Public eyes are watching you
by The Panda Man · 02/16/2006 11:58 amThis is beginning to get disturbing. If Houston’s police chief has his way, our city government may become more intrusive than ever. KTRK-TV reports that Chief Harold Hurtt would like to expand the idea of the city’s red-light cameras to include watching street corners, apartment complexes and perhaps even your house.
This plan includes placing surveillance cameras at crime hot spots such as malls, apartment complexes and those areas where prostitutes and drug dealers hang out. The video would be fed directly into the police department.
In fact, there’s already a plan to install five of those surveillance cameras in downtown Houston along Main Street to track and monitor any criminal activity.
Chief Hurtt believes it would be cheaper to have the cameras than to hire enough police officers and have them at every street corner. He’s even suggesting that those homeowners who have too many calls for service to their homes be forced to install the cameras as well.
Chief Hurtt seems to be taking his cue from decaying British society, where a proliferation of camera surveillance has done little to curb that country’s climbing crime rates. For some reason the concept of hiring actual patrol officers and having them out on the streets maintaining a visible presence to deter crime seems utterly foreign to this administration. Not that we should be surprised, since police chases are allowed to go on for ninety minutes until innocent bystanders are struck, officer concerns are squelched, illegal immigrants are given a free pass for being law breakers, and HPD leadership cannot make up its mind whether New Orleans evacuees have been contributing to Houston’s crime increase or not. Naturally, the Chief defended his pet project.
Chief Hurtt said, "Wherever you go in a city this size you’re going to be on video camera or tape at least 12 times a day. If you just think about it, you go to a convenience store, you get gas, you go to the bank, you drive down the street in front of people’s houses where motion sets off the cameras, you’re already on camera. I know a lot of people are concerned about big brother. My response to that is, if you’re not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"
Ah, the classic “Everyone’s doing it why can’t we?” argument. Not very convincing, since private entities with security cameras are rather different from a government law enforcement agency watching the citizenry twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, possibly even in and around their own homes. The logic of the “If you’re not doing anything wrong, why worry?” argument also leaves something to be desired, as it opens the door to any method of law enforcement. Why not simply shoot those pesky downtown jaywalkers? After all, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
33 Responses to “Public eyes are watching you”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
I was called a fear monger for stating the obvious a few weeks back…This is absolute tyranny and if you cant see it you are legally blind!
Agreed. Now I wonder why this same line of reasoning does not apply to the warrentless wire tapping that the administration is participating in?
#2 - because the targets of those wiretaps are NOT “United States Persons”…
…except that they are in many cases. The wiretaps are on phone calls placed to “United States Persons.”
A Saudi in the United States does not make them a “United States Person”. The rights of citizenship do not belong to everyone within our borders. Dispite the rantings of the liberals.
Re: cameras. The chief wants to place cameras in high crime areas. Sounds good at the front but since that is usually largly hispanic and black neighborhoods - isn’t that racist?
I guess this is all the Liberals’ fault too.
#5 asquires,
I am specifically referring to the wiretapping of US citizens (which the administration has admitted has been taking place). My personal rantings have never asserted that everyone living in the US is a citizen, nor do I recall seeing many people who do believe that.
Do you have a link to that admission (so we can see it in context)?
Certainly:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
“In acknowledging the message was true, President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11.“
As to the wiretapping, always one of the parties to the tapped call was a known recognozed enemy of our country. . that gives POTUS the constitutional authority to do exactly what he is doing. this is a war, not a criminal investigation, there is a vast difference in the scope of POTUS powers to fight each.
Thanks for the link Tim.
The bolded part is what I was talking about when I said “in context”. Yes, one end of the tapped conversation was an American citizen, the other end, however, was not. Considering that the other “overseas” end was potentially a terrorist, what Mountainman says in #11 about POTUS constitutional authority would seem to hold true.
I don’t know that personally, but Alberto Gonzales seemed to take this opinion on the matter. While I place no real trust in my knowledge of the law, I place a lot of trust in the Attorney General of the United States’ knowledge of the law. Obviously GWB did as well.
The wiretapping was apparantly technically legal, yes. Although I still don’t see why warrants could not have been obtained. The process is such that you can even go back after the fact and get a warrant. If it was all about contacts with KNOWN terrorists, then warrants would presumably not be hard to obtain. And if they were hard to obtain, I would propose that it’s because it’s either not a known terrorist or there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the subject of the tap is up to anything…or both.
