If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Houston police chief proposes adding cameras to streets, malls, apartments and private homes: "If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"   (chron.com) divider line 358
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

15309 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2006 at 1:52 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



358 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-02-17 08:29:58 AM
i think the first places surveillance cameras and listening devices should be installed is on the foreheads of the POTUS and VPOTUS. After all, if they're not doing anything wrong, they should have no objections to it.
 
2006-02-17 08:34:51 AM
OK, but if they put one in my house, they're going to have to sort through an awful lot of me masturbating.
 
2006-02-17 08:35:43 AM
img207.imageshack.us

When the Police Chief is dead, Magua will eat his heart. Before he dies, Magua will put his supporters under the knife, so the Police Chief will know his ideas will be wiped out forever.

/Thanks to whoever sponsored me for the last few months
//Magua now sad that he doesn't have TotalFark.
 
2006-02-17 08:45:32 AM
Bah, the cops don't need CCTV they need Predator drones with hell fire missles. Bank robberies, car chases, murderers, or just supcious activity shoot the dam missles! Kill the guilty, the innoncent and any fool unlucky enough to be standing in the general area. That will lower your crime rate, not to mention your over crowding problem.
 
2006-02-17 08:49:28 AM
"The goal is for people to feel safe," said Eury, who compared the cameras to those at shopping malls.

How come the goal is about feeling safe. Why isn't the goal BEING safe??? Why Eury Why?
 
2006-02-17 08:54:02 AM
"If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Hurtt told reporters.


Okay who resurrected Chairman Mao?
 
2006-02-17 08:55:09 AM
Galen_Rasputin
I think the suicide bombings would triple. "Meet my demands, or I'm gonna piss this drone off big time, and we're all going to die!"
 
2006-02-17 08:55:57 AM
I think this surveillance thing is alright, so long as the cameras are in public areas. After all, the cam system in England caught the faces of those terrorists who bombed the subway. NYC public cams caught the faces of these savages who jumped a 45 year old guy by the F train station (East Broadway) in early Feb. Without those cams, there would have been nothing on which to base an investigation.

Chicago has a pretty solid surveillance camera w/ microphone system. They've been pretty successful in using that to cut down on crime.

Quite frankly, I think if the cameras can help catch a criminal who commited a rape or murder then it is far more important to keep them than to respect a person's "right to privacy" in a public area. Other than that, I think the cams should be kept out of private areas.
 
2006-02-17 08:56:40 AM
KaponoFor3

They should be both sides best friends. Presence of video evidence in court is extremely important -- the video doesn't lie, and it makes it harder to spin a bullshiat case by either side by nefarious attorneys.


Two words for you - RODNEY KING

Should have been an open and shut case with those cops kicking the shiat out of him being fired and jailed for common assault by your reckoning, since everything was recorded on video?

The cop's attournies sure kept spinning away on that case, picking every little bit of that video apart and injecting enough doubt into the jury preventing justice from being done. Riots ensued and PEOPLE GOT KILLED. Piggies got away with it.

Sure, King turned out to be an asshat, (a lucky "gimme" for the cops imo, it could just have easily been some politician's kid) but the scary thing that could have been anyone even you or I!

Damn I hate crooked cops that get away with shiat.
 
2006-02-17 08:57:57 AM
"If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Hurtt told reporters.

There is actually a good response to this statement. "So you won't mind if we examing your children for signs of sexual, physical or mental abuse? Since you're not doing anything wrong you don't mind, do you?" Of course the person it is aimed at has to have kids but you will get a nice reaction out of them and maybe even a little lightbulb will go off in their head (I know, wishful thinking).
 
2006-02-17 08:59:22 AM
I don't have an issue with cameras in high crime public areas. What I do have an issue with is the idea that it's okay to put it inside a private residance and that you shouldn't care if your aren't doing anything wrong.
That mentality is dangerous.
 
2006-02-17 09:00:26 AM
As a Police officer I LOVE cameras! (In PUBLIC places, of course) At this moment I have control over 35 cameras. Am I looking at people pick their nose? Absolutly not! They are either in a fixed position or on a programmed pattern and I have better thing to do with my time than zooming in on sweater puppies. When a crime is committed, I'll review that particular camera. Simple. They are valuable because they provide me an unbiased witness with perfect memory that can testify in court without fear of retaliation.
 
