Game to destroy CCTV cameras: vandalism or valid protest?

[DainBramaged]

Activists in Berlin are teaming up to trash surveillance cameras. Points are given, with bonus scores for the most innovative modes of destruction


As a youth in a ski mask marches down a Berlin U-Bahn train, dressed head-to-toe in black, commuters may feel their only protection is the ceiling-mounted CCTV camera nearby. But he is not interested in stealing wallets or iPhones – he is after the camera itself. This is Camover, a new game being played across Berlin, which sees participants trashing cameras in protest against the rise in close-circuit television across Germany.

The game is real-life Grand Theft Auto for those tired of being watched by the authorities in Berlin; points are awarded for the number of cameras destroyed and bonus scores are given for particularly imaginative modes of destruction. Axes, ropes and pitchforks are all encouraged.

The rules of Camover are simple: mobilise a crew and think of a name that starts with "command", "brigade" or "cell", followed by the moniker of a historical figure (Van der Lubbe, a Dutch bricklayer convicted of setting fire to the Reichstag in 1933, is one name being used). Then destroy as many CCTV cameras as you can. Concealing your identity, while not essential, is recommended. Finally, video your trail of destruction and post it on the game's website – although even keeping track of the homepage can be a challenge in itself, as it is continually being shut down.

The use of surveillance cameras has become a thorny political issue in Germany. Inadequate CCTV footage was highlighted in the investigation of a bomb scare in Bonn last December ("Germans consider Brit-style CCTV," shouted Der Spiegel). This, along with the brutal killing of a man in Berlin's busy Alexanderplatz square in October 2012 spurred the interior minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich, to call for "efficient video surveillance and video recording in public areas".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/shortcuts/2013/jan/25/game-destroy-cctv-cameras-berlin

[graham4anything]

1. I would toss them in jail.

if they are just game playing this is juvenile and can lead to mass deaths.

if this is anarchy, well, needless to say, toss them in jail longer.

and make the camera unbreakable and seal them away so they can do their job

I bet Hitler would have smashed camera back in the day.

What is amazing is how some demand transparency, but not for themselves.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. -1

[Fumesucker]

5. Hitler would have purely loved him some security cameras

[JDPriestly]

61. The STASI of East Germany loved any form of surveillance they could dream up.

Those ubiquitous cameras smack of 1984.

[DainBramaged]

10. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[graham4anything]

12. But who is the brick, and who is the wall?

without a camera, it is not transparent to see

[Bjorn Against]

47. I don't know, but your posts in this thread are making me want to get a closer look to find out

[MadHound]

19. Not surprising that you're all for the National Surveillance State.

You come across as quite the authoritarian around here.

[Union Scribe]

28. 'dey're like HEETLER!' No surprise from you. nt

[Bjorn Against]

45. Hitler? Seriously? Do you really think Hitler would oppose government surveillance?

Wow. You really need to learn about history if you think Hitler would be opposed to government surveillance.

[dixiegrrrrl]

46. HOw can disabling spy cams lead to mass deaths????

And Hitler would have smashed cameras???????
Really?

[graham4anything]

66. They are security cameras. They are to stop terrorism and crime

and in this modern world they are most needed

especially against people with guns and bullets.

[dixiegrrrrl]

74. How does a camera STOP crime?

Every bank in the country has indoor cameras, which fatihfully record all the bank robberies.
There are cameras at many inter-secrions, which faithfully record all the red light running.
The camera shots of illegal behavior are posted on YouTube almost daily.
None STOP the behavior.

[jberryhill]

104. By deterrence

[kestrel91316]

155. Cameras don't STOP crime. And Hitler would have LOVED to have them to

spy on the population - all the better to find and MURDER "enemies" of the state.

Cameras are far more likely to be used to frame innocent people for crimes they didn't commit - you see, we have you on camera near the crime scene around the time it happened, so OBVIOUSLY you're guilty.

Guess we know whose side you're on - and it's not the side of individual freedom from government overreaching and snooping without probable cause.

[Puzzledtraveller]

56. Long live the state right?

[JDPriestly]

60. I wouldn't toss them in jail.

If there really have been murders or a series of crimes in an area, then maybe a surveillance camera is needed until the crime wave ends. But these surveillance cameras put up in public places in which there is no extraordinary record of crime? No. It is just an encroachment on the freedom of the populace.

I would toss those who put up the surveillance cameras without a real reason for it in jail. There has to be some protection for the freedom of the individual to pick his nose or scratch or make a face in a public place. The surveillance cameras don't just film criminals. They film everyone no matter what indiscriminately. I'm for at least a certain amount of personal privacy even on the street.

[Codeine]

76. You're quite the silly little cartoon, aren't you? nt

[whatchamacallit]

85. You are spectacular proof of how easy it is to game this board

Congratulations.

[Systematic Chaos]

110. + a shitload

This thread makes me queasy.

[chollybocker]

126. + extra cheese

Yet another fungi pizza order, coming from inside the house....

[idwiyo]

91. Of course you would :)

[fishwax]

125. lol

"I bet Hitler would have smashed camera back in the day."

[backscatter712]

131. And I imagine you approve of driving Aaron Swartz to suicide.

Some people cream their pants at the idea of repression.

[Dead_Parrot]

135. I'm pretty sure Hitler would have tossed camera smashers in jail

-5 points for a blatant Godwin.
-3,000 points for being a total muppet.

[sir pball]

151. Move to the UK, you'll LOVE it there..

1984 isn't supposed to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, btw.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. One World, under surveillance.

Operation Northwoods: The 9/11 You Never Knew

[stultusporcos]

4. Depends on if they get caught or not if I were on a jury they would walk

Unlike some here I do not like living in a police state

I fully support any and all efforts at stopping, impeding and eliminating the police state.

[graham4anything]

6. Would you believe I back Control over Kaos.

just say no to chaos and anarchy

we can get every gun out of the street, legal and otherwise, if only for more security and camera, making my right to free and peaceful assembly anywhere i want possible.

[Fumesucker]

8. A national security state is a one way ratchet..

Such a state has no natural way of backing off, only through profound societal upheaval will it change for the less intrusive.

[stultusporcos]

9. Please ignore all my posts, I was not talking to you

I wish to not engage with you at all on any level

[graham4anything]

11. I don't ignore anybody. Feel free to ignore me.

People normally ignore when the answer they receive is not what they are looking for,
and all they want is a mob like echo chamber.

