Kyro: dittybopper: Ah, the old "blood will run in the streets" scenario that was trotted out before every single state that enacted "Shall Issue" CCW permits passed those laws, that hasn't come to pass.

[www.vpc.org image 640x157]

/Despite those numbers, I think we have bigger problems than to worry about than CCW permits - like keeping f*cking crazy people from buying guns in the first place

How do these stats line up with murders committed by people who have been deemed not sane enough to own a weapon? If I remember correctly the VT shooter was mentally ill and should not have been able to purchase or own a gun.

Zasteva: Technical limitations like longer load times can be easily overcome with good design. Automatic image enhancement and movement detection can make it easier to see something on the screen than with the naked eye. Tie it to the GPS on on the phone and it could automatically preload the feeds for what is ahead of you. And that's assuming the cameras don't have any additional imaging capability, like infrared or low light capabilities.

My point wasn't about the sufficiency of smartphone technology, but maybe you're being intentionally obtuse. My point was that walking around late at night checking your smartphone, fast loading app or not, makes you a target for crime. It makes you less aware of what is happening around you, and makes you an attractive target, not only because you'll be easy to jump, but because you've got desirable technology on you and some kook can see it plainly.

The cameras won't keep you from getting jumped and robbed by someone who doesn't care about them, and students shouldn't rely on them at the expense of common sense.

Kyro: Joe Blowme: So, what other constitutional rights are you wanting to take away from them because of "youth, inexperience, naivity, drunken parties and rapid hookups" ?

You have the constitution right to own a firearm. Not take it everywhere with you because you're afraid of boogiemen.

Boogiemen? You have no idea what happened at VT do you? try getting out or your moms basement once in a while and see the real world. Its ok, we know the mere sight of a gun makes you pee.

Let's not kid ourselves. The primary use for these cameras day to day will be to zoom in on the young coed's tits and asses.

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: Let's not kid ourselves. The primary use for these cameras day to day will be to zoom in on the young coed's tits and asses.



I am in favor of this aspect

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: Let's not kid ourselves. The primary use for these cameras day to day will be to zoom in on the young coed's tits and asses.

Other than the punctuation error,

Pro Zack: I.... I don't?

No, you don't. Oh, and only *you* can prevent forest fires.

Bet you didn't know you'd have these added responsibilities when you woke up this morning.

king_nacho: Page not found

Remove the space from the URL. Or, click here.

stevarooni: king_nacho: You can't prevent nutcases from being nutcases, but you could potentially direct first responders to the area faster and with better accuracy. You could also quickly identify a false alarm.

Both directing first-responders and preventing false alarms could also be addressed by training campus personnel (including teachers), limited camera installation...lots of things to do that don't involve making the campus seem like a fishbowl for intrusive cameras.

Cameras won't prevent false alarms. They'll make them even more common. There was a situation a year or so ago on a campus where a student carrying an umbrella in his backpack was ID'ed as having an "assault weapon", and the police went ape-shiat looking for him. Cameras showed the student definitely having "something" sticking out of his backpack, and the security folks decided it had to be a gun.

king_nacho: monoski: king_nacho: monoski: NightOwl2255: insano: ...without intruding on the privacy of thousands of others.

Cameras in public places do not intrude on the privacy of anyone.

But they do border on the crossing the border into violation of personal privacy. You know one of them there constitutional rights.

Which one? You don't have a right to not be on camera when in public. They can't convict people for taking upskirt pictures of people exiting cars in public.

Really??? http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-upskirt-pictures-costa-mesa,0,50 0697.story

that was inside a store, and while the article is lacking in details, sounds like he was holding the camera up her skirt, not catching a shot while she was exposed.

Do a quick google search for "man arrested for upskirt photos" there are so many hits. You can be arrested for this.

king_nacho: that was inside a store, and while the article is lacking in details, sounds like he was holding the camera up her skirt, not catching a shot while she was exposed.

Do a quick google search for "man arrested for upskirt photos" there are so many hits. You can be arrested for this.

