Surveillance Cameras Capture a Serial Killer

[RickSp]

Like many others, I have had certain qualms about the growth in the use of surveillance cameras on public streets. I came across an event where surveillance cameras were instrumental in catching a serial killer in Philadelphia. It has made me rethink at least some of my objects to the ubiquity of video surveillance.

Patricia McDermott was walking on a street in downtown Philadelphia last May when a man suddenly walked up and shot her in the back of the head, killing her. Police were able to witness the murder after the fact by gathering surveillance tapes from all the cameras on all the office buildings on the street. They were able to track the killer for over a half mile down various city streets until they lost him. The tape was broadcast on local television and a tip identified the killer, who turned out to have committed four other unprovoked shooting, killing two.

The video in the attached link is fascinating and chilling.

Catching a Killer, With Help From a Camera

[Osborn F Enready]

There is no life, or collection of lives worth saving, that justifies the ability of the state to remove privacy from the individuals.

I have no doubt that surveillance cameras CAN deter crime, but I also believe they will eventually be used to facillitate crime also.

The more man trusts technology to defend him, the more dependent and at risk he becomes to it.

[Blef]

It's good the killer was apprehended.

I don't have a problem with surveillance cameras, in general. I have them on my property. I think all owners of property have a right to use such means to monitor their property for whatever reason they choose.

What I find disagreeable is government having cameras or other means of surveillance and using such means to monitor, track, or record people, or being able to subpoena property owners to turn over their footage. In my view, government is not legitimate and cannot own any property, or lay claim to unowned property.

[Clarence]

They were able to track the killer for over a half mile down various city streets until they lost him. The tape was broadcast on local television and a tip identified the killer, who turned out to have committed four other unprovoked shooting, killing two.

sounds like the end of farenheit 451. Everyone's watching on the tv while the mechanical hound tracks him down. Always good to capture and punish the killers though

[Osborn F Enready]

Blef said: It's good the killer was apprehended. I don't have a problem with surveillance cameras, in general. I have them on my property. I think all owners of property have a right to use such means to monitor their property for whatever reason they choose. What I find disagreeable is government having cameras or other means of surveillance and using such means to monitor, track, or record people, or being able to subpoena property owners to turn over their footage. In my view, government is not legitimate and cannot own any property, or lay claim to unowned property.

I agree.

My opposition to surveillance cameras is police, government run surveillance of public spaces.

I have no problem with individual choice to use it to monitor YOUR land. I would have a problem obviously if another individual had their surveillance cameras largely encompassing my land, without my express permission to do so.

[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.

[kubedawg]

I flip off surveillence cameras.

[Osborn F Enready]

Epistimologist said: 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.

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.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: kubedawg I flip off surveillence cameras.

That's what Jack Bauer does i.e. when he was tackling the U.S. government in Season 5 of 24, the surveillance cameras could have actually impeded his heroic efforts to stop a conspiracy.

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.

I think there's only private privacy. I mean, if it's a public domain and the government doesn't seem to abusing the surveillance, then it's not really hurting anybody. But if it's something like opening mail without a warrant, then yeah, I guess that's invasion of private privacy.

[Osborn F Enready]

Epistolmologist said: But if it's something like opening mail without a warrant, then yeah, I guess that's invasion of private privacy.

Well, now the U.S. Government is doing them both.....

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Well, now the U.S. Government is doing them both.....

But that shouldn't stop us from considering surveillance of the public domain to minimize violent crime. Yep, the current U.S. activities could be considered wrong according to those standards.

[Blef]

Quote by: Epistemologist I mean, who in their right mind would actually support one's right to murder another?

I doubt many people support that. Being opposed to government surveillance of people is most definitely not the same as supporting some alleged right to murder. No one in this thread has even proposed that there is such a thing as a right to murder. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quote by: Epistemologist To say that recording one thing will lead to recording all things is a slippery slope.

I get the feeling this slippery slope concept has been discussed before and that you object to that kind of reasoning. Rather than digress on this thread, perhaps you can just point me to a past discussion that I can read for my own elucidation.

But the issue in this case is not necessarily that recording one thing will lead to recording all things, but rather the data being used for purposes other than what it was ostensibly intended for. That, and setting the precedent for monitoring in one area makes it easier to justify doing it in other contexts, and especially to building a case over the long term that people have no right to privacy, thus rendering the fourth amendment mostly moot. Hmmmm. Is that the slippery slope?

Quote by: Epistemologist I think that if they're a murder deterrent, then surveillance cameras are alright in the public domain at least.

There are other possible deterrents to murder that are less invasive than government surveillance. For example, if all people were armed all the time and were adept at defending themselves, I think that too would deter attackers, and probably much better than a camera would.

Armed and alert people can prevent crime and put a quick stop to it when it occurs. Cameras can merely record it.

[Blef]

Quote by: Epistemologist I think there's only private privacy. I mean, if it's a public domain and the government doesn't seem to abusing the surveillance, then it's not really hurting anybody. But if it's something like opening mail without a warrant, then yeah, I guess that's invasion of private privacy.

By public domain, I assume until you tell me otherwise that you mean what is generally referred to as public property. That is, any property that isn't private. Streets, parks, waterways, and so forth.

Who owns this public property? If the government can conduct surveillance of such areas, can you or I do the same? I mean on a permanent basis, like the government does. If we're not abusing the surveillance, then it's not really hurting anybody.

By the way, how can you tell whether or not someone is abusing their surveillance?

[Blef]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Well, now the U.S. Government is doing them both.....

