Given all the reports I’ve read, and the news coverage, it would appear that the bloke who was shot was acting suspiciously, given he was also under surveillence, and he refused to stop, I think the police were absolutely spot on in their judgement, but let’s wait and see what the investigation throws up.
One questioni I want to ask you in the states, I heard an american on one of our radio shows stating that we were the most big brother nation in the world because we have so many security cameras around (something that I am delighted about to be honest, seeing the mugshots of those four would-be bombers plastered all over our news organisations), what is it like in the USA, in particular on your subways, do you use security cameras and how do you feel about CCTV in general?
Coincidentally, I heard a commentator panel just this morning answering that question. They compared our numbers of cameras to yours, though I can’t say for sure what number they used for y’all. Was it 250,000? A lot anyway. In any case, in comparison, NY City was in the 7,000 range, and that was the highest number by far in the States. I believe they said the vast majority of those were in the subway system. It ranged from there 4,000 in Chicago down to under 200 in Baltimore, with other cities mentioned which I don’t specifically recall.
As far as how “we” feel about cameras and such, I’m sure that’s as varied as any other issue. I can only tell you how I feel about it, and why. For me the question was answered 218 years ago when our Constitution was ratified. I believe strongly that the document was written and voted for by The People to be followed precisely, and that broad interpretations by judges either changing or weakening any part of it is grounds for impeachment of that judge (or panel of judges as the case may be). The controlling verbiage of the question at hand is the 4th Amendment. It says:
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.
To me, when cameras are placed solely for the purpose of government surveilence of people who are suspected of no crime, the 4th Amendment is violated. Placing cameras in subways can easily be justifiable though, because the reasons include the safe running of trains. If one breaks down, I have no problem with cameras being present to identify exactly where it is so that other trains can be diverted from the area. But if those 7,000 NY cameras are only pointing at the load/unload platforms, or stairwells, or restrooms etc., where the most people can be surveiled by government with no probable cause for suspicion of wrongdoing, that is unconstitutional in my view and should not be allowed under any circumstances.
A recent trend here has been to place hidden cameras at busy intersections looking for red light runners. There have been allegations of some jurisdictions setting the yellow-to-red timers to a shorter span so as to increase revenues through fines etc. Most states have laws/rules/policies in effect that say what that span of time is to be, so if these allegations prove to be true (which may have already happened as far as I know), that would mean the government is taking proactive steps to *trick* people into “breaking” the law, even though in reality, they may not have. In any case, these types of cameras take pictures of the car’s license plates, and a closeup of the face of the driver. I find that to be a complete and unquestionable violation of citizens having the guarenteed right to be “secure in their persons” from government intrusion and illegal searches and seizures.
On the other hand, if cameras are placed at a wide angle over a busy street or freeway for the purpose of locating accidents to decrease response times of rescue personnel or police, no problem. Good idea in fact.
Bottom line here Arsenalman is that one need look no further than the Constitution and Bill of Rights to discern what limits of authority the government must operate under, and what God-given rights American citizens are guarenteed. The reason you hear Americans talk negatively of “Big Brother” government intrusion is that the concept is ingrained in our psyches as being abhorent and an abuse of government power. I believe that Benjamin Franklin probably had the 4th Amendment in mind when he said:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
I’m willing to fight and die to protect me and mine, but I am just as willing to die for my birthright of my constitutional protections being, and forever remaining, upheld.
Interesting response Blues. We have no such ingrained bill of rights in the UK so seem happy to accept this big brother intrusion. However I would have to say that capturing the scumbag bombers on camera is a real plus.
A recent trend here has been to place hidden cameras at busy intersections looking for red light runners. There have been allegations of some jurisdictions setting the yellow-to-red timers to a shorter span so as to increase revenues through fines etc. Most states have laws/rules/policies in effect that say what that span of time is to be, so if these allegations prove to be true (which may have already happened as far as I know), that would mean the government is taking proactive steps to *trick* people into “breaking” the law, even though in reality, they may not have. In any case, these types of cameras take pictures of the car’s license plates, and a closeup of the face of the driver. I find that to be a complete and unquestionable violation of citizens having the guarenteed right to be “secure in their persons” from government intrusion and illegal searches and seizures.
On the subject of red light cameras, they set some of those up in my area, but I wouldn’t exactly call them hidden. They are gigantic, ugly monstrosities that have a pole as tall as the free standing street lights (as opposed to the overhead ones) and a gi-normous box on top. The controversy about them here is that I remember hearing was that they were not timed correctly and were somehow going off when they shouldn’t. The first time I was at an intersection with one of them at night it scared the crap out of me. It was at night so the camera had a flash...... picture a camera with a BRIGHT flash going off a bunch of times on a dark night. It was blinding. Thankfully I wasn’t driving, because I was seeing spots.
The first intersection they put them at was a busy intersection of 2 crowded roads that doesn’t really have enough lanes. The left turn light for the one direction only lets like a car and a half through before turning yellow (meanwhile there are 10 cars waiting to turn left) People are always going to run lights, but I think the situation there would be better if they just changed the timing of the lights (even if only at rush hour) It’s really kinda stupid.
But anyway, we thought they were going to do away with them because of the problems with them, then my mom got a ticket in the mail. It had two pictures—one of her car right at the line with the obviously red light next to her, and another with her halfway through the intersection. A third picture, which was a blowup of one of the others, showed her license plate. There was no pic of her, though. So if our cameras take those pics, they don’t release them. That actually caused a bit of controversy because my mom paid the bill ($50) but a lot of times when she goes out my sister is driving—they figured out from the date and time, though, that it was mom in the car.
