Surveillance Cameras Capture a Serial Killer

[kubedawg]

I say we start putting up surveillance cameras around the White House and other givernment buildings just to say, no we aren't saying the government is consipiring to do something bad, we are just there to protect our citizens IF they do do something bad.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready While there are laws on the books that construe crime out of acts that violate the rights of nobody, such as prohibition laws, I feel this is a inexcusable step toward invasion of public privacy.

As long as they aren't looking up women's skirts in public places, I think that our public privacy (however little of it there is anyway) is a small price to pay for potential evidence to stop criminals.

[Blef]

Quote by: pikatore As long as they aren't looking up women's skirts in public places, I think that our public privacy (however little of it there is anyway) is a small price to pay for potential evidence to stop criminals.

But they are looking up women's skirts, and into your trousers or your skirt (whatever clothing you wear) too. At least, they will be when the backscatter xray system is up and running at the Phoenix AZ airport.

That's a highly localized example, but maybe in a few years that technology or something like it can be improved upon and used in public too, especially if people justify the incursions into privacy that government is getting away with now.

Any violation of privacy perpetrated by the government or any group with a monopoly on the coercive use of physical force is too great a price to pay. The price is your literal freedom, your right to be your own boss and decide for yourself how you want to live your life.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Epistemologist It's not like they're using it to record you while you're in the bathroom or something. I mean, they're not even going into your house if all they're recording is the public domain. I mean, who in their right mind would actually support one's right to murder another? To say that recording one thing will lead to recording all things is a slippery slope. I think that if they're a murder deterrent, then surveillance cameras are alright in the public domain at least.

Not using cameras when your in the bathroom?

More Cameras Used In School Bathrooms

[Jack]

"Public privacy" is an oxymoron.

How does one establish whether, in a given instance, one's expectation of privacy is "reasonable"? The criteria are as follows: 1) general legal principles; 2) the vantage point from which the surveillance is carried out; 3) the degree of privacy afforded by certain buildings and/or places; and 4) the sophistication and invasiveness of the surveillance technology employed. 1. General legal principles. The expectation of privacy is not reasonable if the behaviors or communications in question were knowingly exposed to public view. Neither the simple desire for privacy, nor the fact that one took steps to obtain it, entitles one to reasonably expect it. For example, even if one set up roadblocks, hung "no trespassing" signs and moved one's house back into the woods, one might still be surveilled from the air without one's Fourth Amendment rights being violated. And yet, as the court stated in People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4 th 824, 835, "we cannot accept the proposition that [the] defendant forfeited the expectation his property would remain private simply because he did not erect an impregnable barrier to access." 2. Vantage point. The expectation of privacy is not reasonable if there exists a vantage point from which anyone, not just a police officer, can see or hear what was going on and if this vantage point is or should be known or "reasonably foreseen" by the person being surveilled. If such a vantage point exists in theory, the police can actually use another vantage point from which to conduct their surveillance, because what matters is the expectation of privacy, which becomes "unreasonable" if any vantage point exists (!). But the police cannot use a vantage point if they have no legal right to take or occupy it. The police cannot commit trespassing; they haven't if they have taken up a vantage point along a normal access route, an "open field," or a common area. 3. Certain buildings and/or pieces of land. The expectation of privacy is not reasonable at such public places as automobile thoroughfares (United States v. Knotts [1983] 460 US 276, 281), and national forests (United States v. McIver [9 th Cir. 1999] 186 F.3d 1119, 1125, but is reasonable at public phone booths (Katz v. the United States, 389 U.S. 347 [1967]), rock concerts (Jacobsen v. Seattle, 658 P. 2d 653 [Wash. 1983]), and sports arenas (Collier v. Miller, 414 F. Supp. 1357 [S.D. Tex. 1976]). 4. Technological sophistication. It's easy to forget that, at the time the Fourth Amendment was written and adopted, the photographic camera had not yet been invented; it wasn't until 1826 that Daguerre patented the first photographic process. Because of the rapid development and increasing technological sophistication of televisual surveillance -- first, photography, then, close-circuit televison, and, finally, digital imagery -- "Judicial implementations of the Fourth Amendment need constant accommodation to the ever-intensifying technology of surveillance" (Dean v. Superior Court [1973] 35 Cal.App.3d 112, 116); "the Fourth Amendment must likewise grow in response" (United States v. Kim [1976] 415 F. Supp. 1252, 1257). This is especially true when it comes to "acquisition technology," that is, devices that, in effect, create vantage points that weren't previously there: audio bugs, wiretaps, and "video bugs" (covert wireless cameras), the use of which requires that the police must get warrants or other court orders.