I do not do echo chambers, I am not looking for facebook friends.
I don't really care if anyone agrees with me, here,there or anywhere, as I know people do agree with me elsewhere, and I know my words are googled searched and taken elsewhere
and I have the same opinions in public as on this board.

I know more than a year ago, when I first (totally alone in my view) started here mentioning
(on the gun section part at that time) my views against guns and bullets and Zimmerman and cameras and ridding the US Streets of all guns (but allowing guns to remain in the home)
and when I was the first to back Mike Bloomberg on his gun views and his great move in California ousting long time pro-NRA democratic candidate with a new anti-NRA democratic candidate.(and saw this would indeed be the start of the end of the NRA).

and at that time, was told by all the pro-gun people that their gun was for sport, for hunting,
for collecting and no other reason

Of course, after CT, those lies were put to rest, guns are to take over the country and to do the Zimmy on anyone who doesn't agree.

With all that, I want MORE cameras and more security.
Be in the open.
I use EZ pass, they know where I am.
I charge everything but 4bucks a week for lotto on a c/c
I shop with their shopping discount
They know my toilet paper I use
They know what I eat

Cameras make you safe

Are you saying you don't want police vehicles to have manditory cameras to pick up police abuse?
Wihtout those cameras, without people's cell phone cameras, much would be hidden.

but yes, I know you were not talking to me and wish I would ignore your posts

I ignore no one, nor do I wish to ban anyone from their view.

Because to hear these type views, are a good thing

because no, Hitler would NOT have wanted cameras filming his every move.
If he did, then there would be 100% coverage of everything he did.
And there isn't, is there?
(btw, I am Jewish, and my mother and grandparents and more family were tossed by Hitler from Austria about a week or two before it would have been too late.)

Cameras=good.
breaking cameras with masks on=bad
Btw, if doing it is good, why hide who they are?
answer=because they know it is bad.

So, I will keep responding to your posts
(unless your posts are in the gun section, where I no longer will frequent very much, so there I would not respond to you(HOWEVER, indeed I would read it.

Because reading is a good thing.

Your response actually would be like a librarian telling me, don't read anything here, go away.
Thanks for the advice.
Sorry, unless asked by the authorities on this board, I refuse that advice.

I value your opinion and everybody elses.
And make MY OWN OPINION about those opinions.

thank you very much.

[DainBramaged]

13. Cameras make you safe

MMMMMMMMk




Cameras make you subject to unnecessary scrutiny. If you reach in your pocket for your cell phone, someone watching may just misinterpret it as you STEALING something (happened to me) and subject to unnecessary search ans seizure by untrained minimum wage rent-a -cops.



Bullshit on your society of safe.

[graham4anything]

14. cameras though will show the cops or Paul Blart Zimmermans, were wrong ala Rodney King

So should the man in T Square in China have been filmed?

Who decides who's film is good or bad?

Some anarchist/terrorist in a mask depicting a fictional rightwing terrorist?

Judge, jury executioner like Tim McCoward over some delusional conspiarcy theory he had?

Who decides?

I wish a camera could have shown Mr. Martin and his skittles and the fact that at NO time,
zimmy's life was in danger.

needless to say though, through it all,
a crime is a crime.
And how much TAXPAYER MONEY are these hoodlums, these gangsters doing?
And the 99%ers are the one who pay the costs, right? That is what you guys tell me on other threads.
So these hoodlums are stealing the 99% money like some claim the CEOs are doing.

right?

btw, is the film of the JFK thing good or bad? Just asking?

how about the camera of the moon landing? Was that a bad thing?

The way to make the governemnt safe for all, is with MORE cameras and tapes.
Exposes the bad.

same with crime and terrorism.

the one fallacy all those that don't like this or that, is that TERRORISM KILLS REAL PEOPLE.
There is no fake people and lies. REAL PEOPLE DIE

I myself like that there is security on planes and trains
Wish I could say the same about my right to peaceful assembly anywhere I damn choose, like a movie theatre, without someone in an anarchistic mask coming in and shooting up the place.

Hey, why not do what Bob Dylan or mimes do, if they worry you.
Hold out a card with words and an arrow
PHONE> and have that held high, when reaching into your pocket for your cellphone
then hold your cellphone up, and wave and say smile you are on camera

(not being snarky here either.)

this my camera is good, but that one is bad is hypocritical
let's just all assume we are on camera 24/7/365

if one is then not doing anything wrong, one has nothing to fear but fear itself (As FDR said)

[Fumesucker]

15. Johannes Meserle has been out of prison for quite a while for shooting a handcuffed man in the back

That happened on several video cameras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

On November 5, 2010, Mehserle was sentenced to two years with double credit for time already served, reducing his term by 292 days for the 146 days he has already spent in jail.[121] The judge overturned the gun enhancement, which could have added an additional 3 to 10 years to the sentence.[122][123] He was released from prison at 12:01am on June 13, 2011.

[graham4anything]

33. without the camera, there might have been zero time.

so it would seem that the cameras were an asset here.

that a jury and judge saw otherwise, well, one would need to know details of what the judge allowed, and what the jury heard.

wouldn't it have been great if there was a camera when Susan Smith drowned her kids, and right off we would have known that her story blaming a blackguy was bullshit

wouldn't it have been great if there were cameras when Mathew Shepard was strung up?

When the man in Texas was strung to the back of a truck and dismembered?

When Katie Beers was kidnapped and locked in a small place and abused?

When Thomas Jefferson was around so we could see how his words in the constitution were utter lies, and how he abused his slaves?

Wouldn't it have been great if before every gun murder, there was a camera detailing that a person was coming on the street with a gun, and there was an eye in the sky with a beam that could zap that person before they murdered someone?

I don't really get your point here, because you do seem to be on my side here.
(maybe that is the point?)

and by the way, it sure don't sound like this dirty cop is having a good life, as it appears he is on the run(though not a fugitive, it appears he made his own prison once released from prison).

[Fumesucker]

37. The point is that cops can murder someone on camera and get away with it

So the cameras actually do almost nothing to restrain the police.

And the UK experience shows the cameras aren't even that good at stopping crime.

As I've already pointed out a national security state never lightens up short of massive social upheaval, give away your privacy at your own risk because you'll never get it back.

[graham4anything]

54. Charmin with aloe. They already know I use that.

therefore what else would I not want them to know?

worrying about such minutia makes one feel they are in prison.

