December 4, 2006 8:01 AM
Committing a crime? Smile for the camera
Some of Denver's more dangerous intersections could get an eye-in-the-sky to help deter crime, reports Felix Doligosa Jr.
Members of the Denver Police Department are hoping to place cameras in targeted residential and commercial neighborhoods throughout the city. In some cases, the public might not know the equipment is there - unless they happen to spot the electronic eye atop a light pole or in another discreet location.
Some privacy advocates aren't thrilled:
"A program that assigns police officers to monitor public spaces through video surveillance has the potential to erode privacy, inhibit freedom and chill public expression in public places, with little or no benefit in reduced criminal activity," said Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado.
Business owners along East Colfax say they have noticed improvements in their area since the police put up cameras in a three-block area from Grant Street east last summer and in Baltimore, where about 300 cameras are pointed at alleys and streets around downtown, police say crime has gone down an average of 17 percent.
Is this a good allocation of resources - the program will cost at least $1 million to launch - or should the money be spent to hire more officers? Are the privacy concerns outweighed by the potential to reduce crime? Is there too much electronic surveillance of citizens in public areas?
December 4, 2006
8:45 AM
Liberty is Dead writes:
Who cares, the authorities are going to do it anyway because none of you soft americans are willing to stand up for your rights. You all are too willing to give up your personal liberties for the illusion of saftey.
December 4, 2006
9:28 AM
Gov writes:
Chicago has cameras throughout the city & other cities (e.g., Indianapolis) are quickly installing them because of Chicago's success in cutting crime in certain "hot spot" sections of the city. They only film public spaces, where one's "right to privacy" does not extend. It's a good idea for Denver , as well.
December 4, 2006
9:34 AM
Anonymous writes:
"A program that assigns police officers to monitor public spaces through video surveillance has the potential to erode privacy, "
More invented rights. The right to privacy in public. What is the difference between an officer monitoring a public place in person or via CCTV? The difference is increased effeciency.
December 4, 2006
9:37 AM
Concerned Liberal writes:
Criminals have rights! Burglar alarms are a violation of their civil liberties! Say no to cameras! You have the right to break the law and not get caught!!!
December 4, 2006
10:04 AM
Anonymous writes:
We all know those camera feeds will go straight to the White House where Bush (the Devil) can watch our every move.
Say no to Bush, no to cameras!
December 4, 2006
10:15 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
9:34 AM is me.
December 4, 2006
10:22 AM
JW writes:
Have to agree with Hogar on this one.
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster it doesnt happen often.
December 4, 2006
10:35 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
I think the key issue that the whole debate turns on is the question of the expectation of privacy in public places. I don't see it personally. If I am in a bank, airport, shopping mall, I am monitored all the time. The thought of being filmed while on a public thoroughfare is not really that different.
What is truly scary is the potential for abuse of this technology.
December 4, 2006
10:36 AM
David Hakala writes:
Has no one noticed that every traffic light and streetlight installed in the metro area during the past few years bears a camera housing? Nearly all are inactive - most are empty shells - but that doesn't diminish their deterrent effect. They're like cardboard cutouts of cops parked in patrol cars. :-)
December 4, 2006
11:24 AM
jay writes:
Slippery slope....while technically legal, the abuse of surveillance capabilities is nearly inevitable...if not already prevalent.
December 4, 2006
11:53 AM
s writes:
If we had control over our ports and borders in this country, maybe we wouldn't need this.
December 4, 2006
12:18 PM
Anonymous writes:
Then how would we catch Britney's who-who every time she exists the Bentley?
December 4, 2006
12:53 PM
Anonymous writes:
Jay you are a idiot, name one case of abuse because some moron was caught on tape commiting a crime? You liberals only wish you were so interesting that the goverment would spy on you, get over yourselves, you about as much of a threat to them as you are to your latest liberal fads.
December 4, 2006
1:00 PM
Tyrone Braxton writes:
If it isn't on tape, I didn't do it.
December 4, 2006
1:19 PM
jay writes:
Crouton,
First of all, try to make your point without so much hostility for your fellow bloggers.
Secondly, if you're not worried that your government is/will start abusing its surveillance capabilities, then you're not paying attention.
Go back to sleep.
December 4, 2006
1:23 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Looks like harry is back and ashamed to sign his posts again...
December 4, 2006
1:32 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
I consider it the heart of the Spriit of America that we two who are otherwise often in opposition, can still agree on some things.
I also like most of the points of the fair tax proposal. I would like to see more relief for parents with kids in college. That is the basic flaw of the flat rebate. The concept of the rebate is fine until you are faced with paying 4 college tuitions simultaneously. You simply need more relief at that point.
December 4, 2006
1:51 PM
JW writes:
There are several reasons that is not part of the fair tax proposal Hogar.
1) it sets up an environment where "my issue is important, so I need a break" becomes possible. That isnt fair (if I dont have kids I should pick up your tax responsibility just because you do?). And if you allow that, then you get some other group pushing for their needs...and we are right back where we started.
