Houston police chief wants surveilance cameras in homes


PDA






C. Rabbit
February 18, 2006, 02:30 PM
From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Police_Cameras.html .

Here's an important blurb:
HOUSTON -- Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

Gee, I don't know, the right to privacy in your own home?!?!:banghead:
And:
Building permits should require malls and large apartment complexes to install surveillance cameras, Hurtt said. And if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property, he said.

So...the police can't protect your house, so they force you to give up your privacy?
Besides the unconstitutionality of it all, there's the worrying possibility of abuse of such cameras at apartments (swimming pools?) and homes (Big brother knows your habits now!). :banghead:

I'm surprised it happened in Houston before England! (Cameras in homes, that is.)

CR

If you enjoyed reading about "Houston police chief wants surveilance cameras in homes" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Robert Hairless
February 18, 2006, 02:59 PM
The obvious assembly places for criminals and potential criminals are police stations, so the city should begin by placing such cameras in those locations with sufficient coverage to include all parts of every station. Citizens should have complete access to the recordings, of course, because they are public property.

The Houston police will support that idea. They don't do anything wrong so why should they worry.

Chief Hurtt will take the lead by having cameras placed in his office, meeting rooms, dining areas, and throughout his home. He doesn't do anything wrong so why should he worry. At last we can have transparent city governments, thanks to Chief Hurtt for starting nationwide surveillance.


Mayor Bill White will also agree to having cameras watch him wherever he is, night and day. He doesn't do anything wrong so why should he worry. The same for all other officials in Houston's city government. They don't do anything wrong so why should they worry.

Houston has fourteen City Council members who don't do anything wrong so why should they worry about being monitored by cameras in their homes and offices.

When Houston follows this variation of Chief Hurtt's plan no one in the city should have a reason to worry about whether anyone in its city government will do anything wrong.

Then we can spread the Hurtt to New York City, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Chicago, Columbus, Ohio, and other cities.

Chrontius
February 18, 2006, 07:58 PM
I know some of you live in texas, and that this guy's crazy. "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

Have at 'em, boys.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/02/18/066218.shtml
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Police_Cameras.html

Edit: no, he's *not* the sheriff, pardon me.

Edited again: What do we all think of each of us -- and everyone else we can convince -- mailing this guy a copy of 1984?

Edited a third time: heh heh heh... this guy's so losing his job. http://www.houstontx.gov/police/iad.htm

strambo
February 18, 2006, 08:19 PM
My thoughts are I would appreciate extra eyes looking out for my business, thanks for the offer as long as I can decide. However, if this were mandatory and included homes as he suggests....well, that's a whole 'nother ball O wax.:fire:

My response to the whole "If your not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?" Is; "Since I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I accept this and why would you waste your time?" Any time a cop asks to search, install cameras or anything else they can think up to keep tabs on me my answer will be no. If they had PC or a warrant then they wouldn't be asking. Since I'm squeaky clean, it would all be a mistake and they would never have justification for a warrant.

Some folks in FL installed a camera on their private property to help the overworked police catch drug dealers in their neighborhood. This is the correct application of this sort of thing. Working in partnership with good folks to put up cameras by the citizen's choice to help the police catch the criminals in their neighborhoods.

I would hope the legal battle would be unwinnable for the police to get mandatory cameras installed on private property. Big waste of tax payer dollars. A better use would be to subsidize the cost of cameras for business owners and neighborhood watch groups that want them to put them up to catch the criminals. Never inside homes and never mandatory.

Art Eatman
February 19, 2006, 12:23 AM
Even before the 150,000 refugees from Katrina, some of the Bad Guys around Houston had a Deal: Follow a car home from a top-line mall. Say a Mercedes 500 or equivalent. When the car gets into the driveway, run up and shoot the driver and take rings, watch, purse or billfold--and maybe the car.

If you shoot the victim, see, you don't have to waste all that time talking.

Similar problems around apartment complexes. And 7-11s and U-Totems aren't really safe working-condition places, either.

Like the Top Cop said, they're undermanned. The onus is on the mayor and city council to budget for more cops on the street--and maybe the feds because of the source of much of the recently increased violent crime rate in Houston.