Arrested yes, convicted is where they run into problems.


BRIGHTON, Colo. -- An Adams County judge has sentenced a man to four years in the county jail after finding he took "upskirt" photos of a woman

how about some bootleg hot lesbian dorm footage, you know in the interest of "security"

Wellon Dowd: Zasteva: I mean, if your child can use a smartphone app to call up the feed from around the corner or down the alley as they are walking home late at night, doesn't that empower them to avoid a dangerous situation in the first place?

What do kids who can't afford smartphones do?

Whatever they currently do. Walk home in groups, try to avoid walking past dark alleys, crash at a friend's house. I'm suggesting this could give people additional options, not rely exclusively on smart phones apps and cameras for all your security needs. There is no substitute for common sense.

But, if we just have the cameras and they remain exclusively controlled by the police and not accessible to the public at large, they can't provide those benefits.

strapp3r: only a matter of time before i get busted for a public whizz

You'll wish this was a rickroll.

serial_crusher: Law and policy restrict the areas where the cameras can be used, and with tighter controls and a centralized system, privacy will be better protected, Foust said.

The cameras may be placed only in areas where the public has no reasonable expectation of privacy, including parking garages and lots, sidewalks and other public areas.

There are many places where cameras may not be placed, including the hallways inside dormitories, which are considered residences, Foust said.

Oh no, it's just like 1983 all over again!

When you make privacy difficult, you can never expect to have it.

'Expectation of privacy' is a phrase that has almost had its meaning twisted/tortured to a similar extent as 'interstate commerce'.

king_nacho: monoski: king_nacho: that was inside a store, and while the article is lacking in details, sounds like he was holding the camera up her skirt, not catching a shot while she was exposed.

Do a quick google search for "man arrested for upskirt photos" there are so many hits. You can be arrested for this.

Arrested yes, convicted is where they run into problems.


BRIGHTON, Colo. -- An Adams County judge has sentenced a man to four years in the county jail after finding he took "upskirt" photos of a woman

I don't mean to be rude, but you are really having a hard time understanding what these articles are saying, this guy was convicted for placing a camera specifically to look up their skirts, he went out of his way to get those images. She was waiting inline inside private property, not getting out of her car leaving her crotch in view and somebody happened to grab a pic.

One is an invasion of the personal space, the other is not. They've tried to convict people of the random pic, and have failed miserably. Essentially, my point being, if you do something in public, and somebody takes a picture, then you have no expectation of privacy.

If you are standing somewhere, and somebody comes up and invades your personal space, then that is different.

What about telephoto lenses? Or parabolic mics.

(Sadly some would feel that if something can be intercepted, then it is fair game)

Molavian: Why? Here in Wisconsin you get immunity if you're not posted.

If you are posted, well, let the suing begin.

As someone who works for an insurer in Wisconsin, we're waiting for the first challenge any day now. At least the guy down here who shot the guy at Aldi's only winged him.

king_nacho: BRIGHTON, Colo. -- An Adams County judge has sentenced a man to four years in the county jail after finding he took "upskirt" photos of a woman

I don't mean to be rude, but you are really having a hard time understanding what these articles are saying, this guy was convicted for placing a camera specifically to look up their skirts, he went out of his way to get those images. She was waiting inline inside private property, not getting out of her car leaving her crotch in view and somebody happened to grab a pic.

One is an invasion of the personal space, the other is not. They've tried to convict people of the random pic, and have failed miserably. Essentially, my point being, if you do something in public, and somebody takes a picture, then you have no expectation of privacy.

If you are standing somewhere, and somebody comes up and invades your personal space, then that is different.


I don't take your comments as rude! Debate is healthy.

So you are saying stores are not public? I can see that it is private property but really so is almost all property so I am failing to see the legal distinction (but do take you word for it that people are not being prosecuted, just arrested)

UDel_Kitty: Zasteva: Technical limitations like longer load times can be easily overcome with good design. Automatic image enhancement and movement detection can make it easier to see something on the screen than with the naked eye. Tie it to the GPS on on the phone and it could automatically preload the feeds for what is ahead of you. And that's assuming the cameras don't have any additional imaging capability, like infrared or low light capabilities.