It reminds me in NYC in the mid to late 1970s when there was more crime.
People put locks and gates all over their house.
Driving past, I always thought these people have more gates on their doors/windows than someone in jail. And sure enough, in the news, one after another, you heard of tragic fires occuring, and guess what, the fire department could not get on the property or into the house quick enough, because of all those locks and windows.

don't sweat the small stuff.

and I got 45% off the giant roll btw, mega sale in the supermarket using their discount card.
I happily trade the world knowing I use that brand, and save the money.
(also, the people in the store, and in the parking lot, also knew, as well, they don't have bags that big to hide it).

and the subway, the streets are PUBLIC anyhow.
1000s of people have their own cell phone.
smile, they are taking pictures too.
same in the subway.

what would be the difference if one of those tourists is actually a cop?

How many 9-11 events have happened in a US Airport since then?

[Fumesucker]

57. Well, we just had 20 first graders and six teachers slaughtered

I guess that wasn't enough to get your attention.

[graham4anything]

58. Because of a gun and a bullet. We need MORE security and new laws to ban all guns from street

especially legal guns.

then MORE camaeras and metal detectors and zero tolerance for anyone with a gun in the street.

and problem would be solved.

all it takes is a new court, a new law or three, and more security for anyone caught with a gun on the street.

It can be done, and so can the NRA be reclassified as a terror org, funds frozen and anyone who donates marked and tagged.

but to be safe, there has to be more security.

because that was legal guns and there was NO crime until the crime was committed.

but the cameras themselves can't do it alone.

Had there been checkpoints everywhere, and the correct security on the street and in the sky, it can be prevented.

and then the kids can properly go about their lives in safety.

[Fumesucker]

59. Internal passports, that's what we need

They would assure that people must pass through the checkpoints in order to travel from one neighborhood to another.

The Soviet Union knew how to deal with troublemakers and dissidents by God.

[graham4anything]

62. in the NY/NJ area there are tolls all over. EZ pass.They already have these things

cell phones are traceable

and Ron Paul wanted a camera in every bedroom except theirs

a doctor with sanctuary in a church, should indded have the right to NOT be shot dead in a church to exact political change.

thousands of people paraded with their guns in 2010 outside town halls and meetings
and a judge and Rep. Giffords was shot in a supermarket by one of them.

What about the constitutional rights of hte judge and Rep. Giffords to a peaceful assembly and life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The judge is dead and Rep. Giffords, an up and coming star in the democratic party
(and possible senate choice in the future) is now out of office because of her injuries.

Would have loved to have MORE camaera in New Orleans during Katrina and especially on
Danzinger Bridge BEFORE the cops now in jail did what they did.

all this not wanting cameras? For what? theoreticals?

[Bjorn Against]

69. You want more checkpoints and metal detectors? I don't want to live in your America

I hate guns passionately, but I sure as hell don't want to empty my pockets for the metal detector every time I go in a building or have to pass through checkpoints on my way to work. What you are suggesting is truly an extremist fringe position, I can say that I am glad most Americans do not hold the extremist positions that you are expressing.

I support gun control, what you are proposing goes far beyond gun control and into very frightening territory.

[graham4anything]

70. gun control don't work because of legal guns. All major mass shootings are legal guns.

and what they propose won't stop the mass shootings.
After all, the guns the extremist used in CT and Colorado were legal.

so were the two in Columbine.

You need to take the ability to bring mommy and daddy's guns into the street to stop these things.

No one is saying don't own guns.

Just keep them in your private house and out of the street.

Scary is not being able to assemble freely because of the terroristic nature of a gun and a bullet.

remember-it is always legal guns that stop any serious control of guns.
and its stopping gun murderers, not controlling them but STOPPING them

[Bjorn Against]

71. As I said I support gun control, what I do not support is the mass surveillance you are proposing

I am not going to be carrying a gun on the street, but I sure as hell don't want to have to go through the checkpoints you are proposing to prove I am not carrying a gun every day. What you are proposing is truly frightening, it disturbs me greatly to even think about your mass surveillance and checkpoints idea being put into practice.

We can have sensible gun control without having to turn the entire nation into a police state.

[graham4anything]

72. It works in Israel, another democracy that has problems.And it works at airports now.

[Bjorn Against]

73. If it is working so well in Israel then I wonder why I hear so much about violence over there

I actually knew someone who had to walk through Israel's checkpoints to go to school every morning, he would have a few words to say about your assertion that the checkpoints have worked. He saw two of his cousins gunned down right in front of him.

[graham4anything]

83. then even more security is needed

if it only saves one life, it doesn't matter that other events still can happen

it is the one life it saves that is important

[Bjorn Against]

84. I really don't think my friend would agree with you that more security would have saved his cousins

It was the "security" that shot his cousins.

[graham4anything]

87. I don't play gotcha games or setups

of course, democratic voters know that it was this type of gotcha that killed Mike Dukakis' campaign and threw the election to 41.

sorry for your personal loss, but you should have provided that detail originally
(in which case it would not have been a gotcha.)

But we would all have done well to have Mossad's advance security at all time.
They are the best.

[Bjorn Against]

90. That was not a gotcha, it was a fact

I did not bring the Israeli checkpoints into the discussion it was you that brought it up, you may not have known that I actually had a friend who had to deal with those checkpoints but that does not mean I am not allowed to tell you the reality that you don't want to face.

[im1013]

105. Wow...

[EarthWindFire]

127. Damn

You should read 1984 by George Orwell, it's pretty much about a world that you would enjoy living in. And why in the hell would hitler want to destroy cameras he was King shit and could really careless what anyone thought of his actions... My source is HISTORY by the way. He wanted to know where all the jews were so therefore he would want a surveillance state in order to track the Jews. I enjoy certain freedoms like going about my day without being tracked every move of the day. Do you believe this would be a better country if all homes had cameras in them as well?

[kestrel91316]

161. Why stop with public places? Far too many violent crimes take place inside private homes.

We need surveillance cameras in every room of every private home and place of business.

Let's start with yours. I'm sure you'll feel much safer.

[graham4anything]

163. Hyperbole

There is no way to stop one on one crime

but one can stop multiple mass killings either by gun murderers or by terrorists (though there should be no distinction made between say Tim McVeigh and the CT person
Tim killed 19 kids plus adults, CT person killed 20 kids plus I think 6 others and wounded more in each case.

Cameras can stop that, and can stop any gun in the street from going inside a place people
assemble.

A house is different, because there would be no time to stop a one on one situation.

So that would be hyperbole

Cameras are there to attempt to stop what happeend on 9-11, what happened in London in their subway system, what happened from happening the same way

and if there were new laws about guns on the streets(there are not at the moment, and dealt with both legal and illegal, i.e. any gun) the mass killings could stop with cameras and other methods.