Back some dozen years ago, a friend of mine was going to a seminar in Houston, involving the police department's juvenile/youth section. She had a brief conversation with a PD Lt. there: "You have a pistol?" "Yes." "Good, bring it. You have a cell phone?" "Yes." "Good, if you have car trouble, stay inside the car and if somebody gives you trouble, shoot them and call me."

Art

progunner1957
February 19, 2006, 12:29 AM
Houston police chief wants surveilance cameras in homes
...And people in hell want ice water.

JMag
February 19, 2006, 12:40 AM
Cameras in the home would never work...every time you cranked out some doughnuts you'd have visitors in blue...


:)

(rah, rah)

I have no problem with legit police work and dedicated LEOs. This guy must have migrated over from the former Soviet Union.

Merkin.Muffley
February 19, 2006, 12:45 AM
If it helps reduce crime - or put bad people in jail - I'm all for it. One thing I don't understand, if they're short on people, who is going to watch all the tape they're going to be generating?

Art Eatman
February 19, 2006, 12:49 AM
Naw, JMag. The guy's desperate. Not enough men, not enough money. Rising crime rate. Newspapers/TV on his case, and probably the politicos who won't bite the bullet and raise taxes to pay for what's needed. He's grasping at straws.

He might even be doing a Machiavelli bit, to try to get folks like you to raise enough fuss that the politicos sit up and take notice. I dunno.

Ancient problem in large cities. Nowadays, the money goes for social programs as a first priority. Gotta "Do good!" before hiring more of those old cop guys...

Art

Strings
February 19, 2006, 01:14 AM
I wonder how hard it would be for some hacker to start re-directing the camera feeds to a streaming video porn site?

PotatoJudge
February 19, 2006, 01:32 AM
In southwest Houston, where many of the attacks have taken place, there are apartment complexes everywhere. Each complex is a maze of parking spots and hiding places. More cops would help, but it probably wouldn't be enough. From what I've seen on the news, the victims aren't the CHL types. Better lighting of the complexes could help, but would interfere with people's sleep. Because of the hours some people work, coming and going in larger groups isn't always an option. More private secutiry guards, fences, and gates would raise rent on people who really can't afford it. I think most people on THR would agree that a person is, in the end, responsible for their own safety. The problem is that too many people see the police as being responsible for their safety, and security cameras will not change that.

3rdpig
February 19, 2006, 01:49 AM
I have no problems with the police placing cameras in public places or on private property with the owners permisson. I have no reasonable expectations of privacy in those places, with some exceptions, toilets, dressing rooms and things like that.

To suggest that they be put in private homes against the will of the owner, now them's fightin' words!

pax
February 19, 2006, 01:53 AM
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.
Y'know, having sex with my husband isn't wrong, but I still like to close the bedroom door.

pax

miconoakisland
February 19, 2006, 05:37 AM
What if we started it all as they want it, but from the top down?

Let all that voted for it be the only ones viewed for a year, then extend it to all police officers for a year, then all public employees for a year, then all public housing for a year, then all others after the previous 4 years proved successful?!

Those that hold the microscope on others are the ones microscopes were invented to look upon.

Let Houston's police chief be the guinie-pig! Let's be sure he doesn't violate Texas' sodomy law (no sex orally or an@!!/!).

Somehow, I don't think that "lead by example" will get this bogus, media-grab-for-personal-attention tactic beyond the next election.

miconoakisland
February 19, 2006, 05:40 AM
What if we started it all as they want it, but from the top down?

Let all that voted for it be the only ones viewed for a year, then extend it to all police officers for a year, then all public employees for a year, then all public housing for a year, then all others after the previous 4 years proved successful?!

Those that hold the microscope on others are the ones microscopes were invented to look upon.

Let Houston's police chief be the guinie-pig! Let's be sure he doesn't violate Texas' sodomy law (no sex orally or an@!!/!).

Somehow, I don't think that "lead by example" will get this bogus, media-grab-for-personal-attention tactic beyond the next election.

Robert Hairless
February 19, 2006, 05:47 AM
Even before the 150,000 refugees from Katrina, some of the Bad Guys around Houston had a Deal: Follow a car home from a top-line mall. Say a Mercedes 500 or equivalent. When the car gets into the driveway, run up and shoot the driver and take rings, watch, purse or billfold--and maybe the car.

