Big Brother and Camera Phones

[peacefuljeffrey]

Thrifty7 wrote:

Big Brother?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is not the phones (or cameras in general). It is the laws that are being enforced. This issue seems to really rile up a lot of people that I think should know better. They focus on privacy, and condemn what could be a revolutionary law enforcement tool. Imagine a world where there was absolutely no privacy in public places. After getting used to the idea, what harm would come to the law abiding? (Obviously, whenever privacy became necessary, one would enter a private place, just like we do now.) Now think of the effect on the criminal element....no shadows to hide in...no chance of their lies being beleived...no opportunity to do anything without it being recorded in some memory bank somewhere....crime would be a far less attractive option, I think. Of course it is not a perfect idea, and would need to be carefully managed, but I think that privacy in public places is something that I would gladly trade off for the above mentioned benefits. (Big Brothers cameras were in people's homes...their private places...very different from what I am suggesting.) Just food for thought...what do you think?

I think -- no, I know -- that you disgust me.

It's too bad it's not possible for you to give up your own personal right to privacy without intrinsically giving up everyone in society's, or I would say, "Fine, go ahead and give up your rights, since you don't care for them anyway."

Yep. Your attitude/beliefs make me sick.

-Jeffrey

 

[thrifty7]

Big Brother?

Wow. I certainly didn't expect this much anger. I tried to be clear that I wasn't suggesting that we give up anything....people would still have all the privacy that they have now, in places that are private now...such as your home, office, car, outhouse, motel room, etc. etc. What I suggested, as food for thought only, is increased surveillence of places that are already public...streets, parks, malls, parking garages, etc....would you be enraged at the thought of hundreds of extra police officers patrolling these places? All I am suggesting is hundreds of extra eyes, watching for obvious crimes of depredation...robbery, muggings, assaults, rape, molestation,etc. If any tool of law enforcement is abused by the enforcers, the result is of course disasterous, but it is not the fault of the tool. Similarly, if foolish laws are being enforced it is up to the legislature to abolish the foolish laws, not the enforcement of them. My initial comment about the situation in England was that their problem is not the cameras, but the foolish laws that the cameras are being used to enforce.
Of course this whole concept seems radical when put into words, and all I want to do is discuss it.....I certainly have no power to implement such an idea, and would not want it to be implemerned unless a majority of citizens agreed that it was beneficial.
I think I have been found guilty by association.It is the foolish laws that have you guys upset. I did not and do not advocate any invasion of anyones private space. If I walk into your house and start taking pictures, of course I deserve to be dealt with as sternly as the law allows...but if someone was mugging your mother on the street and I photographed the process, I'll bet you would want the film.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Discussions about one member's personal opinion of another member as a person are best dealt with in private.

No personal attacks are tolerated here. Ever.

I hope that's clear to everyone (and I do mean "everyone"), because this is the only warning I'm going to give on this subject.

 

[FortyFive]

Maybe fly tipping is unzipping your fly to tip the breeze or let fly if your in a hurry!

 

[gc70]

Well, I am very surprised at the vehement nature of the comments against the idea of phone photos.

Just so I understand the issue: a citizen takes a picture of a crime or some type of presumably inappropriate behavior in public and sends the picture to the police.

That's bad? I'm so ancient that I thought people were being good citizens when they reported crimes.

Sure, personal crimes reports are a PITA because most people aren't very observant, therefore they are poor witnesses if needed to later testify in court, and most people simply don't want to devote the time necessary to get involved. Phone photos seem like a good solution - just send the evidence instantly to the police.

 

[cuchulainn]

gc70,

It probably would be less disconcernting if they'd simply said "email them to your local police station," rather than to the Orwellian-sounding Anti-Social Behaviour Units.

Get it? It just sounds kind of creepy for citizens to be sending photos of each other's "anti-social behavior" (whatever that is) to a government office with a downright Orwellian name. Creepy. Oogie.

Will the photos be limited to illegal acts, or will they include other "anti-social behavior"?

What were they thinking when they chose that name?

 

[gc70]

Okay, so I am getting so ancient that my situational awareness is decreasing.

Yes, the name for the police unit is bizarre, but I just skipped over the name and went to the core of the idea. Maybe they could change the name to something catchy like "Pix for Dicks" (and I do mean "detectives") to get people to participate.