Use the actuary, insurance example of automobiles
A car has a flaw
one person dies and they pay off
ten people, they pay off
100 paid off
some undisclosed number happens, that tips the point from payoff to recall and the recall of all those model cars happens.

Eventually there reaches that limit between one and a thousand or ten thousand or whatever the number is.

If the camera saves one person, it is worth it.(or stops one thing from happening due to the perp not doing what he might have, knowing the camera was there.
Abuses can be dealt with, but its not the camera, it is an individual abusing the camera that would then be the problem

imho feel free to disagree with it.

[kestrel91316]

165. Love how you are trying to weasel your way out of this.

WE MUST STAY SAFE AT ALL COSTS. The only way to STAY SAFE is to place everyone under surveillance at all times.

Like I said, if you want to subject everyone else to intrusive government surveillance, you need to go first. How do we know YOU'RE not a terrorist?? Cameras on the street won't stop you from attacking. But surveillance where you do your plotting and planning sure will.

[graham4anything]

166. I already answered this yesterday

I pay for everyting on c/c
only 4 bucks a week for the two lotto tix Tuesday and Friday are cash

I buy a 50cent newspaper with the c/c

I use an e-zpass which can track all travel

I use a discount card at the supermarket which tracks every item I buy

I use my c/c to purchase medications

I use charmin with aloe and it's marked and catelogued on my c/c and supermarket

If cameras in the street were all over, I would be seen entering and leaving

My cell phone I am sure can be traced, from what they say
so can computers so they say

all my bills are paid with c/c or online

there is a record on all of us that are not attempting to avoid discovery.

So the answer to your question is, it already is known if anyone wants to know it.

Nothing hidden.

Yes, camaeras on the street, in conjunction with other things can indeed stop all gun murderers (other things would be metal detectors, or whatever new fangled items probably already are there.
They already have whatever they need to see

So why sweat a camera?

(especially when anyone in the world now has a camera in their pocket.
How do you know that tourist isn't a spy?

this is not the protests of 1965-1974. This is 2013.
In the 40s and 50s 60s school people ducked under their desk at school during drills.
Now there are different worries.

Probably there is a record of every single word on the internet somewhere

in fact, isn't that what is released time and again by people?

BTW, I am watching Dragnet on my TV in the background, one of the retro tv stations.
Suprisingly liberal from liberal Jack Webb. Last hour I watched Adam-12, a show Webb produced.Also surprisingly liberal considering both are cop shows from the mid 1960s.Just for the record.

I would rather have this than a Zimmerman justice.

BTW, if there were nationwide cameras on Danzinger Bridge, would those bad cops have
done what they did? I bet the answer would have been HELL NO.

BTW-do you think it is bad that Government people have tapes?
It was bad that there was that 18 minute gap, but if they are filmed, and have logs and tapes,
why not everybody else.
They are only regular people after all, in a high position.

Would you not want cameras on the big CEO's?
On anyone considered bad by any side in any issue?

[Union Scribe]

30. "if one is then not doing anything wrong, one has nothing to fear"

Holy fuckin shit. You are warped.

[X_Digger]

68. There is no amount of state authority too much for this one.

Patriot Act? He thinks it's peachy.
Warrantless wiretapping? He loves it.
'Stop and Frisk'? He wants it everywhere.

Scary as shit that folks like that caucus with the rest of us.

[kestrel91316]

158. You must really hate living in America. You'd be happier in London.

Or perhaps North Korea.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

You must REALLY hate that guy.

[Ian David]

35. Your post about how cameras makes us safe probably sounds better in the original German. n/t

[DainBramaged]

40. Well said

[RKP5637]

52. +1, n/t

[blueamy66]

43. Thank you Dr. Suess

You mean that I just wasted 2 minutes of my life reading your post?

[JDPriestly]

63. Cameras are a waste of money.

A camera is only good if it feeds into some screen somewhere and then someone, some human being watches the screen to see what is going on.

The fact that those who destroy the cameras are masked shows how easily cameras can be foiled.

Those who do not want to commit crimes will show their faces. The criminals that the police want to catch will soon find ways to hide or transform their identities.

The cameras give a sense of false security.

Could it be that the cameras are not intended to protect but rather to intimidate?

[randome]

103. I don't think that's how it usually works.

If a crime is committed, the approximate time is usually known. Then the video of that time frame can be reviewed.

They ARE there to intimidate. To intimidate would-be muggers and vandals.

[JDPriestly]

168. They can also be used for other purposes -- to snoop on people for personal reasons.

[datasuspect]

101. barbituates help you sleep

follow your doctor's protocols

[DainBramaged]

120. And people thought I was nuts for my rabid defense of Unions....

Defense of a police state is simply amazing........

[Raksha]

118. You didn't make the suggestion to me, but I'll be more than happy to take you up on it.

I am putting you on ignore. If there is anything I despise more than a control freak, I don't know what it is. And if there's anything I fear more than the national security state, I don't know what it is either. Definitely not chaos or anarchy, and not "terrorism" either. That word becomes more frighteningly open-ended by the day.

You've already told me everything I need to know about you in your responses to others.

[GoneOffShore]

153. So how's that RFID chip working out?

You are wrong on so many levels when it comes to surveillance.

In fact:

In the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli:
Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!

"That is not only not right, it is not even wrong!"

[hobbit709]

38. Yep, extreme authoritarian attitude.

Last edited Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)

I remember the results of that kind of surveillance as a kid, so does my mother. That kind of control surveillance leads to the kind of government that IS the source of fear among the people.
My earliest memories are of the Soviet occupation troops in my town.

Even money says you would score much higher than me on this test
http://helloquizzy.okcupid.com/tests/the-altemeyer-authoritarian-test

[dixiegrrrrl]

48. Damn test wants you to sign up to get the results.

no thanks

[hobbit709]

49. It wants you to but you don't have to I didn't.

[RKP5637]

53. It's all relative as to who is the watched and whom is the watcher ... and the

fallacy made by camera supporters (I think) is that all watchers are good. They are not, as you aptly pointed out.

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

81. Do you really believe that by advancing the police state with cameras on all innocent people &

removing the guns will secure your right to free and peaceful assembly? You think the same government who gave you the Patriot act and drones is just going to hand you any freedoms?

I don't know where you live, but where I'm at it isn't anarchy and chaos. Most people make it through life just fine without the police state watching their every move.

[kestrel91316]

157. Those cameras you are salivating over WILL be used to limit your right to

travel freely and assemble peacefully. You DO realize that, right?

You're just jerking our chains and laughing about your little fascist dream.

