Harumph! Harumph!!

I see nothing wrong with this.

You gotta hand it to Mayor Nickels.

He has a huge ass.

"The reality is, it makes his job harder," said Councilman Tom Rasmussen. "If [Nickels] would include the council in these decisions, we would be able to move things along pay our in-laws or high-school buddies to install and monitor the system.

"But when he acts unilaterally, he's going to get push-back and resistance our kickbacks and re-election photo-ops"

It's sad that so many Americans are willing to submit to 24-hour surveillance.

TFA
Last year, the council held off spending on park surveillance until it had more to go on. Instead, Nickels took some $200,000 out of the parks-department budget and did it.

It's about time someone in the Seattle Mayor's office got out and DID SOMETHING.

Everything is a study -- they need to study parks cameras, they need another study for the 520 bridge, another study for light rail, they need another study for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.....on and on and on....

Seattle is a great place to live, but the majority of the residents just want to sit on THEIR ass and not do anything because it might cost them another $100 a year in taxes.

The more they wait (more like resist), the more expensive things will get.

Your choice, Seattle.

Brown Jenkems: It's sad that so many Americans are willing to submit to 24-hour surveillance.

What, do you have something to hide?

In all seriousness, I have no problem with omnipresent recording devices. I have an issue with the government having omnipresent recording devices. If I had my way, I'd be rigged to record everything I see and here, with software that automatically indexes and organizes that for me. As could all other citizens.

Brown Jenkems: It's sad that so many Americans are willing to submit to 24-hour surveillance.

They're monitoring a park. A public place. Where they have a decent incidence of crime. Not a private place. Not a home. A park. And if they follow through with the pluns to expunge the tapes every two weeks, and use the cameras only when called upon to do so, I see no issue.

I'm all for my privacy. When I'm in private. When I go to work, when I go out, I understand that I'm entering A Place That Isn't Mine, and if people are going to look at me, they've got every right to, even if they're doing it digitally.

The simple fact that you're here on Fark kind of suggests that you're into observing people, and then you criticize people on their willingness to be observed.

Ahem. That should be "plans," not "pluns."

t3knomanser: I have an issue with the government having omnipresent recording devices. If I had my way, I'd be rigged to record everything I see and here, with software that automatically indexes and organizes that for me. As could all other citizens.

Even with that I'm more interested in what the government does with the information than with the mere collection of it. If the available evidence is that they're using it to deter real crime or catch real criminals than I'm OK with it. In this instance, for example, if it turns out that they are indeed erasing tapes after two weeks, that they're not monitoring political protests and that the surveillance produces measurable results than I'm OK with it.

I live near Washington Square Park. It is a center of political protests AND it is (was) a disgusting crime scene at night. The NYPD set up cameras in it. They didn't use it to track people during protests or even to bust people during the smoke-ins (which have actually since moved) -- I have problems with how they do that but they do use actual eyewitnesses and not video. And crime did in fact go down. Way down.

Here's the thing about almost all cameras: they can only see what a person could see. So theoretically we could pay millions and millions of dollars to deploy cops on every corner and not a single person would have a constitutional problem if those cops personally witnessed a crime and took action. Cameras merely perform the same function as all those eyes, but at a fraction of the cost and at a much lower risk of testilying. Frankly, I prefer cameras to people in many law-enforcement situations.

YoSoyElJosh: Brown Jenkems: It's sad that so many Americans are willing to submit to 24-hour surveillance.

They're monitoring a park. A public place. Where they have a decent incidence of crime. Not a private place. Not a home. A park. And if they follow through with the pluns to expunge the tapes every two weeks, and use the cameras only when called upon to do so, I see no issue.

I'm all for my privacy. When I'm in private. When I go to work, when I go out, I understand that I'm entering A Place That Isn't Mine, and if people are going to look at me, they've got every right to, even if they're doing it digitally.

The simple fact that you're here on Fark kind of suggests that you're into observing people, and then you criticize people on their willingness to be observed.

I disagree. Leaving the privacy of my home is not consent to government surveillance.

Surveillance won't stop at just park cameras and traffic monitoring. Every instance makes it that much easier for supposedly well-meaning governments to expand monitoring operations to more aspects of life.

t3knomanser: I'd be rigged to record everything I see and here, with software that automatically indexes and organizes that for me. As could all other citizens.

Everything you see and where?

The Homer Tax: Everything you see and where?

Sorry, I was operating on a dearth of coffee. That has since been resolved.

Manfred J. Hattan: If the available evidence is that they're using it to deter real crime or catch real criminals than I'm OK with it.

I still wouldn't be. A camera is not a cop. A cop can stop a crime, a camera can merely witness it. The analogy is not "putting a million cops on the street"- it's putting a million stoolies on the street. One living cop is worth a million cameras.

Brown Jenkems: Surveillance won't stop at just park cameras and traffic monitoring. Every instance makes it that much easier for supposedly well-meaning governments to expand monitoring operations to more aspects of life.

At the same time, the ability for the citizenry to monitor the government also increases. And other citizens. It's not just surveillance, but also sousveillance.

