Cameras in your house

[vorticon]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Most of those cameras are not made obvious. Signs pointing out surveillence does wonders for crime.

yeah but you`d have to be a damn fool to think a convenience store doesnt have a camera...the problem is, the crooks know there usually set up at poor angles and have bad resolution.

[Chairboy]

Actually, Rip, that's not true.  They're talking about installing them inside homes that have a lot of police calls too.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yet another miss-leading thread title from Chairboy.  There was no reference in the entire article about having a camera IN YOUR HOUSE.  It said complex wich means outside.  

Did you even read the article?  First line is this:

Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.

No need to attack Chairboy.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Curval
Did you even read the article?  First line is this:

Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.

No need to attack Chairboy.

Yes because no where in the article does it say IN the homes.

Building permits should require malls and large apartment complexes to install surveillance cameras, Hurtt said. And if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property, he said.

This paragraph says OF the property, NOT in the home.  The paragraph you quoted is missleading.  You can't put a camera IN the streets you put them ON the streets.  The IN part is talking about IN the malls.  It would be more accurate if it said IN malls, ON streets, and ON homes/private property.

THERE IS NO PRECIDENCE FOR POLICE TO INSTALL CAMERAS IN THE HOMES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without a warrent for some type of sting/survailence.......wich would require probable cause of a crime being committed.  

There is no way this would hold up in a court of law.  The police know this, they'd be stupid to do this.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by vorticon
yeah but you`d have to be a damn fool to think a convenience store doesnt have a camera...the problem is, the crooks know there usually set up at poor angles and have bad resolution.

Actually you have to be a damn fool to rob a convenience (or any other type fo business) in the first place. The criminals do not "know" how the cameras are set up, they aren't thinking much at all or they would not be criminals.  Risking a multi-year prison sentence for a robbery of less than $200.00 is hardly the sign of intelligence. Using a weapon or threat of a weapon and making it agravated robbery with a mandatory addition to the original sentence makes the concept even more stupid. Then again if they weren't stupid or strung out or terminally lazy they likely wouldn't be criminals either. These are NOT nice people.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes because no where in the article does it say IN the homes.

 

This paragraph says OF the property, NOT in the home.  The paragraph you quoted is missleading.  You can't put a camera IN the streets you put them ON the streets.  The IN part is talking about IN the malls.  It would be more accurate if it said IN malls, ON streets, and ON homes/private property.

THERE IS NO PRECIDENCE FOR POLICE TO INSTALL CAMERAS IN THE HOMES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without a warrent for some type of sting/survailence.......wich would require probable cause of a crime being committed.  

There is no way this would hold up in a court of law.  The police know this, they'd be stupid to do this.

That makes me feel much better, what I do inside the structure with the shades closed is still private.

What I do in the pool or hot tub or behind the hedge is open to government surveillance, got ya.

What about folks that have a few acres, do we need multiple cameras with zoom, tilt and pan to cover the whole area so we dont miss anything?

Maybee we need to count how many beers Gunslinger is having at his next BBQ so his C.O. can factor it into his fitness report, I know it can NEVER!! happen.

shamus

[Curval]

"This paragraph says OF the property, NOT in the home. The paragraph you quoted is missleading. You can't put a camera IN the streets you put them ON the streets. The IN part is talking about IN the malls. It would be more accurate if it said IN malls, ON streets, and ON homes/private property."

Look, I don't want to argue semantics but you most certainly can put cameras "in" city streets.  It is common terminology.  Your arument using "on" is foolish.  If you put a camera ON a street it will get run over and broken.  Neener neener.

I'm not arguing that the author of the article isn't trying to tug at the emotions of the reader...he or she most certainly is.  Hardly Chairboy's fault though.

The issue of using camera survellience at all is the issue at hand as I understand it, not where they are specifically located.  It is all very 1984 and completely foreign to American ideals of life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.    

We have some here in Bermuda in Hamilton.  They SUCK, but mostly because they have an issue of manning the monitors, as someone already pointed out, storing recorded video footage, and I am not aware of any case in which their use has actually been used as evidence to convict a crimminal..and bear in mind that this is a tiny city ON  ( ) a tiny island.  Not alot of hard core crime to see, I'll grant you, but we do have lots of nasty little scooter theives though.  

[Ripsnort]

anyone that buys into the fact that the Houston police chief thinks cameras in homes is the same person that a used car saleman drools over when you walk onto the lot.....gullible. Chairboys title is almost misleading as the press that covered it.