Source

Therefore, public places could not logically constitute locations where a person could reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.

From the Revised Code of Washington, section 9A.44.115, enacted in 1998

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: G. Adams Not using cameras when your in the bathroom? More Cameras Used In School Bathrooms

Of course, I was referring to street surveillance to curb violent crimes. Monitoring bathrooms has its advantages but it seems less acceptable than the former employment of surveillance cameras.

[Blef]

Quote by: Epistemologist Of course, I was referring to street surveillance to curb violent crimes. Monitoring bathrooms has its advantages but it seems less acceptable than the former employment of surveillance cameras.

But really, that's the point, isn't it? For the sake of safety, school administrators in at least one district decided it was acceptable to install surveillance cameras in bathrooms.

Almost any invasion of privacy can be justified in this way once you start doing it. Maybe they can't see into the toilet stalls with the current setup, thus affording at least the privacy demanded by common decency; the article didn't say. But if someone was raped or otherwise assaulted or OD'd on drugs in a toilet stall at that High School, how long do you think it would be before they decided it was justified in the name of safety to monitor the actual toilet stalls themselves?

Slipping down the slope now, picking up speed ...

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Blef But really, that's the point, isn't it? For the sake of safety, school administrators in at least one district decided it was acceptable to install surveillance cameras in bathrooms. Almost any invasion of privacy can be justified in this way once you start doing it. Maybe they can't see into the toilet stalls with the current setup, thus affording at least the privacy demanded by common decency; the article didn't say. But if someone was raped or otherwise assaulted or OD'd on drugs in a toilet stall at that High School, how long do you think it would be before they decided it was justified in the name of safety to monitor the actual toilet stalls themselves? Slipping down the slope now, picking up speed ...

You know, the term "slippery slope" has a negative connotation. Yeah, crimes could happen in the toilet, but most people wouldn't place cameras when considering that it's an extremely private place unless the crime was out of control (maybe at that school it was, i.e. I know a certain high school in my vicinity where kids smoke weed and have sexual relations in bathroom stalls).

Violent crime is the target here. And there's gang violence, street fights, and even prostitution happening the streets, which happen to be in the public domain. Usually, people don't take a crap or pee on the street either.

You might say that if the government only has surveillance in one place, then criminals will then just go to whatever place where the government doesn't have control. It's like in the Godfather when that mafioso hid the gun in the bathroom stall because that's the last place where people look. Well, no, that's wrong, because then the government can just use policemen, who are now less busy patrolling streets, to check a high-probability bathroom, etc.

So, this issue doesn't have to fall down your slippery slope and break its leg, because rationalization and moderation will be applied to effect an optimal outcome.

[Blef]

Quote by: Epistemologist You know, the term "slippery slope" has a negative connotation.

No, I'm not aware of a negative connotation. In fact, I don't agree. It's just an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend based on the another. As an argument, it can be valid or it can be fallacious, supported by credible evidence or not.

What I do believe is that some people use slippery slope arguments in ways that can't be supported by evidence. For the argument to be sound, you have to have sufficient logical evidence to support the slippery slope claim.

Quote by: Epistemologist Yeah, crimes could happen in the toilet, but most people wouldn't place cameras when considering that it's an extremely private place unless the crime was out of control (maybe at that school it was, i.e. I know a certain high school in my vicinity where kids smoke weed and have sexual relations in bathroom stalls).

Well, it's debatable whether it's anyone else's business if kids in high school are smoking weed and having consensual sex.

I do certainly hope other solutions besides video surveillance could be found to help ensure order in the toilet stalls.

Quote by: Epistemologist Violent crime is the target here. And there's gang violence, street fights, and even prostitution happening the streets, which happen to be in the public domain. Usually, people don't take a crap or pee on the street either.

Surveillance can't prevent assault or violence. I don't know any reliable studies that show whether or not it is an effective deterrent.

Quote by: Epistemologist You might say that if the government only has surveillance in one place, then criminals will then just go to whatever place where the government doesn't have control. It's like in the Godfather when that mafioso hid the gun in the bathroom stall because that's the last place where people look. Well, no, that's wrong, because then the government can just use policemen, who are now less busy patrolling streets, to check a high-probability bathroom, etc. So, this issue doesn't have to fall down your slippery slope and break its leg, because rationalization and moderation will be applied to effect an optimal outcome.