[graham4anything]

160. One can travel worldwide. The cameras make it safer, and as for freedom

well, we are posting on a worldwide board without too much censorship, unless one poster attempts to silence another poster through frivilous use of the jury system here.
(much like the frivilous lawsuits by Orly Taitz or the frivilous investigations Daryl Isaa uses.

Cameras are not saying to be a pod person

Being scared because of mass NRA gun people using their guns to overthrow the government are.

I for one would not go to Arizona at this time.
I would go to Times Square and when I drive in Manhattan, I know there are streets with
cameras looking for those running red lights.
Why would I run a red light anyhow? Red means stop. Yellow means caution. Green means go.

We are not in the never existed fabled Rockwell pictures. This is 2013 and well, 1984 was written decades ago and is not relevant to today's times.
NOBODY ever forsaw the WTC, and NO it is not rightwing to bring that up.
Especially as I myself used to be in that building every day in the 1970s, and every summer, spent time at lunch time with the free concerts they had there about 10 weeks a year, four days a week. So it is personal with me.

It is very easy for someone outside a major city to look at things and figure it won't happen near them(and normally it doesn't.)(and to some extent, neither does the major street crime).
But the run of Gun murderers lately indeed bring it home to other places where it could be
any street any town USA.

and no other nation has this, with this frequency.
When our kids and grandkids are in mortal danger every day of the year, well, a little inconvience is acceptable and again should be expected.

Not a school book about big brother, which is so 1960s and old school in itself anyhow.
This is a whole different world.

And if say, somebody takes it upon themselves to abuse the camera system, well,
it seems everyone has a camera, and it is brought to light, and it may take a while, but
change happens, a person is fired, and that specific problem won't happen again.
It is not because of the camera, it is because one specific isolated problem.

It's like people believing Wakefield, and not getting their kids vaccinated, and bringing back
illness thought eradicated for decades and real kids and others have now died because of it.

same thing.

FDR said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
and fear of cameras is fear itself.

imho feel free to disagree with it

[Sam1]

7. Why not both vandalism and protest?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Berlum]

16. "All your images are belong to us." - Cam Corder

[2on2u]

17. Mayberry was safe, it didn't have any cameras and it only had one bullet. n/t

[trumad]

18. Funny how Republicans love camera's...

They'd love a 1984 state---they love the powers to be watching over them like little children.

[Lesmoderesstupides]

21. Some Dems love em and want to live in a police state too

[kestrel91316]

162. I don't know any Democrats who wish for a police state.

I DO know plenty of RWers who do. And I would posit that anyone who comes on DU and is gleefully advocating for a 1984-style police state is either NOT a Democrat at all, or is engaging in a childish game of yanking our chains.

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

86. If you're talking Republican government yes they love cameras. If you're talking Republican

people, I think you'll find most agree with you on the camera issue. I live in Republican state. They are highly opposed to government spying on innocent without cause. They think the Dems are the ones who are begging for the advanced police state. This is where some open dialog might help us all, because in this area we actually agree. It's a start anyway.

[PATRICK]

20. A beside the point reaction to a false overreaction

The issue of the incidents that spurred officials to get me some CCTV was public protection. Some of these have precisely to with mechanization and tech supplanting cops on the beat. Prevention? In the worst or smartest cases no. The same for later discovery. behind every camera is a single human judgment, also downsized to the point of incapacity, some ongoing robbed peter principle continually proving the main point. Reducing protection by too little government service can't be replaced by gimmicks in the hands of even fewer, more remote and less accountable controlers even if they use smarter software(non-humans) to prune and weed the mountains of real time data. The big picture about the big de-privacy is that no real problem is very much helped. In most cases the real problem goes begging, new and worse and more expensive problems are created enhancing only the Big Brother level. The solution can be(who knows?) more ineffectual but it creates universal and communal oppression under the eye of secret observers. That it does automatically and without fail.

Paper ballots, boots on the ground. Labor and resource intensive, but the modern solutions are suspect and no real answer. A universal hi-tech Stazi for whom and for what?

I have no comment on the gaming of rebellion. That too is a side result of the dangerous universal spy foolishness. Our greatest threats remain totally unaffected by institutionally moderated tech spying because often those threats are behind the cameras. The threats I am speaking of might be said to be the actual cause and sponsor of the dreaded terrorist anyway. As for wild cards needing psychiatric care, trying getting any universal program to pay for that.

[MadHound]

22. Doesn't matter, good on them,

The creeping Surveillance State needs to be drastically set back. It was become so pervasive, so much the norm, that many folks welcome its oppressive presence.

Me, one of the reasons I moved out into the country was so I could go out in my own yard without being filmed. Of course now, with drone surveillance ratcheting up, it won't matter where you live, because everybody will be under observation of that Eye in the Sky.

[Lesmoderesstupides]

24. Technically you own the air space above your home

and if you had the means, it is currently available to anyone eligible to own a gun, to remove any drone from your sky/land.

[MadHound]

25. No, you technically don't,

They took away that technicality long ago with the advent of cross country flights. Otherwise, people could charge for planes passing through their airspace.

[Lesmoderesstupides]

27. GA and Com air have a right of way, just like the power company has

drones do not

[MadHound]

29. There are dozens of cases in any decent law library that prove you wrong,

Court case after court case have found that you don't own the airspace over your house, all the way up to the edge of space. Sorry. Don't believe me, go do your research in the law library and get back to me.

Only nations, sovereign entities, own the airspace over their country, not individuals.

[Orrex]

31. Do property owners own airspace up to a certain ceiling?

Or do I own only to the top of my chimney?

[Logical]

44. LOL, yes, firing a gun at a drone is legal. Where the hell did you read that? n-t

[mwooldri]

23. I am so mixed when it comes to CCTVs.

I can see the arguments for and against, and both sides have valid points. The pros - catching evidence that would otherwise not be there and not just of traditional criminals but also of law enforcement abuse.. the cons - giving up a certain amount of liberty, the feeling of being watched doing nothing wrong at all.

Maybe a better way to "protest" would be some mechanism to put a fake picture in front of the CCTV camera? Or put on some makeshift lens cap? There's probably some crime in doing this though but IMO better than destroying the camera.

Then again I guess I'm too used to being in a CCTV society. Where speeding cameras are very much normal. A downside to multiple public CCTV cameras is that there is too much video to watch, so computers are doing a lot of it, sometimes by facial recognition of previously convicted people, or even suspects where law enforcement have a positive picture of that person.