If you shoot the victim, see, you don't have to waste all that time talking.

Similar problems around apartment complexes. And 7-11s and U-Totems aren't really safe working-condition places, either.

Like the Top Cop said, they're undermanned. The onus is on the mayor and city council to budget for more cops on the street--and maybe the feds because of the source of much of the recently increased violent crime rate in Houston.

Back some dozen years ago, a friend of mine was going to a seminar in Houston, involving the police department's juvenile/youth section. She had a brief conversation with a PD Lt. there: "You have a pistol?" "Yes." "Good, bring it. You have a cell phone?" "Yes." "Good, if you have car trouble, stay inside the car and if somebody gives you trouble, shoot them and call me."

Art

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

It might be much more effective if the police simply stopped people on the streets or in cars and entered people's homes and businesses to search them thoroughly. If the people are not doing anything wrong why should they worry about it?

I still very much like the idea of starting with Chief Hurtt and other city officials. Those good people are in positions of great trust and have more capability than other people for abusing citizens. So if we catch just one of them doing something wrong it could help the city a lot. Understand that I'm not saying that Chief Hurtt or the other law enforcement people in Houston are corrupt, but just the chance that they might be doing something wrong is good reason to surveil them and their families at all times. And, let's face it, if they're not doing anything wrong why should they worry about it?

The more I think about it the more I like Chief Hurtt's idea. But it's most efficient to start with the people who have the greatest potential for criminal behavior. For example, if there had been constant surveillance of Enron's entire management they could have been prevented from swindling their shareholders and employees, and causing great harm to a lot of people by their criminal behavior. I'm all for 'round-the-clock surveillance of all corporate management and their families.

It's less efficient--and doesn't make much sense--to focus these efforts on little people who hurt just a few people before they're caught. Let's put our focus where it counts most: on the people with the greatest potential for criminal behavior that can hurt lots of people. If they're not doing anything wrong why should they worry about it?

This is a good idea whose time has come!

Robert Hairless
February 19, 2006, 06:40 AM
I have no problems with the police placing cameras in public places or on private property with the owners permisson. I have no reasonable expectations of privacy in those places, with some exceptions, toilets, dressing rooms and things like that.

To suggest that they be put in private homes against the will of the owner, now them's fightin' words!

But if there are no cameras in toilets, dressing rooms, and bedrooms those places become safe havens for criminals to congregate and do the nasty. Let's have complete coverage and make real sure that no one does anything wrong. If they're not doing anything wrong why should they worry about it?

71Commander
February 19, 2006, 06:41 AM
If it helps reduce crime - or put bad people in jail - I'm all for it.

You're joking, right?

ravinraven
February 19, 2006, 07:12 AM
"Y'know, having sex with my husband isn't wrong, but I still like to close the bedroom door."

But why shut the door if you're doing nothing wrong?

jis kiddin

rr

Broadhead
February 19, 2006, 08:41 AM
If "they" want a camera in your house, it's probably already there.

Lupinus
February 19, 2006, 09:02 AM
the day they mandate camera in my house is the day I become a nudist, with the exception of a cowboy hat and a gun belt.

Me naked.....its the stuff nightmares are made off :neener:

AirForceShooter
February 19, 2006, 11:40 AM
Man should be Fired. That's all.

AFS

HankB
February 19, 2006, 11:51 AM
Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes . . . Well, it was good enough for Winston Smith, wasn't it? :barf:

Autolycus
February 19, 2006, 12:13 PM
What if we started it all as they want it, but from the top down?

Let all that voted for it be the only ones viewed for a year, then extend it to all police officers for a year, then all public employees for a year, then all public housing for a year, then all others after the previous 4 years proved successful?!

Those that hold the microscope on others are the ones microscopes were invented to look upon.

Let Houston's police chief be the guinie-pig! Let's be sure he doesn't violate Texas' sodomy law (no sex orally or an@!!/!).

Somehow, I don't think that "lead by example" will get this bogus, media-grab-for-personal-attention tactic beyond the next election.