Aren't you saying that to free up police patrol resources, we should widely implement high tech surveillance and detection solutions? That is the slippery slope. Once everyone's life is constantly being scrutinized, privacy and liberty are gone.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Blef No, I'm not aware of a negative connotation. In fact, I don't agree. It's just an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend based on the another. As an argument, it can be valid or it can be fallacious, supported by credible evidence or not. What I do believe is that some people use slippery slope arguments in ways that can't be supported by evidence. For the argument to be sound, you have to have sufficient logical evidence to support the slippery slope claim.

Well, keep in mind that there's a slippery slope fallacy, and when we say an argument's fallacious, we're referring to its validity. An argument's validity, i.e. logicalness, is different than its soundness, i.e. truth of premises.

Quote by: Blef Well, it's debatable whether it's anyone else's business if kids in high school are smoking weed and having consensual sex. I do certainly hope other solutions besides video surveillance could be found to help ensure order in the toilet stalls.

Often, though, simply warning them of the consequences of their actions doesn't cut it. Like I said, instead of cameras, you could just send a policeman into a high-probability bathroom to glance around for suspicious activity. Anyway, we're dealing with high-priority violent crimes here.

Quote by: Blef Surveillance can't prevent assault or violence. I don't know any reliable studies that show whether or not it is an effective deterrent.

Well, it seemed to helped here. And it's hard to do a really effective study, although it can be said that there's a correlation between surveillance and assault prevention; this doesn't necessarily mean that the surveillance per se causes the prevention though. Nonetheless, if the shoe seems to fit, why not wear it, especially if your foot needs to be protected?

Quote by: Blef Aren't you saying that to free up police patrol resources, we should widely implement high tech surveillance and detection solutions? That is the slippery slope.

To free up some police patrol resources, some surveillance is excellent. Thinking that the policy implementers are mindless zombies who have no moderation is fallacious slippery slope reasoning.

Quote by: Blef Once everyone's life is constantly being scrutinized, privacy and liberty are gone.

Don't exaggerate. They won't be gone, but they may be lessened to some degree. And sometimes, a lessening is okay.

[Blef]

Quote by: Epistemologist Well, keep in mind that there's a slippery slope fallacy, and when we say an argument's fallacious, we're referring to its validity. An argument's validity, i.e. logicalness, is different than its soundness, i.e. truth of premises.

Sure. But a slippery slope argument generally consists of inference based on an interpretation of events and trends. It may be plausible or implausible, and may eventually be found to be sound or unsound. However, the foundation of such an argument are facts that are generally not in dispute per se. It's what the facts imply that is normally debated.

Quote by: Epistemologist Well, it seemed to helped here.

To be clear, it helped to apprehend the attacker after the fact. So it didn't help to deter or prevent the crime in the first place.

Quote by: Epistemologist And it's hard to do a really effective study, although it can be said that there's a correlation between surveillance and assault prevention; this doesn't necessarily mean that the surveillance per se causes the prevention though. Nonetheless, if the shoe seems to fit, why not wear it, especially if your foot needs to be protected?

I'd find it interesting to see unbiased studies that investigate the hypothesized correlation between surveillance and assault prevention. Regardless of the findings, I do not agree liberating people of their liberty is acceptable.

Quote by: Epistemologist To free up some police patrol resources, some surveillance is excellent. Thinking that the policy implementers are mindless zombies who have no moderation is fallacious slippery slope reasoning.

No, I think it is just business. Those cameras cost a pretty penny, and their installation, maintenance, and service are a lucrative source of profit for someone. A profit motive is essential for business to survive and it is usually a good thing, but not when it undermines liberty.

Quote by: Epistemologist Don't exaggerate. They won't be gone, but they may be lessened to some degree. And sometimes, a lessening is okay.

We're talking about privacy and liberty here being reduced through the coercive actions of the state. I can't think of a situation in which that is OK.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Blef But they are looking up women's skirts, and into your trousers or your skirt (whatever clothing you wear) too. At least, they will be when the backscatter xray system is up and running at the Phoenix AZ airport.

Well i dont know many guys that delighting in getting sexually aroused by skeletons, so an xray machine should be alright.

And if you have in your pocket, say, something that would embarrass you that badly, like, a dildo (or on a more serious note, a gun), then its your bad.

Quote by: Blef That's a highly localized example, but maybe in a few years that technology or something like it can be improved upon and used in public too, especially if people justify the incursions into privacy that government is getting away with now.

Well as for those future possibilties, I will face on a case by case basis.

