Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Houston police chief wants surveilance cameras in homes

Discussion in 'Legal' started by C. Rabbit, Feb 18, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. C. Rabbit

    C. Rabbit Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    109
    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
     
  2. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    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.
     
  3. Chrontius

    Chrontius Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    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
     
  4. strambo

    strambo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,929
    Location:
    Oregon
    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.
     
  5. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,850
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    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
     
  6. progunner1957

    progunner1957 member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    A wolf living in Sheeple land
    ...And people in hell want ice water.
     
  7. JMag

    JMag Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    276
    Location:
    Southeastern USA
    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.
     
  8. Merkin.Muffley

    Merkin.Muffley member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    158
    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?
     
  9. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,850
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    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
     
  10. Strings

    Strings Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,031
    Location:
    30 miles from Everywhere, right in the middle of N
    I wonder how hard it would be for some hacker to start re-directing the camera feeds to a streaming video porn site?
     
  11. PotatoJudge

    PotatoJudge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,332
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  12. 3rdpig

    3rdpig Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    603
    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!
     
  13. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    Y'know, having sex with my husband isn't wrong, but I still like to close the bedroom door.

    pax
     
  14. miconoakisland

    miconoakisland Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    66
    What if?

    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.
     
  15. miconoakisland

    miconoakisland Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    66
    What if?

    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.
     
  16. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    "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!
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2006
  17. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    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?
     
  18. 71Commander

    71Commander Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,336
    Location:
    Headin back to Johnson City
    You're joking, right?
     
  19. ravinraven

    ravinraven Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    803
    Location:
    Brasher Falls NY
    "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
     
  20. Broadhead

    Broadhead Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Arapahoe County, Colorado
    who needs FISA?

    If "they" want a camera in your house, it's probably already there.
     
  21. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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:
     
  22. AirForceShooter

    AirForceShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,766
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Man should be Fired. That's all.

    AFS
     
  23. HankB

    HankB Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    5,230
    Location:
    Central Texas
    Well, it was good enough for Winston Smith, wasn't it? :barf:
     
  24. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    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)
     
  25. hammer4nc

    hammer4nc Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    977
    Breaking news!!

    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:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page