True, not to mention eavesdropping on electronic and telephone communications without a warrant too.

[Blef]

Quote by: Epistemologist But that shouldn't stop us from considering surveillance of the public domain to minimize violent crime. Yep, the current U.S. activities could be considered wrong according to those standards.

Who should conduct the surveillance? Why the government? Why shouldn't it be you or me? It could be sort of like the "Adopt a HIghway" program... "Adopt a Crime-Prone Area", maybe.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Blef But the issue in this case is not necessarily that recording one thing will lead to recording all things, but rather the data being used for purposes other than what it was ostensibly intended for. That, and setting the precedent for monitoring in one area makes it easier to justify doing it in other contexts, and especially to building a case over the long term that people have no right to privacy, thus rendering the fourth amendment mostly moot. Hmmmm. Is that the slippery slope?

Well, not really. But when we make the assumption that surveillance will be abused i.e. it won't be used for purposes of minimizing violent crime, we're assuming that government is an inherently evil entity. Often, they're just looking out for the demos.

Quote by: Blef There are other possible deterrents to murder that are less invasive than government surveillance. For example, if all people were armed all the time and were adept at defending themselves, I think that too would deter attackers, and probably much better than a camera would. Armed and alert people can prevent crime and put a quick stop to it when it occurs. Cameras can merely record it.

That might be impractical because it's at such a general scale, and even if it did occur, there might be more potential for criminals. What would happen if there are some citizens who don't get armed, strong, etc.? If you allow the government to do the duty of protecting welfare, then you make a small-scale change that has just as much effect as such as large-scale change. But then again, small-scale abuse leads to the whole system being abused if the government has control.

Quote by: Blef By public domain, I assume until you tell me otherwise that you mean what is generally referred to as public property. That is, any property that isn't private. Streets, parks, waterways, and so forth. Who owns this public property? If the government can conduct surveillance of such areas, can you or I do the same? I mean on a permanent basis, like the government does. If we're not abusing the surveillance, then it's not really hurting anybody.

I don't the government let's private citizens do that to public property. By "public," it means government is a representative of all the constituents. Then again, perhaps private surveillance might be allowed on an individual basis, just as bounty hunters are allowed to go after criminals. But the government should ensure that the private citizens aren't criminals themselves.

Quote by: Blef By the way, how can you tell whether or not someone is abusing their surveillance?

If they're not using it to solely deter violent crime or perhaps crime in general. We may not be able to realize it, but if the government is forced to reveal all its surveillance activities to any citizens or watchdog groups who want to look it up, then information should be made available. Open government can still exist with surveillance activities stopping criminals.

Quote by: Blef Who should conduct the surveillance? Why the government? Why shouldn't it be you or me? It could be sort of like the "Adopt a HIghway" program... "Adopt a Crime-Prone Area", maybe.

Like I said, it may relieve the burden on government if some private citizens take over the job, but government is the ultimate representative of the demos, so one can say that the obligation of public welfare lies with the government. There are many ways to look at it, though, and corruption is still possible regardless of who's in control.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready There is no life, or collection of lives worth saving, that justifies the ability of the state to remove privacy from the individuals.

In a totally free society, the sidewalks would be private property and the cameras would be used to prevent crimes against that property. Would your objects go away under those circumstances?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have no doubt that surveillance cameras CAN deter crime, but I also believe they will eventually be used to facillitate crime also.

Care to provide an example?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The more man trusts technology to defend him, the more dependent and at risk he becomes to it.

My guess is that you are not opposed to all technology for defense. You seem very fond of firearms.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rick said: In a totally free society, the sidewalks would be private property and the cameras would be used to prevent crimes against that property. Would your objects go away under those circumstances?

Yes.

Rick said: Care to provide an example?

An example that has occurred, or a hypothetical?

Rick said: My guess is that you are not opposed to all technology for defense. You seem very fond of firearms.

I am fond of keeping the largest forces in check, by equal force being available to the citizens.

I am fascinated with machines, and yes, I am quite the gun aficionado.

I think some have misunderstood my point though.

Police and Government are in place to enforce ALL laws.
Private intrests would be mainly concerned with property or rights violations.

I can just see all the people in the public square being harassed by police because they are roling or smoking home-roled cigarettes, and the overzealous newb, or bored out of his skull flatfoot decides he wants some action.

Its just yet another, on top of many other recent additions, to interfere in the lives of individuals.

[Jack]

Referring back to the original post, these cameras were not government owned. They were surveillance cameras on private property meant to secure that property. It just so happened that by their placement they captured something that occurred on public property.
I'd be curious to know if there are statistics on whether surveillance cameras in England have been shown to be effective in reducing crime or not. Any of our British members know?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Isherwood Referring back to the original post, these cameras were not government owned. They were surveillance cameras on private property meant to secure that property. It just so happened that by their placement they captured something that occurred on public property. I'd be curious to know if there are statistics on whether surveillance cameras in England have been shown to be effective in reducing crime or not. Any of our British members know?

Exactly, except for the cameras on the Post Office building, all the surveillance cameras and equipment were privately owned and maintained.

I can not speak for the British but I have read that it was the surveillance camera systems that helped unraveled the lies told by the British police related to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. The cameras showed that Menezes was not wearing a padded coat as originally claimed, nor did he act in a manner that was in any way suspicious. Ironically, most of the unanswered questions in the case remain because the police disabled the cameras at the Stockwell Station station the day before.

I could see how surveillance cameras could help deter crime and also protect against police abuse.