And we can uses the logic that he calls the PD more then most. For example if he calls when he is gonna be late, sick, or just to check in. These are technically calls that can be used to bite him in the ass. They want to use word semantics about our rights so we should comply and use it against them if it comes down to it.

On a ligter note I call the cops on the frat house up the street at least once a week. You would think that the logical chief would put a camera up on the one house that is doing stomething or that everyeone is calling the cops on. Its a logical idea so it wouldnt work. (Not to say it isnt Unconstitutional but it makes more sense then watching the victim 24/7)

hammer4nc
February 19, 2006, 12:39 PM
President Bush taps Harold Hurtt to replace Michael Chertoff
Written by Dominus Noster

HPD Chief Harold Hurtt replaces Michael Chertoff
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- After hearing Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt's remarks in one of the Police Chief's recent press conferences, President George W. Bush gave praise to Chief Hurtt.

"He wants cameras in people's homes. That is my kind of man," said President Bush. "This man is going to be my new Homeland Security czar."

"Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers," reported the Associated Press.

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" said Chief Hurtt.

When Chief Hurtt was asked by one reporter why people who aren't doing anything wrong should be surveilled, he responded: "Only al Qaeda sympathizers and terrorists would protest such a policy. Are you with bin Laden?"

"It was that response to the reporter's question that really got the President's attention," explained White House aide Emma Faker.

And so, early this morning, the President announced his intention to replace Michael Chertoff with Harold Hurtt.

"I did my best to assume more police state powers for the executive, but Harold Hurtt's proposal certainly outdoes anything I've been willing to do so far," said Michael Chertoff.

Critics of the President are concerned that a cameras-in-homes proposal, coupled with the President staking out new, dictatorial territory with his warrantless spying program, is a formula that makes Orwell's 1984 pale in comparison.

"Not only would they be placing cameras in people's homes, but they would be doing it without even the pretense of trying to stop crime," said one civil liberties attorney, speaking on condition of anonymity so that the Bush thought police can't find him.

"A police state? Well, that is the whole point," said a gleeful President Bush.

"What we are really after next is trying to recruit some barristers who are willing to candidly express their disdain for habeas corpus. You see, it is hard to condition the public to accept tyranny if we are not willing to inundate them with the propaganda," said top White House aide Karl Rove.

"How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time," said George Orwell in his book, 1984.

Now that Harold Hurtt will be running the Department of Homeland Security, will Orwell's hellish vision be coming to your city any time soon? Only time will tell.
:evil:

mordechaianiliewicz
February 19, 2006, 12:43 PM
It might be much more effective if the police simply stopped people on the streets or in cars and entered people's homes and businesses to search them thoroughly. If the people are not doing anything wrong why should they worry about it?

I still very much like the idea of starting with Chief Hurtt and other city officials. Those good people are in positions of great trust and have more capability than other people for abusing citizens. So if we catch just one of them doing something wrong it could help the city a lot. Understand that I'm not saying that Chief Hurtt or the other law enforcement people in Houston are corrupt, but just the chance that they might be doing something wrong is good reason to surveil them and their families at all times. And, let's face it, if they're not doing anything wrong why should they worry about it?

The more I think about it the more I like Chief Hurtt's idea. But it's most efficient to start with the people who have the greatest potential for criminal behavior. For example, if there had been constant surveillance of Enron's entire management they could have been prevented from swindling their shareholders and employees, and causing great harm to a lot of people by their criminal behavior. I'm all for 'round-the-clock surveillance of all corporate management and their families.

It's less efficient--and doesn't make much sense--to focus these efforts on little people who hurt just a few people before they're caught. Let's put our focus where it counts most: on the people with the greatest potential for criminal behavior that can hurt lots of people. If they're not doing anything wrong why should they worry about it?

This is a good idea whose time has come!

Here, here!

In a Republic, although we may vote on taxes, representatives, and how resources in general are to be allocated, we cannot vote on what one believes, where they choose to live, who they choose to live they're lives with, who has a right to privacy and who doesn't.

We cannot allow law enforcement to violate our rights in the excuse of public safety.

We cannot allow elected leaders to abuse some while favoring others.

The right to be free of surveillance in your own person, property, living arrangement, home is something that neither a majority, or a minority can block. If it is, everything this country is built upon will tumble and fall.