ANyway, Chicago thinks its a good idea too (Isn't Daley a democrat? )
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-14-chicago-cameras_x.htm

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Shamus
Because it makes it safer for the children and it might catch a terrorist.

ROFL! Great post - just about sums up the Bush/Blair era.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
ANyway, Chicago thinks its a good idea too (Isn't Daley a democrat? )
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-14-chicago-cameras_x.htm

Daley is a corrupt, thieving idiot.  If you're holding him up as a moral compass (and using his interest in this as a barometer for how good of an idea these cameras are), then your credibility just took quite a hit.

Remember Meigs.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Thats the problem rpm, perception. The press is blowing this totally out of proportion and you're buying it.  Installing cameras in high crime areas, if voted in by residents, *is* the cure for lowering crime. Its been proven. No one is talking about Bedroom cams, or Work cams.

     I think it has very little to do with "lowering" crime.  I think it has alot
more to do with relocating crime to non-camera covered areas.

[Gunslinger]

If you think the police are going to put cameras IN your home you are mistaken.  There is no way that's possible.

Curv, apartments allready have cameras outside that are used for security reasons.  Same with Hotels and such.  The highways allready have cameras on them.  There's not much place you can go without having a camera on you.  If you go outside you really don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[john9001]

1984


i think i will move to america, land of the free and home of the brave.

[Ripsnort]

Looks like more camera surveillence is striping away constitutional rights to deal crack!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-04-03T152029Z_01_N31349215_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-NEWJERSEY.xml&rpc=22

EAST ORANGE, New Jersey (Reuters) - Lenox Avenue in suburban East Orange was long a hotbed of drugs and gun mayhem and one of New Jersey's toughest streets. But Big Brother has cleaned it up.

Police here say that thanks to new technology there has not been a single violent crime in almost a year on a street where the notorious Bloods gang sold $10 hits of crack cocaine and drive-by shootings were once commonplace.

Now high-tech cameras and gunshot sensors are mounted at each end of Lenox Avenue, and on many other East Orange streets. The residential avenue of mainly multifamily homes is blocked from traffic and, with the exception of the 24-hour police presence, it looks as tranquil as most New Jersey suburbs.

"There's no drug dealers or nothing here. They all left," said Andre Davis, 15, riding his scooter on Lenox. "There's no gang bangers, no drugs. The cops done a good job."

The effort is part of a push to reverse a trend which saw the town -- once a middle-class suburb of executives who took a 30-minute train ride to Manhattan -- reverse a decline sparked by the deadly 1967 race riots in neighboring Newark, which gradually transformed the town into a slum populated almost entirely by lower-income blacks.

"This was once a very prominent city and a very safe place to live," said East Orange Police Director Jose Cordero of the town of about 70,000 people, whose Central Avenue was once called "the Fifth Avenue of New Jersey."

More recently, Cordero said, "People were fearful of not being able to walk their streets."

The veteran New York City police officer took the top job here in 2004 and says homicides dropped to a 25-year low of 14 in 2005, down from 22 in 2003. Overall crime is at a 20-year low.

Last summer, police installed cameras in crime-ridden neighborhoods and on the city's commercial center, each equipped with sensors that can detect the sound of gunfire. Police use the cameras to zoom in on certain streets and virtually "walk" down the pavements looking for crime.

DONATED TECHNOLOGY

In what local cops call "The Brain Room," a half-a-dozen officers monitor large flat-screen televisions showing street activity. And a "Virtual Community Patrol" allows residents to view panoramic still pictures of their block and report crimes to police using their home computers.    Continued ...

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by rpm
Dallas has installed cameras in Deep Ellum, a notorious party spot. It stopped problems like vandalism, public urination, drug deals, ect.  

Hehe. Yea, it`s working like a charm.
If you missed the news last night, there was a pretty lengthy spot concerning the ever increasing crime rate in Deep Ellum. On Friday, the illustrious mayor and entourage are scheduled to do a walk through to have a little look see. The majority of the crimes are being commited on the streets and sidewalks. The proposed solution? To charge businesses in the area for a special use license. Great thinking there. The place was ready for a dozer, then businesses rebuilt, cleaned up and made the area profiable. Now law enforcement is not doing the job they are supposed to do, so you charge the business owners more money. Jesse James at least used a gun for his robberies.