My point wasn't about the sufficiency of smartphone technology, but maybe you're being intentionally obtuse. My point was that walking around late at night checking your smartphone, fast loading app or not, makes you a target for crime. It makes you less aware of what is happening around you, and makes you an attractive target, not only because you'll be easy to jump, but because you've got desirable technology on you and some kook can see it plainly.

Sorry I misunderstood your critique. I doubt that having your smartphone out in your hand makes you an significantly more likely to be a target for crime on university campuses, because 1) people are walking around with them out already, talking or texting; and 2) the vast majority of college students have a smartphone of some sort, so hidden or visible doesn't make that much difference, everyone knows that have it already.

The cameras won't keep you from getting jumped and robbed by someone who doesn't care about them, and students shouldn't rely on them at the expense of common sense.

I agree that they are no substitute for common sense, but if the public is given access to them they could indeed help improve security. Your assertion that they won't help prevent you getting jumped by someone who doesn't care about them is false -- I already gave you a scenario where they could -- using them as eyes into what's ahead. How about this: a girl with an angry, abusive ex-boyfriend knows he sometimes waits outside in the parking lot by her car to confront her, and she fears those confrontations could turn violent. Before she leaves her dorm she can check the parking lot to be sure he isn't anywhere around, and if he is she can call a friend to escort her.

Of course, this could also be abused by the public for cyber stalking, but as long as the records of who used the cameras and when are also available, criminal abuse could still be dealt with.

None of those benefits are possible though if the camera feeds aren't open to the public.

In the worst case, yes, someone is assaulted by someone who doesn't know or care about the cameras. That person can then be identified, arrested and convicted based on the video of what happened. While that might not help the person who was assaulted, it does get that person off the street so they can't continue harming others.

It might even help reduce the death toll in a case like the Tech shooter, because the authorities could easily see where the shooter was and help direct people away from him and police toward him.

Zasteva: It might even help reduce the death toll in a case like the Tech shooter, because the authorities could easily see where the shooter was and help direct people away from him and police toward him.

Everyone was dead including the shooter before the police were even on the scene. There is no timing scenario I can imagine where Cameras would have made any impact to the response. Cell phones were dialed at first shots and it did not come down to an issue of finding the shooter, it came down to figuring which body was him.

monoski: king_nacho: BRIGHTON, Colo. -- An Adams County judge has sentenced a man to four years in the county jail after finding he took "upskirt" photos of a woman

I don't mean to be rude, but you are really having a hard time understanding what these articles are saying, this guy was convicted for placing a camera specifically to look up their skirts, he went out of his way to get those images. She was waiting inline inside private property, not getting out of her car leaving her crotch in view and somebody happened to grab a pic.

One is an invasion of the personal space, the other is not. They've tried to convict people of the random pic, and have failed miserably. Essentially, my point being, if you do something in public, and somebody takes a picture, then you have no expectation of privacy.

If you are standing somewhere, and somebody comes up and invades your personal space, then that is different.


monoski: I don't take your comments as rude! Debate is healthy.

So you are saying stores are not public? I can see that it is private property but really so is almost all property so I am failing to see the legal distinction (but do take you word for it that people are not being prosecuted, just arrested)

Someone standing in a public place (whether on private property or not) still has a reasonable expectation that their skirt is sufficient to keep their crotch out of public view. If a camera is concealed in such a way as to obtain a view that would not normally be available to someone, that's a violation of their expectation of privacy and is also explicitly illegal in most places.

If, on the other hand, someone is wearing a skirt and then sits with their legs up in the air so their crotch is easily visible (or wears a bikini or something else that shows their crotch), then they no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy and someone using a normal camera to snap a picture would generally be in the clear legally speaking; especially if they were already filming and the person just inadvertently ended up in the picture.