TamThompson
February 19, 2006, 12:49 PM
Haven't seen anyone point out that requiring a police camera in a private home violates the living daylights out of the 4th Amendment.

Trying to place cameras in private homes is unconstitutional. This amounts to tyranny.

What they CAN do is put them in public areas, or convince landlords (who are the property owners) to put them in apartments. Not sure of the legalities of apartments, whether landlords have to tell a prospective tenant about cameras...I think they do.

Own your home and defend your privacy!
:cuss:

Bigreno
February 19, 2006, 01:43 PM
4th amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Definition of Search (Wikepedia)
Search: Searching is the act of trying to find something or someone. One can distinguish between two forms of search. One may search for something that is known to exist, with the intent to locate it, and one may search for something whose existence is uncertain in order to ascertain whether it exists or not.

Someone explain to me how requiring video surveillance doesn't voilate the property owners Constitutional Rights?

longeyes
February 19, 2006, 01:47 PM
It will happen and after some initial grousing the American people will eagerly embrace it as prime-time entertainment. It will make them feel oddly at peace, much less fearful, to see rule-breakers given what they so richly deserve.

Art Eatman
February 19, 2006, 02:12 PM
I really think folks are reaching to think the guy wants cameras INSIDE houses. Sure, his words came out all weird, but 99 and 44/100 % odds are that he's talking aobut people wanting them in yards monitoring approaches, or the sidewalk areas.

Funny-odd, really. We talk about privacy as a reason to not want the cameras all over town, but we don't get upset at police officers walking or riding all over town. We don't want some sort of permanent record of our comings and goings, and we're somehow reassured by the fallibility of human memory? A camera WILL see us, but a human MIGHT NOT notice us? I dunno...

One thing for sure: No matter what we think as THR folks, there are many, many more people who don't think in terms of personal self-defense. They rely on the perception of police "protection". And they vote. For them, government is indeed supposed to be Big Nanny.

I sure don't have any politically viable answer...Long-term? Maybe if things get rough enough, reality will penetrate--but I sorta doubt it.

Art

wally
February 19, 2006, 04:06 PM
This Hurtt guy makes the idiot Lee Brown look good.

--wally.

Autolycus
February 19, 2006, 06:07 PM
Feb. 16, 2006, 1:09PM
HPD may add video cameras to its ranks
Officer shortage leads city to look at surveillance of streets, malls even some homes


By ALEXIS GRANT
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Facing a shortage of police officers, Police Chief Harold Hurtt called Wednesday for a new type of patrol: surveillance cameras on downtown streets, apartment complexes and shopping malls and in extreme situations, private homes.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Hurtt told reporters.

His remarks came as the City Council approved a financial-incentive program to help the Houston Police Department recruit officers.

The department is struggling with a manpower shortage as well as a spike in violent crime. To supplement officers on patrol, HPD is considering installing five video cameras downtown, Hurtt said. He also suggested that new apartment complexes and malls be required, as part of the building-permit process, to provide security cameras.

And when asked whether the need for cameras extends to private homes, he said, "If they're putting a burden on the criminal justice system and cheating the other residents of Houston, yes."

He did not elaborate on how police would accomplish such surveillance or when it would be appropriate.


Source of funds
The downtown-camera project already has a group to fund it: the Houston Downtown Management District. Once the cameras are installed, the project would be carried out by HPD. Officers would monitor video feeds from a new storefront office planned for downtown.

"It's going to be a lot less expensive than having officers standing in those locations or responding to all those calls," said Hurtt, who wants to have the cameras up by the end of this year. "What we need is a combination of technology and human resources to deal with this issue."

The Downtown Management District, which works to improve the central business district using taxes paid by downtown property owners, has proposed five sites for cameras at intersections on and around Main. They are high-pedestrian-traffic, not high-crime, locations, said Bob Eury, executive director of the district.


Mayor must approve
"The goal is for people to feel safe," said Eury, who compared the cameras to those at shopping malls. "We're finding new ways to make it basically safer in reality and perception."

The program would cost tens of thousands of dollars, Eury said, declining to estimate more precisely since the project will be put out for bids.