Quote by: Blef Any violation of privacy perpetrated by the government or any group with a monopoly on the coercive use of physical force is too great a price to pay. The price is your literal freedom, your right to be your own boss and decide for yourself how you want to live your life.

well youve already given up some of these 'literal freedoms' without really realising by participating on this forum, as not following the rules will get you kicked out. doesnt that tick you off?

[Osborn F Enready]

Pikatore said: Well i dont know many guys that delighting in getting sexually aroused by skeletons, so an xray machine should be alright.

What does arousal have to do with the right to infringe on my privacy?

Pikatore said: And if you have in your pocket, say, something that would embarrass you that badly, like, a dildo (or on a more serious note, a gun), then its your bad.

Airlines are a service that is not mandatory. People can refuse to ride an airline. You just highlighted one reason I wouldn't fly anymore, if I had a need as I have occassionally in the past.

Pikatore said: well youve already given up some of these 'literal freedoms' without really realising by participating on this forum, as not following the rules will get you kicked out. doesnt that tick you off?

The forum is CONSCENSUAL, so he has a choice not to participate in THIS forum, as opposed to others who may suit him if he so chose.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What does arousal have to do with the right to infringe on my privacy?

well seeing that a major factor of why one would be afraid of privacy infringment would be voyerism, a lot.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Airlines are a service that is not mandatory. People can refuse to ride an airline. You just highlighted one reason I wouldn't fly anymore, if I had a need as I have occassionally in the past.

A need.....??? what do you mean? :eek:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The forum is CONSCENSUAL, so he has a choice not to participate in THIS forum, as opposed to others who may suit him if he so chose.

all im saying is that even if its by consent, you give up many literal rights and seem to do just fine, sometimes its for everybodys own good.

[Osborn F Enready]

pikatore said: all im saying is that even if its by consent, you give up many literal rights and seem to do just fine, sometimes its for everybodys own good.

And this is the entire mentality which I knew was at work behind your posts, and cite as "the" problem.

The claim to be able to use force to enforce laws for a subjective version of what "everybodies own good" is, when "everybody" hasn't been solicited for their input, nor is it allowed by basic CONSTITUTONAL LIMITATIONS.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready And this is the entire mentality which I knew was at work behind your posts, and cite as "the" problem. The claim to be able to use force to enforce laws for a subjective version of what "everybodies own good" is, when "everybody" hasn't been solicited for their input, nor is it allowed by basic CONSTITUTONAL LIMITATIONS.

Prove it please.

[Blef]

Quote by: pikatore Well i dont know many guys that delighting in getting sexually aroused by skeletons, so an xray machine should be alright. And if you have in your pocket, say, something that would embarrass you that badly, like, a dildo (or on a more serious note, a gun), then its your bad.

Osborn F Enready already gave you an excellent response on this, but I will add my thoughts.

Cameras capable of "looking up women's skirts" was your stated limit of acceptability for surveillance, not mine. I only pointed out that they are doing worse than that already. Rather than admit that this goes beyond your original stated limits, you now attempt to justify the government doing this. I suppose if the government wants to chip you like people chip their pets, you'll minimize the significance of that incursion into your privacy as well.

The issue with such cameras or the backscatter X-ray machines has nothing to do with sexual arousal or potentially embarrassing personal toys. It has to do with your right as an individual to be in control of your body, your person, your personal information, your actions, your business. What others know about you should be your decision, not the governments or some data aggregating service.

Quote by: pikatore Well as for those future possibilties, I will face on a case by case basis.

I believe you will rationalize and justify each and every one. This is the way of those who trust government. You don't lose your liberty all in one moment; you lose it bit by bit, law by law, a little here and a little there, all in exchange for some new promise of security or safety or order.

Quote by: pikatore well youve already given up some of these 'literal freedoms' without really realising by participating on this forum, as not following the rules will get you kicked out. doesnt that tick you off?

No that's not the same thing at all. You're confusing the private sector and personal property with government regulation and effective ownership of public places.

This is a private forum, not a public one or a government service. I can join if the forum owners allow me, and I can leave when I wish. The owners of the forum can welcome me or deny me participation as they see fit. It's a voluntary association all around. This is nothing like government surveillance.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Blef I believe you will rationalize and justify each and every one. This is the way of those who trust government. You don't lose your liberty all in one moment; you lose it bit by bit, law by law, a little here and a little there, all in exchange for some new promise of security or safety or order.

And?

I'm sorry, your government may be a bit different to mine.

[Blef]

Quote by: pikatore And? I'm sorry, your government may be a bit different to mine.

Right, sorry. You've lost your liberty pretty much entirely already.