Houston police chief wants surveilance cameras in homes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Hairless said:
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.
 
4th Amendment

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:
 
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?
 
blessings of the State

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.
 
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
 
Houston Cop wants to watch you...

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.

[email protected]

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

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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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
 
well

for what it is gonna cost to keep the black spray paint cleaned off the lens' he could probably afford some new officers!:evil:
 
"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.
 
TheEgg said:
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.
 
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!!!!!:)
 
C. Rabbit said:
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:
 
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.
 
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:
 
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 said:
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:
 
Art Eatman said:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top