The emphasis on new police and surveillance is part of the city's response to a recent spike in violent crime.

It was up 2.3 percent through November 2005, compared with the same period in 2004, though the overall crime rate was down 2.2 percent.

Mayor Bill White, who must approve the camera program for it to go into effect, said he had not yet discussed it with Hurtt.

"There's a legitimate right to privacy," White said. "On the other hand ... if there are some crime hot spots, then we want something where we don't have to have uniformed officers staring at a particular spot 24 hours a day."

The City Council's Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will consider the program Feb. 28.


Some privacy concerns
Some privacy advocates questioned whether apartment owners should be required to install cameras.

"It's radical and unheard-of," said Scott Henson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Texas Police Accountability Project.

But on city streets, it's a different story. Cities across the country, including Chicago, Los Angeles and Minneapolis, already use surveillance cameras in public places. In London, where cameras are commonplace, the technology helped police solve last year's transit bombings.

Technology isn't the only tool HPD is using to fight crime. The understaffed department hopes to entice experienced officers nationwide to work in Houston by offering a $7,000 bonus and increased pay under a program approved Wednesday by City Council. By hiring 700 new officers every year for the next three years, Houston would have 2.8 officers for every 1,000 people, the national average, instead of the current 2.2 per 1,000 people, Hurtt said.

Under the incentive program, HPD officers who have less than five years' experience will also get a pay raise.

alexis.grant@chron.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/3663189.html

When does the revolution start? How far can we take this? Mayor Daley and now Chief Hurtt of the Houston PD are insane. The fact that they cannot competently do their jobs and come up with ridiculous ideas is a testimony to their replacement.

Preacherman
February 19, 2006, 06:28 PM
Duplicate threads merged.

Autolycus
February 19, 2006, 07:06 PM
Sorry I meant to copy it and was having some trouble with it.

The fact is that we really need to educate the populace that giving up our rights is not an acceptable answer to our problems. I am tired of this. My roommate and some of his friends do not seem to care and agree with the "if I have nothing to hide" attitude. When I asked one of the girls if I can look through their purse they said "NO." Well if you have nothing to hide...

Michigander
February 20, 2006, 06:43 AM
I propose we revise Amendment I to read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the press, or of speech excepting that no one shall say, utter, write or otherwise publish or convey the idea, sentiment or statement, "if you are not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" or any derivative thereof; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

AZRickD
February 20, 2006, 09:31 AM
This guy must have migrated over from the former Soviet Union.
No, he came to Phoenix, where he tried to turn it into Moscow.

Hurtt is VERY anti RKBA. He attended, in his Official capacity, more than his fair share of anti-gun seminars while in the Valley of the Sun.

Glad to lose him.

Rick

one-shot-one
February 20, 2006, 12:41 PM
for what it is gonna cost to keep the black spray paint cleaned off the lens' he could probably afford some new officers!:evil:

TheEgg
February 20, 2006, 12:58 PM
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

No matter what, any public official that is stupid enough to make this statement, even as a ploy, should be fired immediately.

Manedwolf
February 21, 2006, 10:27 AM
No matter what, any public official that is stupid enough to make this statement, even as a ploy, should be fired immediately.

Really? It's been used to defend the "warrantless wiretaps" at some of the highest levels.

I agree with your statement, of course.

Manedwolf
February 21, 2006, 10:59 AM
If it helps reduce crime - or put bad people in jail - I'm all for it.

You mean like the excuses they use for restrictive gun laws? :scrutiny:

TheEgg
February 21, 2006, 12:12 PM
Really? It's been used to defend the "warrantless wiretaps" at some of the highest levels.


The higher the level, the quicker the ride out of town should be!!!!!:)

PCGS65
February 21, 2006, 01:07 PM
From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Police_Cameras.html .

Here's an important blurb:


Gee, I don't know, the right to privacy in your own home?!?!:banghead:
And:


So...the police can't protect your house, so they force you to give up your privacy?
Besides the unconstitutionality of it all, there's the worrying possibility of abuse of such cameras at apartments (swimming pools?) and homes (Big brother knows your habits now!). :banghead:

I'm surprised it happened in Houston before England! (Cameras in homes, that is.)

