The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.
The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday at noon.
Many cities are installing surveillance cameras to monitor and record any possible criminal activities that take place.
Do you like having cameras to record any criminal activity, or are you against it?
Talk about it….
36 comments
The more the better. I for one have nothing to hide.
Ditto!
I have nothing to hide.
Record away. 👍
Okay, as long as the cameras don’t add ten pounds.
we all need babysitting these days and animals to provide our well being.
Sadder than sad
The issue isn’t about recording criminal activity. The issue is that -all- activity is going to be recorded. The camera won’t just start recording when a possible criminal activity starts. And the constant recording – and what will be done with the resultant video – brings with it privacy concerns For instance, what about people that are videoed going in and out of a therapist’s office, or perhaps AA or similar meetings?
That said, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. That horse left the barn a long time ago.
Come on Mary! The police don’t care if someone is going into their therapist’s office or an AA meeting. Just like with the use of home security cameras offered by residents, they are interested in catching criminals, period!
When a crime occurs in an area, and a green Toyota is seen fleeing, the police look at the camera feeds and hope to identify a green Toyota passing. If they get a plate, they identify a POSSIBLE SUSPECT. I highlight that because I know someone will post that the police make arrests based solely on video surveillance. That would be inaccurate as well.
The cameras are used to generate leads. Nothing more. We don’t see people harassed for no reason in cities that already incorporate the cameras. Believe me, if it was occurring, it would be all over the news! It just doesn’t happen.
Got news for you, the horse was never in the barn when it came to an expectation of privacy in public.
Yeah, wait until the “RED FLAG” laws go into effect for gun confiscation. As Mary Fouts pointed out about “ being videoed going in and out of a therapist’s office, or perhaps AA or similar meetings” there’s no end to what it could be used for.
I like my privacy, but there is no expectation of privacy in public. I’m all for cameras in every city. I don’t believe cameras deter crime (bank robbery, shoplifting, etc.) but they certainly aid law enforcement after the fact.
Claycord must be thinking about installing cameras because a lot of cities around here already have them. I have security cameras ringing my house. Any perp would be butt stupid to try to break in.
There are already cameras that are owned and operated by businesses and private citizens all over the place and most of the time we don’t even realize we are being recorded. As far as cities installing cameras go, I’m all for it only if it will not raise taxes.
I don’t know if it helps deter crime, but it certainly helps law enforcement catch the bad guys.
Oops! I’m sorry, I’m not being politically correct. I should have said bad persons. Or is it bad people? Bad folks?
Can’t use “bad”either. They are legal system involved individuals!
How sad is it that they are now a necessity. Thank you Newsom and your fellow democrats.
You are so right.
“I have nothing to hide” is a dubious argument. Participating in a non-violent political rally isn’t illegal, but for some people, being filmed would be a deterrent. Cameras also do have a proven psychological effect on people, even when someone isn’t doing something wrong nor is planning on doing something wrong.
China has a vast surveillance network tied to a behavior monitoring social score program. They allowed that to happen because too many people said “I have nothing to hide” and now people regret it, and are afraid to speak out against the social surveillance. All these tiny mistake they make in public gets documented. Nobody is infallible.
There are so many parts to any camera program. Who in city government gets to the see the footage, how long is data stored, is the data kept local or passed on to the alphabet-soup agencies (NSA, FBI, DHS…), how securely is the data stored? What are the capabilities of the cameras ie: do they have facial recognition technology?
@Natalie – The NY Times has published some very interesting – and disturbing – articles about China’s surveillance network. The country even developed an algorithm to use with the surveillance results, specifically for tracking a Muslim minority group.
Indeed the argument “I have nothing to hide” means what?
It means that people don’t claim to be doing something illegal but ask them “If you have nothing to hide why not let the government keep a directory of who owns what firearms, after all, you have nothing to hide” and watch them freak out.
All of a sudden “I have nothing to hide” is suddenly something verboten…
@ Natalie:
I’m on the fence about the whole surveillance thing – I understand the potential upsides, but it’s the potential downsides that make me squeamish. The hope is that, despite the efforts of leftists, our constitutionally protected rights undergo no further erosion.
One thing though – if an individual is passionate enough about an issue that he or she attends a political rally, why would being filmed be a deterrent?
Great deal on tin foil today.
First gov’t has been able to use your video game cameras and other such devices for almost a decade long before Snowden. Bet your arse if they wanted to watch you they could. Enough tin hat crap and worry.
