Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on February 18, 2006, 11:53:40 AM
-
According to Houston's chief of police, it's a good thing.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Police_Cameras.html
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.
Since the ACLU is opposing this, I'm sure there are some of y'all who will automatically support the police chief, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on why having cameras in our houses is acceptable.
Personally, it sounds like just another item on the 1984 checklist to mark off.
-
Harold needs to have a VHS camera installed up his ass.
don't forget the tripod.
-
Frankly it's been my experiance that Chiefs of Police, being politicians rather than cops, haven't a freaking clue about the real world. They will stand shoulder to shoulder with other politicians in whatever way they think will get them the greatest return. Since almost all are political apointees they are very interested in sucking up to the power structure that put them in office, period. Everything else including the people working for them are secondary. East of the Mississippi it's far worse than west.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Since the ACLU is opposing this, I'm sure there are some of y'all who will automatically support the police chief, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on why having cameras in our houses is acceptable.
Because it makes it safer for the children and it might catch a terrorist.
shamus
-
Liberals you all ! :mad:
-
The thread seems oddly quiet. Touchy subject?
-
I would rather hear how your homebuilt is coming along.
-
Cameras in your house? If you have nothing to hide why would you object? Only people with something to hide would object to this perfectly reasonable suggestion. Remember the police and the government have your best interests at heart:t
-
****HOT*****WATCH CHAIRBOY LIVE ON HIS WEBCAM!!! ***********HOT****
-
I hope they wouldn't put a camera in the toilet, thats where I think a lot.
-
A further thought: I don't suppose the police chief has worked out just where he is going to recruit all the security staff needed to monitor all those cameras.
-
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."
-
Dont know why anyone would want to watch me on camera in the shower
besides hangtime:O
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Harold needs to have a VHS camera installed up his ass.
don't forget the tripod.
Interesting how you can get passed the language filter there:eek:
-
The word was ass, not meekrob.
-
Yet another reason to get rid of that stinking, liberal, america hating, communist, liberal freakshow... The ACLU.
-
RPM: Elaborate please.
-
Oh, sorry. I forgot to use these [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The thread seems oddly quiet. Touchy subject?
nah, just noone wants to admit to agreeing with you...
-
Not to bring up an obvious point, but the only thing camera's will tell you is "Hey, you've just been raped."
Kind of like Intrusion Detection Systems on yr computers, only they are trying to market them as Intrusion Protection Systems.
-
in case the sweedish bikini team stops by for practice
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Not to bring up an obvious point, but the only thing camera's will tell you is "Hey, you've just been raped."
Kind of like Intrusion Detection Systems on yr computers, only they are trying to market them as Intrusion Protection Systems.
Ummm nobody really sells IDS anymore, its all IDP - has been for the last couple of years. Get with the times ;)
-
The true reason they want to install cameras follows
They have surpassed the belief of the boogeyman and monsters hiding under your bed and in your closet. They now think that terrorists are hiding in your room. They want to make sure the boogey osama will not jump out from your closet and rob you of your american treasures such as porn magazines, sheep, beer, and rock music. :rofl
-
This just from experience, and it didn't make the headlines 15 years ago like it has today probably because there was a democrat in the office...
The City of Tacoma installed cameras on several street corners, shopping areas in and around an area called "Hilltop" in Tacoma, that use to be a crime-ridden, crack-dealing area. Low and behold, the ACLU didn't come to the rescue and the the area was cleaned up. Hilltop is now safe to walk after dark. Sure, they added more patrols as well over time since the city is constantly growing, but the cameras did their job. :aok
I'm all for camera surveillence if the community wishes for it. Put it to a vote. What say you, Chairboy?
Similarly, residents of Tacoma, Washington's inner-city Hilltop neighborhood formed the Hilltop Action Coalition to combat the drug dealers, gang members, and prostitutes congregating in their streets. The coalition's director, Darlena Gray, says that residents would ask at block meetings why they couldn't use cameras to discourage crime in their neighborhood the way many business owners use cameras to prevent shoplifting. Because the community overwhelmingly backed such a measure, Gray sought and received a federal grant from the Department of Justice for the six cameras currently in operation.
Three minutes away from the camera locations, at a Tacoma police substation, officers can control the cameras with toggle switches and watch the displayed images on a pair of color monitors. An officer will see crimes in progress on the station house monitors and relay the description of the suspects to officers already in the area, who quickly apprehend them. This system works extremely well, considering that the cameras aren't hidden. According to Tacoma police, drug dealers know they are being watched--occasionally they wave at the camera.
