On surveillance equipment in the public square.
With the failed bombers in the 07/21 attacks having been captured last week and over the weekend with help from London’s extensive matrix of cameras, there is going to be a push in the coming weeks and months by the ‘leaders’ of cities across the country of installing their own array of cameras to under the guise of catching the bombers who will inevitably come to America.
I think we should start talking about this now so as to get our points and counter-arguments ready for the discussion.
My contributions are these:
1. The only reason the cameras were of any use in catching the failed bombers is precisely because they failed, which is a rarity. Otherwise, the cameras only serve to show the carnage of a suicide bombing in real time.
We do not need cameras to tell us who blew up since bomb forensics experts can tell us that just like they can tell us what material the bomber used.
2. We cannot rely on the cameras to show us the face of the bomber, post-explosion, so as to identify him and his possibly terror ties. Any person with a few brain cells bouncing around can figure out how to make up a disguise that will foil a machine like a camera. A wig and/or fake mustache is easy enough to find and wear to avoid identification.
3. There will never be enough people to be able to watch every live camera on a monitor, so the camera itself will not deter anyone bent on their own destruction and as we have seen in the rise in rates of crime in the UK, the cameras aren’t even detering anyone from killing someone for their iPod.
I don’t consider anything I do outside of my home as ‘private’. Whether it is singing while I’m driving or holding my wife’s hand while we walk down the street, anyone can video tape me and I’m OK with that, provided they are not the government.
Private companies running security cameras or collecting data to figure out how to be more effective in selling, promoting or using their product is just A-OK with me. I’m a capitalist, what can I say.
But the government is a totally different beast entirely, and I mean the term ‘Beast’ in the most affectionate sense of the word. What use does watching me serve the government that is in my best interest?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
None. Nada. Nein. Zed. Zero. Zilch.
Please leave any contribution to the discussion you would like to make either in the comments or in my email box at analogkid – at – softgreenglow – dot – com.
What use does watching me serve the government that is in my best interest?
I can’t think of a single good use for public security cameras.
But.
They’re going to happen. I like Bruce Sterling’s idea – let the Man put up all the cameras he wants. With one restriction, written into law – all the feeds available to the public, no restriction. Including a set of cameras in the monitoring center.
Well that’s a damn lousy way to start a discussion about cameras, at least with me. I agree with 100% of what you said. Every last bit. End of discussion 🙂
bcl
Sorry ’bout that, bcl. I always try to be thouough. I guess it isn’t always a good thing.
And I agree with your idea, bdunbar, but even then, I’d also want access to the monitoring room.
From the Reasonable Nut, who is having TypeKey difficulties:
I have to disagree with you on this one. While I don’t think that it is a particularly brilliant approach to “homeland security”, or whatever you want to call it, given their inane attempts thus far, cameras could only help.
I think you are in error when you state that a suicide bomber can be identified by residue after a successful explosion. That being said, it is important to know who these people are so that they can be traced back to leaders, groups, and money.
If the government wants to watch me scratch my balls at a bus-stop or cart a cased rifle over to my parent’s house, more power to them. They already have all of my info, so the screenshot shouldn’t make a shitload of difference.
I just don’t see the harm in having as much documentation as you possibly can.
I see where you’re coming from, but I still don’t trust them with even that modicum of info.
As for IDing the bomber, the remains of the guy who blew up looks a lot different than that of the victims. And we can usually come up with a finger or usually even a set of them to use for the ID.
I’m a fan of things that will help the Dept of HS, but I just don’t see how this will do it. In fact, that is my biggest complaint about the “Patriot Act’ is that very little in there is actually useful to fighting terrorists.
Sure the multi-phone taps are nice, but the library book thing is insipid. Gun on the aircraft would work, so would profiling, but neither of those items is anywhere in passed legislation.
So until they pass those things,they can stick their cameras where the picture is of its lowest quality.
Another way to look at it is to ask the question – Does it pass the ‘Jews in the Attic’ test? http://www.joehuffman.org/Freedom/JewsInTheAttic.htm
Cameras everywhere make it much, much easier for ‘them’ to keep track of those that idsagree with them.
I was waiting for someone to bring that up, bcl. Thank you.