Either way, I am mixed up. But one thing I am definitely not mixed up on is the right to record video in public by individuals on their own equipment (e.g. camcorders, cell phones). When something egregious is going on, it should be caught on camera and offered to law enforcement, or attorneys, as is needed. And these states that have rules or laws that prohibit private individuals recording the activities of law enforcement officers in public areas... that's just plain stupid IMO. Public video recording should be a right, as long as the video is for personal use and not to be distributed by any means.

Public release of the videos though is a whole different matter, and it's a case of permission or greater public good. Public protests, suspects caught on camera committing a crime, that's fair game. Bystanders, or people in the background of a video shoot ... need obfuscation unless they really cannot be easily identified or if they intentionally crash the video shoot.

So getting back to the title - destroying CCTV camera - definitely vandalism, even though this is done in protest. Best to protest in a way that disrupts normal camera operation without causing any damage.

[dixiegrrrrl]

50. Many of the red light/speeding cameras are owned by for profit businesses

And the problem with that is, it is difficult to dispute the incorrect bill that innocent drivers get.
There is no oversight with private businesses who have taken over public services.

[mwooldri]

82. UK speeding cameras are run by local authorities.

The Police, the local authority, Magistrates Court, and Crown Prosecution Service all have a hand in the speeding cameras. Still it is a revenue business, apparently 1 speeding camera earned the local authority £1.3 million. The Tory/Lib-Dem government have cut funding for speeding cameras, and many local authorities have decided to turn them off as they cannot afford to run them without the government support. The money for speeding cameras was directed at other road safety improvement projects instead.

As for disputing the fine - it can be challenging. Usual defences are "I wasn't driving the vehicle" and "The speed camera isn't working correctly". A solicitor can help but of course you pay for that. For first time minor speeders a speed awareness course is offered which means the fine is waived and the licence doesn't get points added on.

Even first responders aren't immune - speed cameras will get police cars, fire trucks, ambulances, etc. If it can be proven that the vehicle was responding to an emergency call then it is waived but if the vehicle wasn't on an emergency call the driver gets the ticket. The emergency calls to 999 and dispatcher records can track this. Volunteer and private ambulance services who are responding to an emergency not initiated through 999 have to prove to police that they were responding to an emergency, or the driver does get a speeding ticket. This is basically to stop people repainting vehicles as emergency vehicles to get out of speeding tickets.

[Gore1FL]

26. The irony is thick

"Bring a camera and film yourself in a public place breaking someone else's camera in a protest for being filmed in a public place."

I don't see antics like this advancing the discussion in a meaningful why for those who oppose the cameras. If they get one prosecution of a vandal using video evidence (the CCTV footage, the stuff shot by the vandals, or anything from the dozens or so cameras that people now carry with them), the incident will be used as an example of effectiveness in having cameras.

This will hurt their cause.

The people behind this did not think this through.

[graham4anything]

34. that is the problem behind most modern day protests

rebels without thinking with no end game in sight

cause d'jour followed by another and another when they get bored (like a flash mob or just a mob itself)

burn it down, then hey, what's for dinner, and what can we burn down tomorrow

in the old days, it was called a lynching, and some
people idolized that too
just like people used to smoke
now they don't

fear of everything
well
as FDR said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself

we live in a modern society, we adapt to it.

and the use of the words are easy to say
fascist
authoritarianism
police state
however, easy to dilute when they are said to much

burn it down is easy to say
but what comes the moment after it is burnt down well, that is not so easy to say unless one knows the answer PRIOR to burning it down

or as the joke on the Get Smart episode said(when Max played the King and Control was fighting Kaos-)
off with his head
ah, just kidding, on with his head

[DainBramaged]

77. You've spent a lot of time defending your position and the watcher's position

most of us don't care.


I especially.


Watch the Bourne Legacy, it's available on disc now.


You have no privacy anywhere.



Republicans have seen to that.


Along with their enablers.




Have a nice day.

[graham4anything]

78. as #6 said, be seeing you

[graham4anything]

79. of course, he himself was a spy, which was convient for Drake to forget

[flash514c]

124. He was property of US Government

He was not a spy, he was a weapon created by spooks in the US Government.

[Ian David]

36. That is a very good point. n/t

[patrice]

133. +1 It's like concealed carry: the presumption that public places are to have the traits that certain

special interests require of those public places, without that sub-group seeking consensus from the rest of the public in their thoughts and needs in those situations.

There's this presumption TTE, because I/we hold a certain principled ideology that gives us the right to over-ride other people's rights to as much self-determination as possible. Others have no choice in the matter because they are "sheep" and we are the "liberators".

[patrice]

144. Does anyone see how similar this attitude is to being the Big Brother that it purports to resist? nt

[Orrex]

32. How is that an either/or formulation?

Last edited Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

It's certainly vandalism; that seems pretty much indisputable.

It may be valid protest, but it's not entirely clear.

[Deep13]

51. +1 nt

[patrice]

145. It may be valid protest if the probability of being attacked in that particular place is less coerci

ve than the presence of the camera.

[whistler162]

39. Don't worry...

they will just lay someone off to replace all the cameras broken!

[Fire Walk With Me]

41. "The cameras can provide facial recognition at distances of up to 600 feet..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525033


Anti-drone / facial recognition technology:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525051

[Demo_Chris]

42. It's a valid protest

[Puzzledtraveller]

55. Protests such as this are vital, what you will see and as we already

do is a public, THE PEOPLE, who are already against these things but either don't speak out, are afraid to speak out, or the feel helpless in the face of it, we would slide towards definite slavery by any state anywhere in the world without protests like this.

[randome]

67. It's a game, not a protest.

I wouldn't mind there being a protest but I personally have no problem with cameras in public places. It helps cut down on crime.

[bemildred]

64. Sounds like good fun, as long as you don't get caught. nt

[geek tragedy]

65. Criminals. Absence of cameras will make crime like mugging more common

in train stations at night.

[DainBramaged]

75. Muggers don't give a shit about cameras, and know where not to look

they are usually skilled at being criminals so getting caught isn't an afterthought.

[graham4anything]

88. cameras aren't looking for muggers. they are looking for terrorists and are needed

but your reply is the same the gun people use, and it long ago was debunked for the gun issue

[jberryhill]

96. Well here is where my Saturday went....

My son woke up Saturday morning to this:



Now, someone had to show up in the middle of a very cold night with enough people and a vehicle to cart off all four wheels.