Second, unlike China we have rights/laws. I assume most anywhere I go I’m being watched. It’s more what do you do you with that. When you do violate my rights I sue. Go ahead try and spin this. Over reacting and you’re already being watched. If not through NSA some perv with some pin hole camera in his time share. That’s where you should be worried.
You know why people don’t get far with a stolen car today? License plate cameras installed all over. Rather than push luck, they dump vehicle nearby parking lot and grab contents. Only the stupid ones continue to drive because those cameras will alert PD then the chase is on. China abuses the people have no rights. Look how CA banned facial recognition by law enforcement. Were more proactive with rights. Can someone abuse sure they can, but in this country we sue and prosecute them. Stop the non-sense. Camera’s in public are most welcomed. Nothing like China.
What’s the point of they’re not prosecuting and locking up the criminals?
Now that’s the only argument against them I support!
Cameras are an interesting technology – they can be mounted easily near all types of locations: pawn shops, grocery shops, gun stores, auto repair locations and all of that data can be categorized, combined with facial recognition, license plates, etc…
And regardless of any “assurances” the government provides – rest assured that the data is kept, is categorized and that the government will know everywhere you went for a nice database full of information at the hands of the government.
LOL – what could possibly go wrong.
It gets better. Private tech companies will actually be in charge of all that data. With zero accountability to you or your rights. Cameras are great but this is sounding like lockdown, not freedom.
All the government need do is simply monitor Instagram or Facebook or Twitter or Yelp any of the other social media sites that people willing post personal information to.
The Government doesn’t need to gather information, people willing provide it… to ANYONE.
It’s a sad state of affairs when adults have to be watched like children.
I wonder how Clayton’s license plate cameras are working out?
Especially with random shootings happening everywhere, something has to be invented to identify from a distance, someone who is packing, any time, any place, perhaps something aimed, like a radar gun.
I’m opposed to constant video surveillance, though I realize it’s pretty unavoidable at this point.
And I disagree with Kirkwood about some kind of long-distance gun-detecting device, since I can see it being used to harass legal concealed carriers.
I do agree with Chicken Little that ways would have to be found prevent misuse of a snooping device. Off the top of my head; how about legal carriers also have a transponder with the weapon or even be implanted in the body like your dog/cat, or your car has.
My thought is for public events like high school football games where there are probably dozens of guns being carried or stored nearby.
The next step might be a weapon that could only be fired by its proper owner.
No person who is obeying the law should have any fear of their image being captured by authorities. I would also happily have speed cameras around as well to remotely cite some of the idiotic speeders that are here. Simple lesson…..obey the law and all is good.
Speed cameras and red light cameras are useless for the most part. A violator need only request a court date and insist upon the right to confront the accuser according to the Sixth Amendment.
If you’re not hiding a kilo of coke in your prison purse, you should have no problem with random roadside body cavity checks. See how stupid that sounds?
sounds like you fight is with the wrong thing
crime is rising and has been embraced by the politicians of this state ..IE prop47
it is now legal to steal ….
so cameras are not for that …they are for the people who think all crime is legal ….and attacking people …I am sure you would want a video of the person who beat on you to send them to prison ….right
illegals have been deemed off limits to prosecution by the ccc DA
unless they use a weapon …ooops not anymore ….they let a multiple border jumper with a record kill that poor citizen and he is free in America today ….wow
so I am sure a video of that altercation would have been great
so either start trashing and demanding better from politicians like hard laws on crime and stop hampering police and downsizing them
or well good luck ….but stand your ground is only for your home on the streets your fare game …and being hunted …and the politicians don’t care
We should concentrate on confining the criminals. If they were already in jail, they wouldn’t be free to break the law over and over.
I don’t mind cameras, as long as the information is not abused. It is helpful when trying to identify someone they are looking for.
But you can’t use them to catch red light runners. I think I would be okay with them if all they did was get the red light runners.
Me to. The ticket revenue would be unbelievable! And a pleasant side effect would be lives saved.
Sure. We need them; thanks to the democrats and their liberal snowflake dimwit supporters, who support, provide for, encourage and love criminals and crime. They are the ones who are responsive for the massive releases from prisons, and the skyrocketing rise in the crime rate and the toll it’s talking on our communities.
As an aid to law enforcement, I can see that they would be very useful. If they caught one murderer they would be worth it. Cameras are so prevalent in Great Britain, it is estimated there is one camera for every 32 people on the island.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/02/cctv-cameras-watching-surveillance
Comments are closed.