 

[iapetus]

While the name does seem rather daft (I once saw a job advert for a local government post "Antisocial behaviour coordinator"), ASBOs are addressing real problems.

Although they are also being used to address things they shouldn't be.

Basically, there seems to be three broad catagories of offence that Antisocial Behaviour Orders are used against:

1) "Low-level" crime of the sort that makes people's lives a misery and blights many housing estates. Harrasment. Public drunkeness. Kids throwing stones at houses. Threatening behaviour. Fly tipping (dumping refuse, e.g. old matresses, kitchen appliances, etc in public places on account of being too lazy to take them to a proper waste disposal site or paying someone else to). These are the sort of this ASBOs were designed for, and (IMO) are reasonable to use for.

2) More serious crimes, that really ought to be dealt with using more traditional laws. E.g. a persistent car-thief who was banned for wearing a hood in public, because that was how he prevented CCTV cameras identifying him when he was breaking into cars. (Because when he is about to steal a car, he'll suddenly realize he isn't allowed to put his hood up, and will stop )

3) Things the law shouldn't even bother with (a woman got an ASBO banning her from answering the door nude).


Examples of ASBOs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3979263.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4212859.stm

Criticisms of ASBOs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4129237.stm

 

[gc70]

3) Things the law shouldn't even bother with (a woman got an ASBO banning her from answering the door nude).

Oh, now I get it; the police want citizens to send in pictures of ASB like answering the door nude.

 

[cuchulainn]

If you fail to comply with an ASBO, do you get processed by the Department of Information Retrieval?

Lowry?

Lowry?

Lowry?

Lowry?

 

[Gung-Ho]

would you be enraged at the thought of hundreds of extra police officers patrolling these places?

YES!!!!!

 

[joab]

Get it? It just sounds kind of creepy for citizens to be sending photos of each other's "anti-social behavior" (whatever that is) to a government office with a downright Orwellian name. Creepy. Oogie

So it's bad because it sounds scary, kinda like an AK is bad cause it looks scary

 

[bigjim]

No Joab its bad because it is bad. As a child I hated snitches. Did not care for them as a young adult in the service. Don't like them now.

I object to the Government enlisting people to inform on each other.

Jim

 

[joab]

As a child I hated snitches. Did not care for them as a young adult in the service. Don't like them now.

So then it's us against the cops and anyone who cooperates is a snitch

 

[bigjim]

No Joab......

But people going around putting their nose into other peoples business, informing on them for trivial infractions are not to be trusted or emulated.

I catch somebody taking a picture of me littering with a cell phone in order to report me they will get a two for one deal the second being eye witness to a battery.

But to a very real degree it is exactly as you say. The people verses the authoritarians. People in authority are DIFFERENT from the rest of us. I have NEVER met anyone that has been elevated to a position of power that does not change in view point, and personal relationships with others.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutley. Oleg for instance, in my opinion has fought off the seductive trappings of power as owner of this board harder and with more success than I could hope for. Yet he has changed I am sure. Ask him I bet he will admit it. Think Round table.

So yes Joab, I will always be vigilant and distrusting of people in power.

Even though my interests and those of Cops often over lap and complement each other. I will never trust them and consider them my friends.

While there are heroic Cops, Cops are not heroes.

 

[joab]

Even though my interests and those of Cops often over lap and complement each other. I will never trust them and consider them my friends.

More than enough said

 

[misANTHrope]

I catch somebody taking a picture of me littering with a cell phone in order to report me they will get a two for one deal the second being eye witness to a battery.

So you'd willingly and knowingly break the law, and then get pissed off when you got caught? Do you think you're above the law or something? I could understand if it was a ridiculous or unconstitutional law maybe, but I can't think of any kind of justification of littering. And I'm amazed that you'd further commit another crime to cover up your puny little infraction.

So much for "law-abiding citizen."

And before it gets mentioned, I break laws, too. I speed all the damn time. But when I get caught, I don't get pissed off at anyone but myself. As far as I'm concerned, I made the choice and I'll accept the consequences.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Perhaps those defending this sort of Statist stupidity should consider the group of people it will create. They'll be the ones out in public every day with a cellphone ready to take a snappy of you stepping off the curb at the wrong time. Spitting in the gutter. Dropping your gum wrapper. Flying some deserving fool The Bird.