B) You will still have more money to pay for your kids. Additionally, since there are no taxes whatsoever on investment, PEOPLE could actually be responsible for THEMSELVES. Start a fund for your kids education when they are born. Pull it out TAX FREE when they go to school.
What you are saying is that you want entitlements for parents with college age kids built into the Fair Tax, which would automatically make it an UNFAIR TAX.
You chose to have 4 kids, you pay for their college. Ill pay for mine :)
"That is the basic flaw of the flat rebate."
The rebate is not an entitlement. Its there to ensure that NO American, no matter what their economic status, pays taxes on the basic necessities of life. After you are done paying for those, then you start paying taxes.
December 4, 2006
1:52 PM
Anonymous writes:
Will the cameras selectively enforce the law too?
December 4, 2006
2:02 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
I agree in principle, but the fact of the matter is that families still rule the day in the US, and therefore your perfect tax plan will rot on the shelf. People will see it as the Anti-Family Tax Plan, and it will not pass.
December 4, 2006
2:21 PM
Anonymous writes:
Aww, poor little Jay cant find a link to back up his idiotic claims. Douche, just vote dem, they wont ever abuse the system!!
December 4, 2006
2:21 PM
JW writes:
Maybe you are right. And the reason I will not disagree is that most people in the USA are stupid as dirt. No tax break for families and they will see it as anti-family despite the fact that they would have more money than with current "pro family" tax breaks. Thats called shooting yourself in the foot.
However, you may be wrong. Its got quite a bit of support. Bush was forced to listen to the Fair Tax supporters this year. He had a tax reform group look at it. They bunked the numbers so they could shoot it down, but its getting talked about. There are many supporters in congress.
And you can see that politicians are taking it as a threat now, as tax reform is an issue all of a sudden. They want to keep the current system because it makes them alot of money, but we will see.
December 4, 2006
3:09 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
"Maybe you are right. And the reason I will not disagree is that most people in the USA are stupid as dirt. No tax break for families and they will see it as anti-family despite the fact that they would have more money than with current "pro family" tax breaks. Thats called shooting yourself in the foot."
On the one hand you say that if there were family breaks it would be unfair and on the other hand you say that families are too stupid to realize that they would pay less with the fair tax. So which is it?
December 4, 2006
3:26 PM
JW writes:
"On the one hand you say that if there were family breaks it would be unfair and on the other hand you say that families are too stupid to realize that they would pay less with the fair tax. So which is it?"
They are not mutually exclusive Hogar. The Fair Tax does not give any breaks to families, yet under the fair tax families will still have more of their paycheck than under the current system (even with the tax breaks).
December 4, 2006
4:14 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
To bad they have the problem of needing to sell the advantage to families, but they can't seem to be able to do that without looking unfair.
December 4, 2006
4:43 PM
Anonymous writes:
Hey, lets start paying citizens to spy on their neighbors. Or we could offer large tax breaks to familes who have children who turn in a parent for illegal behavior. Or, perhaps we could scrap the cameras and the Nazi police state that this country has become, all for the sake preventing a little crime, and return to the country that was bestowed upon us by our forefathers, rather then have a country that they ran away from in the first place.
Down with the cameras!
December 4, 2006
5:00 PM
David Hakala writes:
"Hey, lets start paying citizens to spy on their neighbors. "
It started long ago where most despicable things start - in public schools.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3835/is_199909/ai_n8867135
Students paid to snitch
Group, Sep/Oct 1999 by Martin, Stephanie
CHARLOTTE, N.C.As authorities crack down on school violence and other juvenile crime, they're turning to anonymous tip lines for help. Students who witness peers breaking rules or the law can call a hotline without leaving their names. Most programs offer a cash reward if the tip pans out.
A tip line in Charlotte led to 234 arrests last year, with callers receiving almost $20,000 in reward money.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20011129/ai_n10742690
Students can earn $50 for crime tips
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Nov 29, 2001 by AMY HETZNER
Students can earn $50 for crime tips
Arrowhead launches CrimeStoppers program
By AMY HETZNER
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Thursday, November 29, 2001
Town of Merton -- Informing on classmates who break the law at Arrowhead High School last year could have given students at the school the satisfaction of keeping their school safe.
This year, it could also earn them some cash.
Arrowhead is joining a growing number of schools in Waukesha County that offer students money if their tips of illegal activity by fellow students pan out.
The CrimeStoppers "Quick 50" program promises students can earn $50 if their tips lead to the recovery of weapons, drugs or alcohol on campus.
December 4, 2006
5:39 PM
JW writes:
"To bad they have the problem of needing to sell the advantage to families, but they can't seem to be able to do that without looking unfair."
LoL! And we are back where we started. Me not disagreeing becaues Americans are actually stupid enough to think "Tax Breaks" are better than paying less agregate taxes period.
December 5, 2006
7:43 AM
Steely Dan writes:
And when you smile for the camera, I know I'll love you better, Peg.