2006-02-17 09:02:14 AM
netweavr

I am seriously starting to doubt that anyone has read "1984."

Oh, "they" have indeed read it - and use it as their instruction manual.
 
2006-02-17 09:03:46 AM
netweavr "If you aim a camara at a house long enough you'll see inside (blinds aren't closed all the time).

Here's a thought. What if the camara was aimed at the bedroom window of your 15-year old daughter?"

Actually, this legal. A general rule of thumb is that if you stand on public property with a camera you can take pictures of what you see, within reason.
 
2006-02-17 09:05:30 AM
nerfball

I'd agree with you except we're already paying out the ass for this war on drugs. Not to mention the fact that we already ARE paying for people like that. We're paying to house, feed, clothe, and medicate them in prison. We pay for their medical care on the streets. What we are doing isn't working. If we took the money we are spending now on prison care, and used it to HONESTLY educate people about drugs, to rehabilitate the ones who become problems to society I truly think our country would be a better place. Those that just can't rehab, and still are breaking laws can be given harsh sentences. If you can't handle the responsibility, you still have to deal with the consequences.
 
2006-02-17 09:06:08 AM
img149.imageshack.us
 
2006-02-17 09:12:48 AM
Good lord, this guy is the chief of police. I wonder if he even has an education beyond high school. In my experience this is usually the type of argument made by do-gooder types with their heads so far up their asses that they haven't really even considered the issue. Political philosophy classes should be mandatory for all cops so that they can gain some perspective on what their role is and what the rights of citizens are.
 
2006-02-17 09:13:18 AM
thanks Q314

/ass
 
2006-02-17 09:14:19 AM
Timon of Athens: Texas deserves this for producing the current president.

we didn't produce the current president, you farktard
 
2006-02-17 09:15:16 AM
suebhoney

Whoa, great point you added there. Look, having the Constitution is a great thing,the only document that can and will keep the government in check. You misunderstood my point, but I get the feeling you miss a lot of points around here.
 
2006-02-17 09:15:49 AM
smeegle
I don't have an issue with cameras in high crime public areas. What I do have an issue with is the idea that it's okay to put it inside a private residance and that you shouldn't care if your aren't doing anything wrong.
That mentality is dangerous.


What she said. Besides, if I am not doing anything wrong, you don't need to see it. Prove the wrong first.
 
2006-02-17 09:20:24 AM
2006-02-17 02:07:55 AM netweavr [TotalFark]

I am seriously starting to doubt that anyone has read "1984."

/That book must have been a dream of mine.


No, the problem it seems, is some people did read it, and they thought it was a really good idea.
To you and I, it is a cautionary tale. To the ambitious overlord with delusions of global domination and control it's more like a user manual.
 
2006-02-17 09:20:26 AM
Renn McFly: Ohhhhhh yeah, I forgot how royally we screwed up WW1 and 2, not to mention the Civil, Cold, Spanish- American, Revolutionary, 1812,Persian Gulf, etc. Yeah, historically we screwed those up REAL BAD.


Cute. What about all the "wars" and "peacekeeping missions" after WWII? Why wouldn't you mention the Korean War, Vietnam, Serbia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan, or Iraq II?
 
2006-02-17 09:22:24 AM
I'd be as obscene as I could think of for the autorities to see.
 
2006-02-17 09:23:36 AM
Ween
Prove the wrong first.
Good point bubby, I'm no lawyer but I think that is a basic tenet of our legal system.
Besides people would loose that spontaneity to do the nasty on the kitchen table.
 
2006-02-17 09:26:12 AM
England also has a law that states that if your home is invaded and you attack the intruder, you can and will face assault charges, so could it be that the rise in home invasions are due mostly to the fact that England basically handed everyone's homes over to anyone who wanted to break in?

That's ridiculous. You think that all these people whose homes have been invaded would have fought back before, but now don't because they're afraid of prosecution? That just doesn't make any sense. And where does this benefit the home invader (which it would have to, if it is the reason for the rise)? Sure, if their victims fight back, they can complain, but then they're caught as far as the home invasion goes. I just don't see how this would create any extra incentive for home invaders. Or any disincentive for homeowners to fight back.
 