Here's part of the process of at least stabilizing it long enough to find some wheels and tires we can afford:

Step 1 - remove milk crates:



Step 2 - the critical "what do we do now" phase:



Steps 3-15 - Apply the "Tower of Hanoi" algorithm to stabilize the vehicle:




He commutes to school and works a part time delivery job. If it wasn't solely for the fact that he's purely lucky enough to have a father who can spring for emergency expenses - something a lot of people do not have - then he'd be completely fucked.

After working through that puzzle all afternoon, do I wish there were surveillance cameras at his apartment complex - you bet your sweet ass I do.


And, by the way, that's a 13 year old car without comprehensive insurance coverage. For what the new tires and wheels - with locking hubs of course - are going to cost, we could put in a pretty good camera system.

[im1013]

112. That is SO PAINFUL to see!!

I have the same car, only red. Had it for 15 years now (since new), and it is my BABY!

That being said, I would rather someone steal the entire car than to give up my
right to privacy. Just saying...

[jberryhill]

123. Newsflash for you - public places are public

That's why we call public places "public" instead of private.

[EastKYLiberal]

80. Vandalism. Only plays into the hands of those arguing for more surveillance. nt

[jberryhill]

89. I wish my son's parking lot had a camera

My son is going to college and working part time at a delivery job. He drives a 13 year old Acura that was cheap enough and is reliable enough to do both.

So, Saturday morning, he gets up to find the car in the parking lot outside his apartment teetering on a pair of milk crates, with all four wheels gone. Having had other plans, we spent most of Saturday trying to figure out how to get the car off of the milk crates, and where we were going to find four wheels and tires for it, so he doesn't have to miss class and work for too long.

Someone had to show up with a big enough vehicle and enough people in the middle of the night to jack up his car and take off with his wheels. They picked a good night for it, since its freezing cold out.

So, he's been shit on by these people, and if he didn't have a father who could come up with immediate cash to replace the wheels, he'd be absolutely fucked.

But what do we do now? Sure, I'm paying extra to get locking hubs, but is my son supposed to stay up all night every night watching his car in case they want more spare parts from it?

Fuck these people. If there was a camera in that lot, it would go a long way to deterring this thing, or identifying the vehicle they used to take off with his wheels.

[whatchamacallit]

92. Parking lots/garages are one thing

every public place possible is another. There are obviously places where surveillance is a good idea, using those as justification for police state style surveillance is a stretch.

[jberryhill]

93. You know what..

The people who did this to my kid's car:

:large

and the people who want to make it easy to do it...

Can all go fuck themselves.

[whatchamacallit]

94. Right...

I live to make it easy for criminals... pretty silly, jberry. How did we ever get by before all these cameras?

[randome]

95. Why should that matter?

Besides, it's a different environment now. More people, more cars equals more vandalism.

If public cameras deter crime, I don't see a problem with them.

[whatchamacallit]

97. Where does it end?

Biometric identification, RFID Tags, DNA sniffers...? You will always be able to find new and different reasons to surrender your freedoms for "security". Good luck with that.

[jberryhill]

99. Have you ever asked yourself about the "natural condition" of human society

Maybe we didn't evolve to live in social units of a million, ten million, and so on.

If we were living the way we lived for most of human existence, everyone in the tribe, clan or village would know everyone else. This anonymity which is asserted as a "right" is itself a side effect of technological developments which have allowed us to live in an arrangement which, itself, makes it possible to be anonymous.

[whatchamacallit]

107. I'm not sure what you're getting at

Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

You seem to be saying if we choose to live in large populations we should be surveilled, and the greater the population, the more intrusive the surveillance. Technology always has and will be abused. Advances brought to us, ostensibly for one reason, are often used for another. Think Data Mining, GMOs, and all the life-improving fossil-fuel-based technologies that now threaten to destroy the planet.

I never saw no miracle of science
That didn't go from a blessing to a curse
I never saw no military solution
That didn't always end up as something worse - Sting

I have a kid in college too, and if that had happened to his car I'd be pissed, but ultimately I'd rather maintain some measure of freedom, privacy, and dignity for both of us.

[randome]

100. Maybe it ends just before we get to those things you list.

Are you saying nothing should be surrendered for security? Just because one technology is useful doesn't mean we let it run us over.

[whatchamacallit]

109. I believe CCTV has already

run us over.

[DainBramaged]

129. If you encourage hm to blather on about the goodness of full-time invasion of privacy

the next think you know we'll be lectured on the wonderfulness of the TSA and the Patriot act.......

[im1013]

113. +100

[Gore1FL]

121. How is having them on subways different than parking lots?

It also matters how they are used. The Interstates have cameras and sensors to monitor traffic. There are security cameras in stores. At some point the question has to be asked as to how much privacy one is reasonably expected to have in public.

[bemildred]

98. The problem is that cameras that catch terrists can also be used to catch political opponents.

Even purely for political purposes, like awkward moments, mispeaking, and unfortunate things we all do but don't like to have published.

So, who do you trust?

[kestrel91316]

164. There are FAR more political opponents than terrorists, so we all get ONE guess

who all these cameras will be used against.

[kiva]

102. Vandalism.

But it's Germany's call.

[1-Old-Man]

106. Tear every god damned one of them down and praise the heros who do it, because its no game

Big Brother is watching every god damned minute of the day and no one seems to be the least bit concerned. These people may feel its a game, but in fact they are doing all of us a great service.

[randome]

108. I'm sure many women will feel safer walking out to a darkened parking lot.

So long as a camera is not involved. It's the principle that counts. Not the safety.

Specifically, YOUR principles without regard to what others may think.

[whatchamacallit]

111. Looper

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2269105

[randome]

114. But who is to say which places are 'safe' without cameras?

The idea was posited that they should ALL be torn down. I have no problem with cameras in public places at all. For those who are 'afraid' of government surveillance, they can watch everything you do right now so video cameras, IMO, are no big deal.

[whatchamacallit]

116. Well

We've had security cameras in garages, banks, labs, stores, secure installations... for a long time. Nothing new there. It's the stuff being being advanced under the rubric of homeland security and the "war on terror" that concerns me. We've seen sweeping changes to our liberties under this. Strip downs, groping, porno scanners, collection and monitoring of personal communications and transactions, increasing militarization of police agencies... Anything can be justified if you're scared enough. Pretty soon you become what you fear.

[randome]

117. I agree we should never be complaiscent.

I just don't see the 'monster under the covers' with video cameras in public places. To be honest, my life changed not one bit because of 9/11. Slight inconvenience in jet travel doesn't even register.

Anyone want to watch me on a video camera? Why would I care? Want to x-ray me and see me naked? Why would I care?