Gray says Hilltop residents are supplementing cameras with other measures to take back control of their neighborhood-- from new fences to strategic lighting--and don't find the cameras intrusive. She says their neighborhood was so ravaged with drug- and gang- related violence before the cameras came that residents couldn't even drive down certain streets, and they welcome the change.
http://reason.com/9705/col.bjtaylor.shtml
From your article, its says "even in houses". The BS flag went up, Chairboy, thats colorful journalism that appears to have sucked even the most highly educated like yourself in...
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.
Hmm, sounds just like Hilltop. The cameras cover wide areas of residentual properties where crime was high. ;) Guess what, the residents voted on it, it passed and its successful. :aok
-
if cameras prevent crime, why do i see all the security camera clips on TV showing crimes being committed?
convenience stores being robbed, girls being abducted from parking lots.
-
Originally posted by john9001
if cameras prevent crime, why do i see all the security camera clips on TV showing crimes being committed?
convenience stores being robbed, girls being abducted from parking lots.
Most of those cameras are not made obvious. Signs pointing out surveillence does wonders for crime. ;)
-
Dallas has installed cameras in Deep Ellum, a notorious party spot. It stopped problems like vandalism, public urination, drug deals, ect. It also caused business to drop at the local bars, cafes and tattoo parlors.It's a double edge sword. The cops are always watching, but then again the cops are always watching.
Rip, before you get all wound up and gung-ho about this, think about Boeing installing a "Rip-cam" and following you all day, everyday, watching your every move and just waiting to can you for 1 slip-up.
-
police chiefs are by and large socialist democrats.
the aclu would probly not say a thing if they only asked for cameras outside of sporting goods stores that sold guns or ammo.
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
Rip, before you get all wound up and gung-ho about this, think about Boeing installing a "Rip-cam" and following you all day, everyday, watching your every move and just waiting to can you for 1 slip-up.
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. (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/jpshakehead.gif)
-
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.
Granted I don't want to be watched all the time but outside your home do you REALLY have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Are you guys against security cameras in Gas Stations as well? I mean who knows who could be watching you buy condoms and a nudy mag? It's also good to point out that those same survailence cameras have helped bring numerous criminals to justice for killings and robberys.......but it's an invasion of your so called privacy in a public place so get rid of them and let the crime spree rein!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:t
Yes the sky is falling run for the hills
-
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.
-
Actually, Rip, that's not true. They're talking about installing them inside homes that have a lot of police calls too.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes: 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.
-
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
-
"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. ;)
-
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
-
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. :aok
-
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.
-
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. (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/jpshakehead.gif)
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.
-
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.
-
1984
i think i will move to america, land of the free and home of the brave.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
"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."
[/B]
EEEGADS that must be because the police where brutla oprresive and the takers of civil rights. It couldn't be because this might have worked.
-
Not sure why you resurrected this thread to talk about public surveillance, this was about the chief of police of Houston advocating the installation of surveillance cameras inside houses.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Not sure why you resurrected this thread to talk about public surveillance, this was about the chief of police of Houston advocating the installation of surveillance cameras inside houses.
once again it never actual said the cameras would go INSIDE your home. It reffered to Private property. It may have said private homes but not once did it say the cameras where going inside.
-
My only comment to this:
Read the book 1984.
Hate crimes, prelude to face crimes?
-
they did not "get rid of crime" , it just moved to another place.
-
You don't need the 2nd Amendment, we've got cameras!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Not sure why you resurrected this thread to talk about public surveillance, this was about the chief of police of Houston advocating the installation of surveillance cameras inside houses.
He was never quoted as saying "In your house". That's spin. His suggestion is to put cameras in neighbors, where houses reside.
Please show me where he ever said "in your house".
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-15-houston-cameras_x.htm
"And if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property", he said.
-
ASSOCIATED PRESS
HOUSTON -- 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.
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.
What part of that isn't clear?
-
This could come in handy, I wont have to install my own remote camera's now, just drop a subpoena on local law enforcement and get a copy all date stamped and everything.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
ASSOCIATED PRESS
HOUSTON -- 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.
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.
What part of that isn't clear?
The lack of saying "inside" private homes. He was referring to cameras outside homes, as in neighbors that are troublesome, and repeat offenders houses.
Originally posted by Chairboy
Not sure why you resurrected this thread to talk about public surveillance, this was about the chief of police of Houston advocating the installation of surveillance cameras inside houses.