2006-02-17 09:26:27 AM
pedrop357

They told me we had an abysmal historical record, which I proved wrong. I hardly consider, BESIDES Vietnam and Korea, the rest to be major skirmishes, they were small and had minor casualties in correlation to the actual wars we one. And last time I check, the Taliban weren't in control of Afghanistan, and a democratic gevernment is in place. So I consider that o awr in the win column. And Irag 2 isn't over 'till it's over. And by all the servicmen I talk to, think aren't nearly as bad as you think.
 
2006-02-17 09:28:37 AM
Dear Texans,

I love your state. It is a beautiful place with a rich history, nice people and a unique, valuable culture. I'm kind of hoping your dead don't rise up to take vengeance upon the namby-pamby police-state-fellating pale imitations of greatness past you've apparently all become. Go Longhorns.

sincerely,
haplo53
 
2006-02-17 09:35:05 AM
RAKISHI, at least your honest about your liberal views.


"People are stupid"


So the government need to tell us what drugs are legal, hold or hand throughout life, pay for our insurance (becuse we're too stupid to seek out a job that offers benefits) Pay our welfare and benefits (because people are too stupid to get the most basic of jobs). Provide housing to the stupid people, buy them cars, pay for their kids school, (although it won't do much good, because they'll grow up and still be dumb as doorknobs.)And generally tax me out the ass so the stupid people can be coddled and directed on every hard turn there life takes? W


But in the same breath you think cameras for safety are aqn intrusion on our lives?

You guys crack me up. Take a stand and don't vote in '08. I'm tired of you cancelling out my vote.ill someone grab a mop? this guys heart's bleeding all over my floor.
 
2006-02-17 09:38:53 AM
Just break the farking things.
 
2006-02-17 09:41:54 AM
Renn McFly: And last time I check, the Taliban weren't in control of Afghanistan, and a democratic gevernment is in place.

You're forgetting the nice war with the USSR that we helped them fight, you know the one where we trained the Taliban.
 
2006-02-17 09:46:08 AM
So the government need to tell us what drugs are legal, hold or hand throughout life, pay for our insurance (becuse we're too stupid to seek out a job that offers benefits) Pay our welfare and benefits (because people are too stupid to get the most basic of jobs). Provide housing to the stupid people, buy them cars, pay for their kids school, (although it won't do much good, because they'll grow up and still be dumb as doorknobs.)And generally tax me out the ass so the stupid people can be coddled and directed on every hard turn there life takes?

Yes, the government needs to do all these things. Not to coddle people or reward the lazy or stupid. But because we live in a society, and part of that society will include people who cannot or will not make smart decisions, or who won't have all the right oppurtunities, or who will have bad luck and end in bad situations. For whatever reason that these people exist, a society must recognize that these people exist and have some mechanism to provide for them. Otherwise they will cause a lot of other problems for people who do have the means to take care of themselves. Now, if you're advocating anarchy, then I can understand your argument that we shouldn't be doing this. But otherwise, we have to do these things, or some equivalent to live in a functioning society. I don't understand how people don't get that. It also doesn't hurt that it's just the right thing to do.
 
2006-02-17 09:50:05 AM
El_Swino

You see? When I don't take you seriously, I start wiseassing you and the conversation suffers. So sad.

Sad indeed. You should go have some coffee or something. Maybe after you wake up you can try harder. Your whole argument, and I use the term loosely, is pathetic.
 
2006-02-17 09:51:31 AM
AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent
The point is not whether it's good that police can use this to follow criminals, it's more that it gives police more arbitrary power to define who a criminal is.

More to the point, police don't determine who is a criminal and who isn't. Juries do.

Police determine who suspects are. Prosecutors determine who defendants are. But you're not a criminal until a jury says so.

"Law-and-order" people work very hard to forget this.

/there is neither law nor order in arbitrary police power
 
2006-02-17 09:55:09 AM
Renn McFly: RAKISHI, at least your honest about your liberal views.

