforcement officials to do this, then why not require far more detailed surveillance as a matter of course, in the name of preventing criminality?
      - chrischen 17y ago
        Why would I want far more surveillance? I want what's enough to get those damn drug dealers out of my yard! Is that too much to ask without slipping off your slope!?! First of all that truck was not meant as surveillance. You'll have read in the article that they used the cameras mainly as a deterrent. These cops are just trying to help. Why make it seem like they're trying to start the next totalitarian regime? So I ask you, is there anything explicitly wrong about their limited use of cameras and a police van, without going into what it could lead to?
        grandalf 17y ago

Semiapies 17y ago

"as people start to feel more and more threatened by crime" Yes, despite crime rates in a long-term decline in the US, at least there are folks like you to push the idea that people should feel more and more "threatened" so as to accept measures like this.