|
Eye Spy
May 11, 2007 9:04:54 GMT -5
Post by tcrashfx on May 11, 2007 9:04:54 GMT -5
Surveillance cameras raise questions about personal freedoms, availability of footage
by Angela Tant
May 09, 2007 They're made from nothing more than wires, plastic and glass. Yet they have put people in jail and released them from it. Video cameras are powerful tools, and Chattanooga law enforcement is beginning to make more use of them. City officials have placed traffic cameras downtown and in Hixson, and are using them to police the Walnut Street Bridge. It is their future use at Coolidge and Renaissance parks that has drawn concern from some residents about their privacy at the public locations. Under the law, people cannot have expectations of privacy if they are doing anything that someone can see them performing in public. I can go down the street, take a photograph of a street scene, and if you happen to be in my photograph, you have no cause of action against me, and I can probably even publish that photograph, said Bruce Barry, a professor of management and sociology at Vanderbilt University. People find themselves in the backgrounds of newspaper shots all the time. So in a sense there's a diminishing right of privacy in public places.
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 11, 2007 9:24:54 GMT -5
Post by legaltender on May 11, 2007 9:24:54 GMT -5
Most probably don't sense there ever was a "right of privacy in public places." Problem is what's a "public place?" Target can stem shoplifting with cameras in dressing rooms. Police might videotape every public demonstration, regardless of the likelihood or suspicion of criminal activity. Do I have a right to participate in lawful demonstrations without fear of being placed in political dossiers? Eventually someone will need to watch the watchers. It wouldn't be tough to intercept the camera images with an inexpensive, 1-GHz satellite receiver and/or blind the cameras with balloons, lasers and infrared devices.
|
|
Felix
Global Moderator
Tepid One
Happy Morning
Posts: 4,137
|
Eye Spy
May 11, 2007 11:05:46 GMT -5
Post by Felix on May 11, 2007 11:05:46 GMT -5
Video has huge benefits in a lot of instances, especially when coupled with police cars-think of all the information gathered about police stops which have led to arrests. Not to mention deflating bogus lawsuits against cops.
As LT notes, public places are exactly that, public, and being in a public place implies that you may be watched by anybody at any time. Video is not much of an extension of that fact. Restrooms and changing room video raise completely different issues of privacy.
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 11, 2007 20:22:06 GMT -5
Post by tcrashfx on May 11, 2007 20:22:06 GMT -5
It is all about an "expectation of privacy". Dressing rooms and restrooms have that expectation automatically attached so warrants would be needed to surreptitiously video-tape in these (And similar) locations.
If one is at a lawful demonstration who really cares if your image is noted?
Is anyone that ashamed of their political stance that they don't want anyone to know they support it?
Oops, sorry, he must be referring to the Democrats.
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 11, 2007 22:26:25 GMT -5
Post by legaltender on May 11, 2007 22:26:25 GMT -5
The "if-you-object-you-must-have-something-to-hide" argument is usually answered, "Because you might do something wrong with my information." Privacy rights protect us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance. I might choose to tape-record Fred Phelps picketing at the funerals of dead American heroes because I hate his tactic, but the government ordering that gratifies a disposition that quite easily gets out of hand. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
It's hard to infer sinister motives and personal intrusions with park cameras. But we all regularly do "wrong" things and never hurt people. Uninhibited behavior is an interpretive evil; uninhibited surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time. Watch the watchers.
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 14, 2007 13:36:42 GMT -5
Post by daworm on May 14, 2007 13:36:42 GMT -5
In short, no. That lawful demonstration is in public, and by your choosing to participate in a public event, you are in effect allowing your participation to be noted by anyone observing said event. Don't want to be cataloged? Don't attend. Simple.
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 14, 2007 22:03:25 GMT -5
Post by legaltender on May 14, 2007 22:03:25 GMT -5
It's anything but simple, J. Edgar.
An agency of the government can't be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers a threat to the established order. "The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power." - Justice Lewis Powell, writing for 8-0 majority, U.S. Supreme Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). The harms of unnecessarily monitoring public demonstrations were revealed in massive files maintained on opponents of the Vietnam War by the Army as well as by the FBI.
Collecting intelligence at public rallies is probably legal. But so is complaining about it when the target is peaceable "redress of grievances." John Ashcroft charged that the criticism of FBI demonstration tactics by “hysterical” cynics amounts to "aiding the terrorists who wish to destroy our American way of life." Only we have the ability to destroy America by changing American standards.