Liberal? A bit. Mostly I take whatever stance I think is best on an issue, party lines be damned. Granted that is coming from the person who believes a total police state is the best way to ensure freedom. I guess conservatives really went down hill lately.

I cant help but notice the absence of any responses to my points, oh well I guess intelligence isnt a conservative skill anymore either. Then you may have been able to understand such things as context and statements randomly pulled out of context have no meaning however I, as usual, assume too much about those I talk to. A pity really.

So the government need to tell us what drugs are legal,

Historically (and even in modern times, see all the herbal stuff being sold) this was shown to be required, not so much due to stupidity as gullibility and the inherent human nature to scam each other.

pay for our insurance

Not really, private insurance has worked out fine for me so far.

Pay our welfare and benefits (because people are too stupid to get the most basic of jobs)

Too lazy Id say, welfare really needs to be cut back to a bare minimum.

Provide housing to the stupid people, buy them cars, pay for their kids school,

Housing is iffy, depends on the situation at hand although abuse is too easy. Maybe tie it to some work programs, otherwise kick them to the streets. Cars? Meh, I live in a city where the poor take the subway.

School? I dont really mind public schooling, dont see much that private schools could really fix. Teachers need more power altogether, and parents need to be told to stfu a lot more often.

(although it won't do much good, because they'll grow up and still be dumb as doorknobs.)

Most will, mostly due to bad parenting but that is a separate issue.

But in the same breath you think cameras for safety are aqn intrusion on our lives?

Well since youre a moron and made idiotic assumptions, I guess youre wrong yet again. Interesting trend dont you think?
 
2006-02-17 09:57:51 AM
What a joke. This idea that these cameras are going to prevent crime is just marketing. The police are not in the business of preventing crime, and have no responsibility to protect anyone from crime. Their job is convert crime into revenue. These cameras are the most efficient way to do that in a lot of cases, so that means more revenue.

I've said it before, but here it goes again. We need laws that set a limit on how much money a city/county/state can make from law "enforcement".
 
2006-02-17 10:02:15 AM
There was an article in Wired Magazine within the past few years about the coming predominance of CCTV. As cameras get cheaper and easier to network and control, it's inevitable that they will be EVERYWHERE. An interesting suggestion was that the government would be allowed to record anything in public, but ONLY if the feeds were public. That is, they would be on the Internet and available to everyone. That would allow the people to use them as well as provide some reassurance that the cameras aren't being abused.

/it's a tricky issue
 
2006-02-17 10:03:28 AM
Funny...I bet the people that got purged in Stalin's Russia or in the Holocaust thought the same thing..."I'm not doing anything wrong, why worry?"
 
2006-02-17 10:04:40 AM
Okay, Mr. Police Officer, I'll agree to this; however there's a condition...

I am willing to accede to this if - and only if - you are willing to subject EVERY room in every police station everywhere to 'round the clock video AND AUDIO monitoring, with the exception of the rest rooms, which will be subject to audio only. Also, every police car will be so equipped, and every action and word of every police officer on duty will heceforth be public record, as it ought to be. Any attempt by any police officer to tamper with this surveillance will, for administrative purposes, be assumed to be admission of wrongdoing by that officer and subject to immediate termination - with the officer responsible prohibited from ever again working in law enforcement.

Oh... one more thing - the care of the recordings will be entrusted to a third party, not the police themselves. After all, we don't want any tapes to mysteriously go missing when one of your buddies is caught going a little above and beyond his allowed authority.

There, that ought to take care of that Bullshiat.
 
2006-02-17 10:09:03 AM
did this guy ever read 1984? was it inspiration for him? i bet it's on his list of personal banned books that he will never read because it may make him think too hard...kind of like how the president doesn't watch movies that are "overtly violent or sexual in nature"...or really anything beyond cartoons and mild romantic comedies.
 
2006-02-17 10:09:32 AM
Don't know why it made me think of this..

img139.imageshack.us

img109.imageshack.us Move Along, human
 
2006-02-17 10:11:50 AM
phoenie:

That's great but the answer will be no, and there's nothing you can do about it.
 