I understand that not everyone has had the same benign experiences as I have. And I doubt Homeland Security was ever worth the money. On the other hand, no more terrorist attacks from the outside.

With the Internet, I think we would readily know if any of the security apparatus was being used for repression of political enemies. It doesn't seem to be a danger now.

[im1013]

115. +1,000,000!!

[Chico Man]

139. That must be one huge monitoring center

I guess it would take care of the unemployment problem. Staying awake watching the street corner for an 8 hour shift... That would be one hell of a challenge!!

[DainBramaged]

119. Wait till the Monday crowd shows up

the 'enablers' here won't be squawking so loudly....

[Takket]

122. its vandalism

you can't just destroy property because you do not like who is operating it for whatever reason. if the citizens don't like the cameras they should be seeking to have them removed by petitioning their government. Being tolerant of willing destruction as an acceptable form of protest is basically just anarchy.

[patrice]

128. It's possible this is more about bragging rights than it is about a remedy for the problem of

too much surveillance.

[backscatter712]

130. It's civil disobedience. Of course it's illegal, and property destruction. Do it anyways.

Sometimes, to resist injustice, you have to break things.

A just government would give a just sentence for the crime - a night in jail and a small fine.

And those responsible could put their arrests on their resume!

[Chico Man]

132. Please. No one is watching your every move

Do you actually think there is some remote monitoring center where your every move is being watched and evaluated because of these cameras?

That is delusional.

If there is a crime, these cameras may help solve it. They pull the footage and see if there is anything there. No big deal.

It's like if I put a camera on my property. Do you think I'm going to sit there and watch it all day? No. But if something did happen, I'd be happy to have the footage.

[backscatter712]

134. Delusional my ass.

Homeland Security and police do have monitoring centers where they use these cameras to track people.

Here's an article about the HALO camera network and monitoring center in Denver.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15236766

They don't have to have a guy watching the screens 24/7 - they've got everything on tape, and they can go to your ISP, your phone company, the EZPass toll processing center, the rapid transit organization, download everything they've got into their databases, and data-mine at their leisure.

When they decide you're a person of interest, they'll know exactly when and where you pick your nose.

[Chico Man]

136. Yes they save the footage

So if there is a crime then they can pull it up to see if there is evidence.

In some high risk situations they may remote monitor, and for very good reason.

But I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Are you saying I should be scared because the government can piece my life together if I were to commit a crime? Isn't that what the FBI has always done?

[backscatter712]

149. Right, so you're fine with the feds having your entire life on video...

So they can scrutinize you any time they want if they think you're doing something like protesting.

Funny, I thought you were American.

[Chico Man]

150. The Feds don't have my entire life on video

And of course I wouldn't be ok with that.

If they assigned an agent to follow me around with a video camera and put the videos in the "Chico man" file I'd take offense.

Surveillance footage does not target individuals. It is used for deterrence and to investigate crimes.

[cthulu2016]

138. Visit London

[Chico Man]

140. They have cameras

They don't employ thousands of people to watch them every day.

[20score]

137. As a preteen I asked the question, "Could it ever happen here?"

My mother answered with something that I'll never forget.

"Under the right circumstances, most people here would welcome it."

Not only have I always believed that, I've watched it as most people welcomed it.

The question was about Big Brother.

[patrice]

141. Ideology over reality: ALL cameras are instances of hyper-surveillance, hurts the case for

when cameras ARE in fact hyper-surveillance and when they aren't.

The real price for vigilance in regards to one's rights is validity, because no matter how fun it is to brag about striking a blow against Big Brother, I suspect persons whose movements are restricted by criminal threats or who suffer rape, mugging, and/or critical injuries from attacks on their persons are somewhat less ideological about what might have been prevented by consensual agreement.

What about their rights? Are these camera breakers going to be there to protect them?

[Arctic Dave]

142. Other then the spray painting I'm ok with it.

Hopefully it catches over here.

[Chico Man]

143. What would be really impressive

Is if they could go after the mapping satellites too. Then they would really be making a point.

Think of all the creative ways to shoot satellites from the sky...

[TheKentuckian]

146. Whatever gets the job done works for me.

[catchnrelease]

147. A two edged sword

I just finished watching a recent (2008) Masterpiece Theater mini series called The Last Enemy. Story was set in the near future, in Britain, based around Big Govt surveillance, control of information etc. It has really left me thinking about how I feel about the idea, and now this comes up. While it does seem like it could be a good thing to use as evidence/ID in cases of crimes, it also could have some pretty scary ramifications depending on how far it is allowed to go.

[DainBramaged]

148. 1984

[Taverner]

152. Agree 100%. Also love the Brit habit of destroying speed cameras

Alls you need is a tyre and some petrol

wheee!!!

[abelenkpe]

154. Oh noes!

We live in a police state!

The police tell homeowners that cameras are one of the best deterrents to avoid break-ins. (A large barking dog is also good along with lights.) I've seen how traffic cameras installed at intersections encourage people in Los Angeles to avoid blocking traffic and running lights. There are statistics showing there are fewer pedestrian accidents at such intersections and traffic flows better but people still argue against them when they are caught breaking the law, because y'know they feel entitled to roll through a traffic light or two...what's the problem? Yes, it sucks paying fines for breaking the law. Maybe don't break the law then.
There used to be a ton of drugs sold and homeless beatings and muggings that happened at the park in Hollywood but they installed cameras and guess what? Crime is way down. Yes, it probably just moved a few blocks over to a non camera area, but hey, homeless people can sleep safely and kids can play in the park with their families again. And the crimes that do occur criminals are actually caught. Because there is evidence. There are studies that even show that having a non working camera set up lowers crime. But we should encourage people to destroy these cameras. What fun.

[JVS]

156. It's kind of sad that they do self-surveillance by posting the videos.

[ecstatic]

159. If we as a nation are resigned to allowing 310+ million guns

to remain in circulation, can we at least have cameras to capture the crimes/murders?

I do, however, have a problem with traffic light cams, as they cause more problems than they solve.

[LanternWaste]

167. I'm much more concerned with the neighborhood resident..

I'm much more concerned with the neighborhood resident who walks around the block over and over filming everything he sees and posting it to Youtube.

But as I've gotten burned by civilian yahoos filming my family (my little sister, of course-- civilian creeps with cameras always seem to go for the little sisters), yet never burned by a traffic camera, I imagine I don't have the same melodramatic, rage-against-the-machine, it-must-be-1984! bias so well illustrated here today by those who have been indicted, sentenced and had their freedom of privacy on a public street removed from them.