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 14, 2007 22:07:26 GMT -5
Post by stray on May 14, 2007 22:07:26 GMT -5
Heh.
Forget all that 1972 Nixon-era shit.
9/11. 9/11. 9/11.
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 14, 2007 22:46:40 GMT -5
Post by legaltender on May 14, 2007 22:46:40 GMT -5
You go around telling people, "We're going to ferret out information on demonstrations," that deters people. People don't want their names and pictures in FBI files. Holds for Klan rallies, anti-Bush rallies, "God-Hates-Fags" funeral protests, immigration protests, you name it.
The balance between security and freedom must be created legislatively and with judicial application of the standards. Not just the arm of enforcement.
It's sometimes impossible to tell who's intimidating whom...
From FBI Intelligence Bulletin no. 89, October 15, 2003, "Tactics Used During Protests and Demonstrations":
"Activists may use intimidation techniques such as videotaping during demonstrations which may be used for documenting potential cases of police brutality and for distribution of information over the Internet."
|
|
Babs
Senior Forumite
Diet Spryte
Even cuter?
Posts: 3,674
|
Eye Spy
May 15, 2007 0:47:35 GMT -5
Post by Babs on May 15, 2007 0:47:35 GMT -5
When I was 16, my boyfriend and I went to a Billy Graham-Richard Nixon event at the stadium. He was a student, so we were sitting in the student section. My parents were on the other side in the church section. A bunch of students and "hippies" started the fist in the air, protesting against Cambodia. I thought it was a very fun thing to do, so I joined right in. Police showed up, arresting people and shooting photos of the crowd for later arrests for disrupting a religious service. Most covered their faces,..I smiled and waved until he told me they were taking shots for later arrests. On the news that night, they reported on the arrests that were still taking place from the event. I fretted for days that they would come for me!
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 16, 2007 10:46:46 GMT -5
Post by daworm on May 16, 2007 10:46:46 GMT -5
If you don't think the FBI is tallying who attends Klan rallies and the like, you are sadly mistaken.
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 16, 2007 10:52:55 GMT -5
Post by legaltender on May 16, 2007 10:52:55 GMT -5
And abortion clinic protesters, too. There's probably a Randall Terry wing in the Hoover basement.
|
|
kroisis
Full Member
Do not feed the Trolls, for they are a loathsome lot...
Posts: 313
|
Eye Spy
May 17, 2007 13:29:04 GMT -5
Post by kroisis on May 17, 2007 13:29:04 GMT -5
from bash.org an alleged log of an irc channel SA_Williamson> Hello, who is the owner of this channel? * Knirch goes down for maintenance. <SA_Williamson> !list <SA_Williamson> ok <SA_Williamson> just to let everyone know i have a federal supena <SA_Williamson> and will be entering you fileservers lawfully <Knirch> lol * Knirch sets mode: +b *!*saw@*.lab.fbi.gov * dgk2 sets mode: -b *!*saw@*.lab.fbi.gov <dgk2> not a good idea <dgk2> Knirch . <dgk2> —I-n-v-i-s-i-o-n— Nick: SA_Williamson <dgk2> > Address: saw@pc1xd3.lab.fbi.gov «Government» <dgk2> > Name: fbi <dgk2> > SA_Williamson is using modes +ix <dgk2> > SA_Williamson is connecting from *@pc1xd3.lab.fbi.gov <dgk2> > Channels: #tvseries <dgk2> > Server: fla.us.atomicchat.net, Atomic-Chat <dgk2> > Channels in common with SA_Williamson: #tvseries <CJdude[20]> whoa <SkRiBBleZ> ok that's not cool
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 17, 2007 13:57:55 GMT -5
Post by stray on May 17, 2007 13:57:55 GMT -5
Nice spelling. 'Supena.'
Spoofing that shit on IRC is child's play.
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 17, 2007 14:51:09 GMT -5
Post by alphacelt on May 17, 2007 14:51:09 GMT -5
Anyone who does not assume that they are already on some list somewhere for something is fooling themselves. And it doesn't help if you call the CIA to tell them you are in contact with the aliens. ... Or so I hear.
AC
|
|
|
Eye Spy
May 17, 2007 15:07:14 GMT -5
Post by traveler on May 17, 2007 15:07:14 GMT -5
If it is public property....I want cameras there. Doesnt bother me one whit.
|
|