2006-02-17 10:12:49 AM
I hate that argument so much. "If you're innocent, then it doesn't matter." It makes me mad that people who think like this don't give a shiat about the Constitution and don't give a shiat about America.
 
2006-02-17 10:14:01 AM
Renn McFly: ~ private school should be the only option, to creat competition which will ultimately result in a better education.

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Remember how "Competition" was going to lower everyone's cable bill? Didn't work out so well, did it?

Remember how the "airline deregulation" was going to lower prices and increase service? Didn't do much of that; in fact, it is in the process of killing the national carrier once and for all. I hope you enjoy taking 2-3 different airlines (with 3-4 hour layovers each plane change) to fly from LAX to JFK, when only the regionals are left standing.
 
2006-02-17 10:23:07 AM
I guess I need to clarify my views on humanity. People are in general stupid in a certain short sighted way, maybe selfish is a better term. That doesnt mean theyre incapable of doing anything, humans seem to be very good at abusing the system (loopholes) and each other (scams). Combine that with a lack of socially enforced morality and work ethics (such as seems to be prevalent among poor people) and you have problems.

That is the problem with having all those nice social systems, people will abuse them and the problem will keep getting worse. Children will grow up based on abuse of the system, and that will never go away.

On the other hand, you also cannot underestimate what people would do for power or their own twisted views. Neither can you somehow assume that people arent bastards, and that corruption and abuse of power are non-existent.

Give government too much power in any area and things will just keep growing. Politicians will use it to pass their own laws and please voters. Lobbyists will use it to push their own short sighted and emotional goals. Look at what the inter-state commerce clause has given us, for better or worse. Given enough power a single bad leader can cause disaster, look at what Stalin and Mao did for example. In the US Nixon used the FBI to go after groups which did nothing wrong, simply because they believed in socialism. You think he wouldnt have used the cameras to track all the people he didnt like? Heh, and that included political rivals. The politicians and their stooges have learned from Nixon, he made errors that will not be repeated and so next time we may not find out till its too late.

I dont care what you think about this idea however opening up your arms and saying heres a slippery slope, be my guest is a very dangerous view. Dont accept things because you *think* they *may* be of some use, make sure the proponents have to fight to show that there is an advantage in the current situation.

That is why I found Renn McFlys blank mandate for security so frightening, it gives government a lever with which to push anything onto the people. Its blind and idealistic thinking like that which got us 60million dead in the USSR and China.

There is one last issue related to this, the decisions you make dont magically confine their influence to their immediate surroundings. Society itself changes with things like this, your children will grow up with these cameras, they will view this as normal, and one of them may decide to go one step further (even if no one in the current generation does so). I dont want to see 1984 come about, and that means I cant simply wait till Im certain it will happen and then say stop as it buries me alive.
 
2006-02-17 10:23:22 AM
I totally agree with this, but it doesn't go far enough.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, then why should you object to randomly being stopped and searched? After all, we do that at airports.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, then why shouldn't the government be able to wire tap your domestic phone calls without a court order or warrent? After all, it makes sense for international calls.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, then why would you object to having your inernet usage or the library books that you read tracked?

Jeesh, this is America, and we and we are in a time of war!
 
2006-02-17 10:26:53 AM
Seems doubleplusgood to me.
 
2006-02-17 10:32:49 AM
I don't necessarily mind cameras in public areas, but I really like that idea about keeping these video feeds open and accessible to the general public... I think this would keep the watchers at least somewhat honest. After all, the cops shouldn't have anything to hide either, right?
 
2006-02-17 10:34:49 AM
Ditto

Your whole argument, and I use the term loosely, is pathetic.

Possibly, but at least I've made one. "Pathetic" is not, by itself, any sort of meaningful point, and you're given to making these one-word dismissals in the place of reason and evidence.

Anyway, we're done. I've tried, in a fairly polite fashion to make my point to you and this is what you come back with. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2006-02-17 10:39:12 AM
Ditto: If it did turn out that they are/were found guilty, you just proved that abusing the system will get your ass thrown in jail.


So you're pretty sure that most of those who would abuse the system will be caught and punished?

Ah, for the good ole days, when I was certain about everything.
 
Displayed 50 of 358 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report