I should look it up, because my mom thought they were doing away with the cameras on like Jul 1, and that was when her ticket was due! SHe was like “Oh SURE, I’m like the last person that got caught with this thing...!”
Interesting response Blues. We have no such ingrained bill of rights in the UK so seem happy to accept this big brother intrusion. However I would have to say that capturing the scumbag bombers on camera is a real plus.
I don’t disagree with that Arsenalman, and I don’t question whether or not it’s right for y’all to run your country the way your people and government sees fit. I was just trying to answer your question, which asked for an American perspective the way I understood it, is all. Also, I tried to illustrate ways that cameras could be used en masse without violating the rights of our citizens and still be capable of capturing criminal or terrorist acts on-screen, so I wasn’t condemning the use of cameras by government outright.
Sometimes some of us tend to take for granted that everyone in the world understands our system of government, and that’s understandably not true. I just tried to give you the basis for my calling some uses of cameras an “abuse of power” or “unconstitutional.” Certainly not intended to confront or challange the wisdoms of your system, just pointing out the differences as I see them is all.
We have no such ingrained bill of rights in the UK so seem happy to accept this big brother intrusion.
Not entirely true. Britain was probably the first modern Western society to have such an idea, namely in the form of Magna Carta in 1215, and the Bill of Rights of 1688, and that’s not even including the excellent groundwork laid down during the English Civil War.
It is true that Britain does not as such have a fully codified constitution or an official Bill of Rights in the same way that the United States does. However, our common law arrangements ensure that we do indeed have these rights, and the EU human rights legislation only adds to this.
However, I find this interesting. Many people here say that Muslims should put up with extra scrutiny and more intrusive surveillance on them because they might be up to something, and innocent Muslims should just accept this because they’ve got nothing to fear if they’ve got nothing to hide. Yet these same people are also precisely the same people who bitch about CCTV, ID cards, speed cameras, because they’re an invasion of their privacy and because they themselves have done nothing wrong. Therefore it is hardly a leap of logic to understand that innocent Muslims also object to being regarded as potential terrorists, since non-Muslims too also have a similarly negative reaction to being regarded as potential criminals.
It’s amusing that the security services shot an innocent guy 5 times in the head.
For the life of me I cannot see the humour in that event, or it’s ramifications.
Am I missing something ?
Christ SoulEata, I’d love to be you. If you laugh every time someone fucks up then you must spend most of your life in hysterics at everything you do.
I found it particularly amusing when you bitched that your evil liberal teacher marked down your essay because apparently he was an evil liberal, rather than the fact it was just a crap essay.
It was also amusing when everything you posted about homosexuals or feminazis was used to bit you on the ass.
It’s amusing that the security services shot an innocent guy 5 times in the head.
For the life of me I cannot see the humour in that event, or it’s ramifications.
Am I missing something ?
Have you ever laughed when a friend of yours tripped and fell, or something along those lines? Same concept.
I found it particularly amusing when you bitched that your evil liberal teacher marked down your essay because apparently he was an evil liberal, rather than the fact it was just a crap essay
Youre an evil liberal too, you would find it amusing.
It’s amusing that the security services shot an innocent guy 5 times in the head.
For the life of me I cannot see the humour in that event, or it’s ramifications.
Am I missing something ?
Have you ever laughed when a friend of yours tripped and fell, or something along those lines? Same concept.
I found it particularly amusing when you bitched that your evil liberal teacher marked down your essay because apparently he was an evil liberal, rather than the fact it was just a crap essay
Youre an evil liberal too, you would find it amusing.
Being shot 5 times in the head at point blank range can be equated to someone tripping over ? What planet are we on again ?
I brought up the shooting of the dude in the tubes at work today. My coworkers initial reaction was the same as mine-
what if they shot the wrong fucking guy?
We figured there’d be some big coverup about it, but still it was mildly amusing.
We also bet there is some security camera tape of him getting blasted by the British popo. I wanna see that tape.
Yeah, and were you this eager when all of the behading videos were on the net? “OMFG this guy went to Iraq and some terrorists cut his head off with a knife, how funny is that?!”
Coming to London anytime soon Soul? Make sure you wear a big, thick jacket anytime you’re on the tube. It gets cold down there.
Yeah, and were you this eager when all of the behading videos were on the net? “OMFG this guy went to Iraq and some terrorists cut his head off with a knife, how funny is that?!”
Coming to London anytime soon Soul? Make sure you wear a big, thick jacket anytime you’re on the tube. It gets cold down there.
See, once again you think I’m laughing at the dude’s death. I’m not. Hell I’m not even laughing, I was mildly amused at the police making a poor judgment call. That’s it.
And terrorists abducting innocents vs. police shooting innocents is kinda 2 different things.
And actually I most likely will be in London next spring. Who’s up for a beer? :D
Not that you found his death funny, but that you were eager to see a video of it. It’s a video of a man being killed. Who would want to see that for entertainment?
As to the beer, why the hell not ;-P Not if CM goes though. I’m tired of being drunk under the table by guys from one of the Australasia countries.
It’s only because your lager is so weak. I went home in Feb and got trashed on half the amount. And it’s not even about alcoholic content. Clearly we’ve got the right/wrong chemicals.
In saying that, I’m off to play softball very soon, and then should get at least a few hours in at the pub at Primrose Hill (it’s Jude Law’s local so hopefully he’ll there so I can laugh at him, although it’s also Kate Winslet’s and Gwen Stefani’s so I prefer it if they turned up).