CR

And some people think I'm crazy when I talk about the police state!!
I just read in the local paper today some guy was charged with a felony for stealing $13.97 worth of merchandise!!!:uhoh:

carlrodd
February 21, 2006, 01:21 PM
this is all so ludicrous of course, but i am just flabbergasted by the ACLU....can they get ANYTHING right?

Scott Henson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Police Accountability Project in Texas, called Hurtt's building-permit proposal "radical and extreme" and said it may violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

MAY violate the 4th ammendment?????:banghead:
they are proven, absolutely worthless.

Bigjake
February 21, 2006, 01:33 PM
Tar and feathers, and get ready to man the rail, men!

statist bastard

PCGS65
February 21, 2006, 01:41 PM
Andy Teas with the Houston Apartment Association said that although some would consider cameras an invasion of privacy, "I think a lot of people would appreciate the thought of extra eyes looking out for them."

I wonder if Andy Teas or any body else in favor or such a crime would mind if cameras were placed in their home? Including LEO's and Politicians? Then put it on the internet. I can hear it now "oh we are exempt". :barf: :mad: :fire: :banghead: :evil: :cuss:
OVER MY COLD DEAD BODY!!!:cuss: :evil: :barf: :mad: :banghead:

scout26
February 21, 2006, 05:51 PM
I'd bet after 30 seconds of my nekkid butt dancing in front of the camera, the SWAT team would break down the door and forcibly remove the camera and all the wiring. Meanwhile the guy in the surveillance center gets medical attention, screaming

"MY EYES !!!! OH DEAR G_D MY EYES !!!!."


:neener: :evil: :neener: :evil: :neener: :evil: :neener: :evil:

PCGS65
February 21, 2006, 06:10 PM
I'd bet after 30 seconds of my nekkid butt dancing in front of the camera, the SWAT team would break down the door and forcibly remove the camera and all the wiring. Meanwhile the guy in the surveillance center gets medical attention, screaming

"MY EYES !!!! OH DEAR G_D MY EYES !!!!."


:neener: :evil: :neener: :evil: :neener: :evil: :neener: :evil:

Scout26 That would be illegal and you would be arrested for indecent exposure. Then you would have to register as a sex offender thus loosing your FOID card....LOL
I know it no laughing matter, but I couldn't resist.:neener:

Robert Hairless
February 21, 2006, 09:28 PM
I really think folks are reaching to think the guy wants cameras INSIDE houses. Sure, his words came out all weird, but 99 and 44/100 % odds are that he's talking aobut people wanting them in yards monitoring approaches, or the sidewalk areas.
...
Art


"If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Hurtt told reporters.

His remarks came as the City Council approved a financial-incentive program to help the Houston Police Department recruit officers.

The department is struggling with a manpower shortage as well as a spike in violent crime. To supplement officers on patrol, HPD is considering installing five video cameras downtown, Hurtt said. He also suggested that new apartment complexes and malls be required, as part of the building-permit process, to provide security cameras.

And when asked whether the need for cameras extends to private homes, he said, "If they're putting a burden on the criminal justice system and cheating the other residents of Houston, yes."

He did not elaborate on how police would accomplish such surveillance or when it would be appropriate.

Seems to me that Chief Hurtt said what he meant, Art.

Chief Hurtt's approach doesn't seem to apply when citizens videotape the police though, at least not in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts the State Police were recorded by a camera within the home of someone they arrested. It appears that they didn't have a warrant to search his and his wife's home but that didn't stop them. They searched it anyway. The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office sent a cease and desist letter to the owner of a web site that posted the video, claiming that "this secret, unauthorized audio/video recording" made in the man's own home was unlawful and subject to prosecution as a felony. Take a look at the video and related documents on http://www.conte2006.com--but look fast because there's only a temporary restraining order allowing the video to remain on that site.

If the Massachusetts State Police were not doing anything wrong, why should they worry about it? And why do the Massachusetts State Police and the Attorney General consider it wrong for a man to tape them in his own home while the Houston police chief thinks it's okay to tape citizens in the city as well as in their own homes? Sophisticated law enforcement techniques sure do get confusing sometimes.

If you enjoyed reading about "Houston police chief wants surveilance cameras in homes" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!