-
yup I have to go with rip on this. This is all hystaria based on symantics. It does not actually say "inside the home"
-
It didn't say "inside", but it did say :
"ASSOCIATED PRESS
HOUSTON -- 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.
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing."
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
It didn't say "inside", but it did say :
"ASSOCIATED PRESS
HOUSTON -- 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.
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing."
I like how we all interpret spin. In an apartment complex...not IN an apartment. This is no doubt parking lot survellience.
-
Okay, so when it continues the sentence and ends with "even private homes" the implication is that the video surveillance equipment will be "in ... even private homes.
When you begin a sentence that refers to the placement of something, it applies to every location in the sentence.
-
Kid Rock had over 20 OCSD runs to his 25 acre heavely wooded, gated compound a couple of years ago, I guess he should be all right with cameras being installed all over as long as they are not inside the house?
shamus
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
Okay, so when it continues the sentence and ends with "even private homes" the implication is that the video surveillance equipment will be "in ... even private homes.
When you begin a sentence that refers to the placement of something, it applies to every location in the sentence.
Are you speaking of his direct quote, or the reporters sentence structure. ;)
-
Sentence structure. Guns said IT did not refer to saying inside homes, when it did. He may have not.
-
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing."
Any one who would say something like that would have no problems installing camera's inside private homes.
shamus
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
Sentence structure. Guns said IT did not refer to saying inside homes, when it did. He may have not.
Thus the "spin" comment. :aok
Either way, its proven to work again and again and again. It's worked very well to clean up Tacoma's Hilltop area as I mentioned earlier in this thread.
-
I'll help you out, you still don't get it:
HOUSTON -- 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.
To argue that this "obviously" means parking lots is spin. Additionally, your credibility takes a small hit when you follow that up with an "Either way, its proven to work again and again and again. It's worked very well to clean up Tacoma's Hilltop area as I mentioned earlier in this thread" endorsement of surveillance.
Basically, it sounds like you're saying "they aren't doing it, but if they are, it's a good idea". If that's incorrect, please let me know.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'll help you out, you still don't get it:
HOUSTON -- 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.
To argue that this "obviously" means parking lots is spin. Additionally, your credibility takes a small hit when you follow that up with an "Either way, its proven to work again and again and again. It's worked very well to clean up Tacoma's Hilltop area as I mentioned earlier in this thread" endorsement of surveillance.
Basically, it sounds like you're saying "they aren't doing it, but if they are, it's a good idea". If that's incorrect, please let me know.
Was this reading deficit due to nuture or nature? :huh
Spin it any way you want, Chairboy. The Police chief did not say that, and you cannot quote him because he was not quoted saying that.
-
Then explain to me how you can put a camera IN a street? What effectivness would it have if it was buried IN concrete?
Then by chairboys standard the article must contrdict itself later on when it reffers to a DIRECT QUOTE that says "of the property" NOT in the property.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Was this reading deficit due to nuture or nature? :huh
Spin it any way you want, Chairboy. The Police chief did not say that, and you cannot quote him because he was not quoted saying that.
Rip, I'm quoting the AP article. If you think they got it wrong, lemme know.
-
When you can't debate the point, argue semantics. :rofl
-
It says what it says. Most streets are asphault, not concrete. Some bus stop pads are concrete. They have buried cameras in the asphault to capture the licenses of people running red lights though.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Rip, I'm quoting the AP article. If you think they got it wrong, lemme know.
So it's the associated press that is sudgesting it then? again you are arguing an AP statement and we a direct quote.
-
From http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=3909198:
Chief Hurtt believes it would be cheaper to have the cameras than to hire enough police officers and have them at every street corner. He's even suggesting that those homeowners who have too many calls for service to their homes be forced to install the cameras as well.
It's not just AP. Why are you spinning this?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
From http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=3909198:It's not just AP. Why are you spinning this?
again I don't see where it says cameras IN YOUR HOME. and again i don't see it as a DIRECT QUOTE!
Plus your link is dead. Most articles I have found written on this attibute this to the AP. I am certainly not spinning this I a sceptical that somone could get away with forcing a citizen to install a camera IN there house. I can understand monitoring somone's property if it's a high problem area (not saying I condone that either) Needless to say I have yet to see ANYWHERE that this chief said cameras IN the home. His quote says "of the property" where as the AP is saying "and even homes" after saying "in....streets" To me it looks like spin and bad writing.