It's not about every action of the criminal element being recorded. It's about every action of the non-criminal element being recorded and the sort of people who will revel in it. More importantly, perhaps, it's about the mindset it creates. Afterall, considering how effective it is wouldn't it be just great to record backyards and front yards? Think of how unlikely breakins would become....

Then, of course, if we just monitored the main entry points of your home and outbuildings... :banghead:

 

[bigjim]

So you'd willingly and knowingly break the law, and then get pissed off when you got caught? Do you think you're above the law or something? I could understand if it was a ridiculous or unconstitutional law maybe, but I can't think of any kind of justification of littering. And I'm amazed that you'd further commit another crime to cover up your puny little infraction.

So much for "law-abiding citizen."

And before it gets mentioned, I break laws, too. I speed all the damn time. But when I get caught, I don't get pissed off at anyone but myself. As far as I'm concerned, I made the choice and I'll accept the consequences.

This reply is little more than a elaborate rewording of my post. Misanthrope seems to feel his/her reason for breaking the law are better than mine. If in his/her opinion the law is unconstitutional it would be ok to pissed about being caught. But if it is one of those laws Misanthrope deems ok then it is not.

I am going to leave the house to go grocery shopping in a hour or so. I fully expect to break the law while doing it. If some busybody informant with a cell phone takes my picture and rats me out to the man it will piss me off.

On the other hand if I see someone hurting someone else, stealing the property of another, violating a womans reproductive rights, or being mean to a dog, I promise to not only get involved but to report it to the police.

Dealing with situational ethics......Misanthrope this is why you were issued a brain.

 

[bigjim]

More than enough said

I take from this you think I should trust and consider Cops to be my friend.
Could you tell me why?

Whenever I am talking to a Cop I am being investigated. The one time in my life I really needed a Cop during my home invasion in 1991 they came after the attack was over and seemed annoyed I used my gun against the people that kicked my door in. In fact they took my pistol that night leaving me and my wife defenseless if the bad guys returned for revenge. I did not consider this a act of friendship. Nor did it garner respect and trust.

However this is all off topic..... this is about informants with cell phones.

 

[gc70]

... If some busybody informant with a cell phone takes my picture and rats me out to the man it will piss me off.

On the other hand if I see ..., I promise to not only get involved but to report it to the police.

Please help me understand the difference here.

If someone else sees something they believe is illegal they are wrong to report it to the police, but if you see something you believe is illegal you are right to report it to the police?

 

[joab]

I take from this you think I should trust and consider Cops to be my friend.

I didn't mean to imply that.
I only meant that your statement (shoulda quoted the whole thing) explains your mindset perfectly and no further info was needed.

If I in any way cooperate with the police then I a snitch and you don't like cops or snitches.

if I see someone hurting someone else, stealing the property of another, violating a womans reproductive rights, or being mean to a dog, I promise to not only get involved but to report it to the police.

Unless you are doing the snitching.

this is about informants with cell phones.

For which I personally see little difference than informants that have to go to a pay phone. Now they all have digicams to back up their reports is all.

I really don't think informing is going to be any more rampant than it is now.
You will still have as many Agnes Cravitzs and as many people who say "I don't like cops or snitches"

Both sets tend to screw peoples lives up at one time or another

 

[bigjim]

GC70,

The difference is the type and severity of the crime. If you don't scoop up after your dog, I am not going to report you. If you have your dog attack a child after I shoot your dog to save the child I will report you. Please tell me you understand the difference?

 

[gc70]

Yes, bigjim, I do understand that there are differences in the type and severity of crimes.

Who gets to make the list of crimes that deserve to be reported to the police? You? Me? Agnes Cravitzs?

 

[bigjim]

If I in any way cooperate with the police then I a snitch and you don't like cops or snitches.

Geez its clear your argueing just to practice typing but just in case you missed it here is my original quote:

But people going around putting their nose into other peoples business, informing on them for trivial infractions are not to be trusted or emulated.

If you see a crime that actually has a victim, some one is hurt, property stolen thay type of thing by all means report it, hell I will let you barrow my cell phone to do it!

Additionally I never said I don't like COPS. I said I don't trust them or consider them friends by virtue of the fact they are Cops. In fact by virtue of the fact a policeman has choosen to wrap himself in the blanket of authority I am predisposed to think of them as untrustworthy.

History, and currently reality show this to be a prudent mindset.