Chicago and Cameras: The Slippery Slope of Privacy Lost?

[ISUGRADIA]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-14-chicago-cameras_x.htm

Mayor Richard Daley wants to require bars open until 4 a.m. to install security cameras that can identify people entering and leaving the building. Other businesses open longer than 12 hours a day, including convenience stores, eventually would have to do the same.

...

The proliferation of security cameras — especially if the government requires them in private businesses — troubles some civil liberties advocates.

"There is no reason to mandate all of those cameras unless you one day see them being linked up to the city's 911 system," says Ed Yohnka of the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union. "We have perhaps reached that moment of critical mass when people ... want to have a dialogue about how much of this is appropriate."

"The safer we make the city, the better it is for everyone," says Chicago Alderman Ray Suarez, who first proposed mandatory cameras in some businesses. "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"

Wow...what a genius. Why end with businesses given the alderman's logic:

Let the police start listening in on random phone conversations.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"

Let the police stopping random people on the streets and test them for drugs.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"

Let the police enter people's homes without a warrant to look for illegal items.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"

Someone should tell Alderman Asshole what Benjamin Franklin said "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

:mad:

[darkmaestro019]

1. Isn't that pretty much the exact wording from that dolt in Houston?

This is coming from somewhere above and beyond these little mouthpieces.

[MadHound]

2. Amazing how we're seeing this issue come to a critical mass

And cities both large and small are suddenly wanting to install security systems that are major intrusions into our privacy. I do believe that this is more negative fallout from 911, which opened the door wide for every intrusive, invasive, privacy hating busy body in both the corporate and government sector to start filling their wish list.

The small city near me, Columbia Missouri, has already contracted for one privacy invasion tactic, and is debating another. The mayor and others in power are pushing for red light cameras, to go with their traffic monitoring cameras. Sadly, they will probably install them. The other measure that is now a fate accompli is "monitoring traffic" via peoples' cell phones. Along the I-70 corridor in Missouri, St. Louis, Columbia, and KC, a private company has contracted with local governments for this service. Fully operational by June, this program is supposed to be anonymous(assigning random numbers to cellphones), but given our current climate that anonimity is most likely nothing but a fig leaf. And in addition to be able to track where a particular cell phone is, it will also be able to track how fast it is traveling, thus opening up the spector of people receiving speeding tickets.

Increasingly more and more outrageous invasions of our privacy are being railroaded through local, state and the national government. With both the Democrats and Republicans increasingly aquiesing to these intrustions, it is going to come down to the people taking such matters into their own hands. I'm thinking a twenty-two, or high powered pellet gun might just be the answers for this proliferation of cameras. As far as being tracked by your cell phone, I would suggest that you go one step further than merely turning your phone off when you travel. Given that the mandatory GPS chips can still broadcast even when the phone is "off", I suggest you start disconnecting your phone's battery. Sure, you won't be able to talk while you drive, but that isn't a good idea anyway.

[genie_weenie]

3. The Chicago Tribune printed 80% of Chicagoans are in favor

of the cameras! And since some cheap ink smeared on crappy celluose paper rule my thought processes, this number must have come down from ON HIGH!

[KharmaTrain]

4. This Chicagoan Is In Favor

It's not about spying on people...these cameras are in areas of very high crime. These are places where very poor people live in fear and where rapes, robbery and murder can and do happen in open daylight. People can't leave their apartments at night in fear of the large numbers of unemployed or underemployed people hanging out at the local bars and clubs and making a bad situation worse. There's those who would love to get a better job (since there are few in those neighborhoods) or an education, but they are afraid to travel at night or into strange neighborhoods.

This is a matter of public safety...using technology to make life a little more liveable for some of the poorest people in our cities.

[file83]

6. Dude, you have SO taken the "blue pill". n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

7. Daley wants to put a camera at just about every intersection.

Not for safety but for ticket revenues... he announced, with glee, all the revenue the test cases brought in.

We have to feed meters on Sundays now. Not for the meter revenue but for the parking enforcement and the FINES that come along with the extended meter hours.......the meter sharks are out prowling the neighborhoods at 7 pm on Sundays now.

Daley announced a policy to increase the restaurant and bar code enforcement officer pay-roll. Not for safety's sake but to increase fines.......They have no shame in announcing the increase for revenue enhancement reasons. They don't even mention public safety.

The city passed a law allowing police to enter private property to check city stickers on automobiles....He was all giddy in the news conference when he announced the increased revenues.

All you have to do is watch when he announces these plans and he ALWAYS mentions the need for the increased revenue these programs bring in.

Being a walking fine-bot for the city is no fun at all.

[KharmaTrain]

9. I've Read About That Section And Agree

The original post on this topic was more of a survellience to spy and snoop. One person was concerned as she was an ex-exotic dancer and didn't want cameras snooping in on her business. I fully agree. I also agree that the concept of using cameras to enhance revenues is wrong and a form of entrapment that I'm surprised hasn't been shot down by a court yet.

The catch 22, and I'm not an appologist for Daley at all (I'm growing weary of him as much as the city folks are...especially his pro-booosh attitude these days) is the city is expected to provide a lot of services that the state and federal government no longer provide and the money has to come from somewhere. The city and county keep looking for ways, other than property taxes (and those go up due to property value creep) to fuel their large patronage systems and any way they can do it they will.

The saving grace is it looks like the days of Daley playing dictator are starting to come to an end. Between indictments, convictions and losing his political allies, Richie is gonna have a tough time next year.

Cheers...

[IDemo]

5. If you're planning to visit Bend Oregon this summer, smile.

Bend considers turning cameras on downtown

BEND, Ore. (AP) - If you're planning to visit Bend this summer, smile.

With merchants calling for better security, the city hopes to install security cameras that could monitor nearly every move you make on downtown sidewalks.

The cameras would cost $80,000, three-quarters from the city police and one-quarter from downtown merchants, if they accept the police chief's proposal.

Chief Andy Jordan said police were handled more than 4,400 problems downtown last year, about 5% of the total for the entire city.

[High Plains]

8. How could one zap those cameras?

Would a laser beam fry them?