So the mayor doesn't want to sit around and the debate the issue to death, and instead goes out and get's done what needs gettin' done? I wish we had some more politicians with that kind of gumptsion.

/Been in WAY to many meetings where the importance was lost in all of minute details.

Ah yes, the Seattle City Council. They're the retards who spent over $1 million dollars for public toilets that became havens for crackheads, heroin junkies, and hookers.

We're not talking about "Pretty Woman" or Spitzer's hooker...I'm talking about whores that Quagmire wouldn't even touch.

I'm proud to be part of the Seattle area, but with actions like that, it makes me glad that I live in Lynnwood.

dugitman: "But when he acts unilaterally, he's going to get push-back and resistance our kickbacks and re-election photo-ops something done."

t3knomanser: I still wouldn't be. A camera is not a cop. A cop can stop a crime, a camera can merely witness it.

The available evidence is that cameras can also deter crime. And as I mentioned, while they can mislead by being incomplete they do not lie.

Don't take my statement the wrong way: I like cops. I'm grateful for the cops who protect me every day and believe the majority of them to be entirely honest. But I can't afford enough of them to walk around Washington Square Park all night, and I do recognize that from time to time a suspect shows up all beat up with the cops unpersuasive testimony that the suspect was the aggressor. I'm a huge fan of cameras on patrol cars and during interrogations for that reason -- in most instances the tape backs up the cops' story and that's good, and in a few instances the tape clears an innocent person and/or exposes an corrupt cop and that's even better.

Manfred J. Hattan: The available evidence is that cameras can also deter crime. And as I mentioned, while they can mislead by being incomplete they do not lie.

They displace very specific kinds of crime. They do not deter crime. The evidence is that the crime rates decrease where the cameras are, and increase where they aren't.

You know wot would be neat?

If there was 24 hour a day surrvelleince on public officials.

You know, continual video monitoring with sound just to allow tax payers to find out wot their tax dollas and votes are getting them.

Can you imagine if Cheney and Chimpy had to wear special hats with built in cameras and mics in 'em during all of their waking hours?

Then, we woulda seen wot went on in the lead-up to 9/11. Who sat in on those Cheney's closed door sessions deciding energy policy. Wot Gonzales knew and when he knew it. Whether or not the DOJ was politicised and how them servers were ordered destroyed Etc Etc.

C'mon, if they've got nothing to hide...

Nickels sees the cameras as a deterrent, keeping the parks safe and sound for all - especially the new condo owners who have little to call green.


In Downtown Seattle, the condo craze is alive and well and owners are shelling out an average of $300K-600K for the joy of city living. Richies are spending over $1million.


It's amazing what can get done when rich white condo owners get inconvenienced.

(I live in Seattle)
The Seattle City Council never acts unless the consequences of leaving things alone are immediately obvious and horribly negative. The mayor works with the Council when the Council is willing to work, but expecting him to sit on his hands because they're taking forever is just senseless. The fact that it was faster to get it done without them, and the fact that he -can- get it done without them, make the Council fear for their relevance to the city -- and it's about time they did.

The_Sponge:

Ah yes, the Seattle City Council. They're the retards who spent over $1 million dollars for public toilets that became havens for crackheads, heroin junkies, and hookers.

I'm not here to carry water for the City Council; they're largely a bunch of farkwits. That said, they do hold the legislative authority in city government, and with that comes the power of the purse. If Seattle's citizenry is unhappy with the acts and omissions of the City Council we're free to replace them, but that doesn't mean that the Mayor's office is free to act in a manner beyond its authority under the city charter. Mayor Fivepennies is GWB writ small (I'm referring here to his sphere of political influence and not his fat ass, which is much larger than GWB's) - his reign has been characterized principally by the chutzpah with which he has singlehandedly expanded executive power in contravention of charter authority.

I'm proud to be part of the Seattle area, but with actions like that, it makes me glad that I live in Lynnwood.

Ah, that explains everything. How's your 1982 Camaro running these days?

In the council's defense, Mayor Nickels is a living caricature of a fat cat politician, and I'm fairly sure he was cloned from Norm Dick's toe jam.

quatchi: You know wot would be neat?

If there was 24 hour a day surrvelleince on public officials.

You know, continual video monitoring with sound just to allow tax payers to find out wot their tax dollas and votes are getting them.

Can you imagine if Cheney and Chimpy had to wear special hats with built in cameras and mics in 'em during all of their waking hours?

Then, we woulda seen wot went on in the lead-up to 9/11. Who sat in on those Cheney's closed door sessions deciding energy policy. Wot Gonzales knew and when he knew it. Whether or not the DOJ was politicised and how them servers were ordered destroyed Etc Etc.

C'mon, if they've got nothing to hide...

They'd just lose the recordings somehow.
They do seem to be awfully careless that way...can't seem to keep track of emails, recordings and such about their own gang.

Guess they feel they DO have nothing to hide, since the records aren't even worth a minimum amount of care being taken to preserve them.