-
Chris was immediately ordered to do AA five times per week, and to use no alcohol or any controlled substances. She was required to do regular urine screens and to be placed on a breathalyzer tether until sentencing. This is a rented machine that is placed upon the defendant’s home phone. It has a video camera built into it and a hose sticking out that is attached to a breathalyzer inside. The control center has the defendant’s work and treatment hours and will call two to three times per day, at all hours of the day and night. The defendant is required to place their face in front of the camera and then breathe into the hose. If the defendant tests alcohol-free, he/she can go about their business. If they have been drinking, the machine will pick it up and they are in violation of bond.
This was pasted from this page.
http://www.michbar.org/journal/article.cfm?articleID=532&volumeID=40
Cameras have been put into private homes.
A relative of mine had one of these, when the call came in if they heard voices in the background they would demand to know who else was in the house etc.
I know, I know, I am going to hear about how they are criminals and all and have no rights to privacy and such.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Chris was immediately ordered to do AA five times per week, and to use no alcohol or any controlled substances. She was required to do regular urine screens and to be placed on a breathalyzer tether until sentencing. This is a rented machine that is placed upon the defendant’s home phone. It has a video camera built into it and a hose sticking out that is attached to a breathalyzer inside. The control center has the defendant’s work and treatment hours and will call two to three times per day, at all hours of the day and night. The defendant is required to place their face in front of the camera and then breathe into the hose. If the defendant tests alcohol-free, he/she can go about their business. If they have been drinking, the machine will pick it up and they are in violation of bond.
This was pasted from this page.
http://www.michbar.org/journal/article.cfm?articleID=532&volumeID=40
Cameras have been put into private homes.
A relative of mine had one of these, when the call came in if they heard voices in the background they would demand to know who else was in the house etc.
I know, I know, I am going to hear about how they are criminals and all and have no rights to privacy and such.
shamus
So you are saying that a convicted criminal has the right not to carry out their court appointed sentence or are you just comparing apples to oranges for the fun of it?
Some convicted felons cannot buy fire arms
Some child molesters cannot work at schools or child day care
Some repeat DUI offenders cannot drive a car ever again
Criminals that go to jail lose almost ALL their freedoms so I fail to see how this is valid.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
again I don't see where it says cameras IN YOUR HOME. and again i don't see it as a DIRECT QUOTE!
I am certainly not spinning this I a sceptical that somone could get away with forcing a citizen to install a camera IN there house.
I did not see anything in the above statement about a convicted criminal, care to edit it?
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I did not see anything in the above statement about a convicted criminal, care to edit it?
shamus
nope you are the one that brought the "convicted" part into the equation.
Let me clarify my stance one more time.
I would fully support cameras in PUBLIC locations to include monitoring PRIVATE property from a PUBLIC location IE the street (and not IN the street as the article says, again someone explain that to me)
If you want to monitor parking lots of apartment complexes whos tenents get robbed regularly then yes monitor them by all means. It's no different than putting a cop on a patrol if you ask me.
If a court mandates that you wear a GPS device or have an alcohol breathalizer with camera installed in your home that is the court's decision. The camera is only on when they call, they arent monitoring them 24/7 right?
If you want to commit criminal activity and not get caught you are on your own.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
nope you are the one that brought the "convicted" part into the equation.
Let me clarify my stance one more time.
I would fully support cameras in PUBLIC locations to include monitoring PRIVATE property from a PUBLIC location IE the street (and not IN the street as the article says, again someone explain that to me)
If you want to monitor parking lots of apartment complexes whos tenents get robbed regularly then yes monitor them by all means. It's no different than putting a cop on a patrol if you ask me.
If a court mandates that you wear a GPS device or have an alcohol breathalizer with camera installed in your home that is the court's decision. The camera is only on when they call, they arent monitoring them 24/7 right?
If you want to commit criminal activity and not get caught you are on your own.
Well you and I are getting pretty close to agreement then.
So then you think the Chief would be wrong in compelling homeowners to install cameras as well, bravo.
I was just pointing out that citizens have been forced to install cameras inside thier homes, you seemed to be unaware of that.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Well you and I are getting pretty close to agreement then.
So then you think the Chief would be wrong in compelling homeowners to install cameras as well, bravo.
I was just pointing out that citizens have been forced to install cameras inside thier homes, you seemed to be unaware of that.
shamus
Well yes, I'm as much for the constitution as the next guy. However, I think there is a big difference between a video phone and an actual camera.
One has the option to open a "video phone" while a camera is a different story.
of course disobeying said option would probably result in criminal penalty.