I'm pretty sure that's the distinction king_nacho was making.

monoski: Zasteva: It might even help reduce the death toll in a case like the Tech shooter, because the authorities could easily see where the shooter was and help direct people away from him and police toward him.

Everyone was dead including the shooter before the police were even on the scene. There is no timing scenario I can imagine where Cameras would have made any impact to the response. Cell phones were dialed at first shots and it did not come down to an issue of finding the shooter, it came down to figuring which body was him.

That's completely false. The first 9-11 call when out at 7:15am. Police arrive to investigate at 7:30am. He returned to his dorm sometime between 7:30 and 9:01am to leave a note and reload. He then chained the doors to the engineering building sometime between 9:05 and 9:15am. A call was made at 9:42 am for more shoots fired. Police arrived at 9:45 and found the entrances chained shut. It took them 5 minutes to go in after that, and he killed himself as the police were headed to the floor he was on.

There are numerous occasions during that sequence of events where cameras in public spaces could have allowed alert people to spot the killer, identify him, and avoid him. I'm not suggesting that they would have absolutely made a difference, but they certainly could have.

For example, cameras in the hallway could have allowed the police to identify him after his first killing, during the hour and 1/2 of their investigation and before he even went into the engineering building, at which point they could have used said cameras to locate and arrest him.

Under a heighten state of alert from the first killing, and on the lookout for him, it's very likely that he would have been spotted on camera chaining the doors of the engineering building, giving the police 30 minutes to stop him before his second round of shooting started.

Finally, during the 9 minutes of his rampage it would have allowed the police to enter earlier and with greater confidence because they would be able to know exactly where he was, what he looked like, and what he was doing.

Tech massacre timeline

dittybopper: I mean, since the late 1980's 40-odd states went "Shall Issue", and *THAT* scenario hasn't come to pass either: Homicides have gone *DOWN* to about half what they were in the early 1990's.

Huh. That would reduce the need for heroic gun toting responsible civilians. How are the shooting numbers looking outside of homicides?

Kyro: NightOwl2255: Are those numbers referring to people that have CCW permits? I find it very hard to believe that 20 mass shootings were perpetrated by CCW holders.

CCW holders:
Michael McLendon - killed 11 people on 3/10/09
Carey Dyess - killed 6 people on 6/2/11
Jared Loughner - killed 6 people, 1/8/11
Omar Thornton - killed 9 people, 8/3/10
Gerardo Regalado - killed 5 people, 6/6/10
Paul Merhige - killed 4 people, 11/26/09
Guillermo Zarabozo - killed 5 people, 9/22/07
Charles Johnston - killed 3 people, 3/27/08
Jason Hamilton - killed 4 people, 5/19/07
Troy Brake - killed 4 people, 9/29/08
Frank Garcia - killed 4 people, 2/14/09 (Valentines Day, dude? Really?)
William Maxwell - killed 4 people, 11/2/09
Terrance Hough Jr - killed 3 people, 7/4/07
George Sodini - killed 4 people, 8/4/09
Richard Poplawski - killed 3 people(all cops), 4/4/09
Michael Hood - killed 3 people, 3/27/10
Tan Do - killed 6 people, 7/23/11
Justin Matern - killed 4 people, 12/17/09
Christopher Speight - killed 8 people, 1/19/10
Aaron Jackson - killed 4 people, 5/5/08

Now I guess you could object to three fatalities being labeled a 'mass shooting', but is that really the part of this subject you want to argue?

Joe Blowme: Boogiemen? You have no idea what happened at VT do you?

I know perfectly well what happened. A mentally insane person legally acquired two guns and killed 32 people. You say the solution to this is a few thousand more guns. I say the solution is two less guns.

I can make a gun to kill you with out of PVC pipe and internet instructions. How do you plan on preventing technology that is hundreds of years old from reaching the hands of people armed with the internet? Just because you are a skinny little worrywort who doesn't trust his own emotional strength enough to permit himself to own a weapon, out of fear that he will kill innocent people, does not mean that actual men don't walk the planet.