But my main point here is that Jeremy’s article makes some good points about the proliferation of “Big Brother”ish techniques, and even derides the whole “If you’re not doing anything wrong…” argument. I simply found it odd that he and many conservatives take the exact opposite position, evem using the aforementioned argument, when it comes to wiretapping of US citizens. Placing the cameras on street corners is completely legal as well, and yet the arguments against them abound, despite the fact that they would stand a good chance of helping to catch criminals. Why the about face in logic when it comes to wiretapping?
The Dude: thank you for the unsolicited testimonial. . . it is true. Like Alberto I have a J.D., and ahare his opinion on the matter. . . .
I also have not yet mastered spellcheck. . .
#12 Dude,
One side of the taped conversation was a US citizen. Doesn’t the person on that one side have rights, though? I’m not arguing for the rights of the other guy.
That’s like saying that, because police get a warrant to tap John Smith, they can then go ahead and tap every single person that John Smith might call. No, you tap the target. It’s the whole slippery slope thing…
Tim, do you happen to have the technology to tap ONE side of a conversation? Would that not create ‘contextual’ problems in interpreting what is heard? It is only ’slippery’ if you grease it. . . .
Speaking purely for myself, it’s not an about face in logic. Frankly, I disagree with Jeremy on the camera issue. We’ve argued it before, and neither of us changed the others’ mind. We simply agree to disagree.
Really, I don’t buy the slippery slope argument of rights infringement either. From a practicality standpoint, I simply don’t believe the government has time to go chasing after ordinary citizens without justification. Perhaps I’m simply naive, but my mind hasn’t changed in that regard. Further, if John Smith is talking to someone overseas who is a terrorist, I’d really like to know why. Call me nosey.
I’d like to know about John Smith, too, Dude. He’s always been a shadowy character.
All I have been saying actually seems to obscure the fact that, in general, I support wiretapping. I just think you should go out and get a warrant before doing it (or after, if needed…you have 72 hours or so in which to do it retroactively). Wiretap away, but with warrants in place. If you have reason to believe someone will receive a call from a known terrorist, I think the courts should immediately issue a warrant and let’s listen away.
I was pointing out a seeming contradiction in Jeremy’s argument. I don’t buy the slippery slope thing either, but I think if you’re going to use it here, the same would apply for wiretapping.
Heh heh. Must be something about that nondescript name. I mean he might just as well call himself “dude”.
Why have cops at all. Why not just have a mandatory check in. Each one of us call into the police station and tell them where we will be for the next hour. Geeezz. This guy is an idiot. Here’s your sign.
Agreed 21,
Police issue would be clip-boards, report pad
and pen. They would sit and watch the
monitor then file a report.
Nat
#22
If our police force continues to deplete itself, that may not be too far in the future! Notice how the “chief” wants to do these surveillance things rather than putting more men on the force? The force has been depleted for years and we barely have enough to do ANY job anymore.
We are at war. The President can do whatever he wants.
The dims do not care what happens to the country as long as they are in controll.
Conspiracy Alert
Mayor Yoda and Hurt will give citizens option of higher taxes or cameras.
Go downtown and stand at Lamar and Milam. Just adjacent to the HPD. Just stand there and watch them. I’m not talking about those that go through the yellow lights but 2 or 3 seconds after the light has turned red, some hot shot dashes on through. Probably you Jeremy. Or one of the other law breaking hot shots posting on this board. I am all for the camera’s. I drive 2-3K miles per month in this town and there is an epidemic of brazen, arrogant, me-first types (both Repub’s and Dem’s) that have no regard for the traffic laws. And have zero concept of courtesy. I say the more camera’s the better. Nail these arrogant sob’s. I heard a wise man say once that if you don’t govern yourself, you will be governed. And so its happening just that way. This is a great way of bringing in revenue from truly guilty lawbreakers. I hope they will also implement an unmarked police fleet on the freeways. With the money they bring in, maybe they can lower property taxes. The ones that complain the most are the ones that will, when they realize they’re fixing to miss their exit, go from the far left inside lane all the way over 4 lanes risking the lives of everyone else just so they don’t have to go down one exit and u-turn back. Jeremy is that you I’m describing? Vote yes for more camera’s!
#26 Lights and speeds are not set for good traffic flow or for safety.
Drivers are not educated properly before they are issued license.
Improvements have been made to brakes, steering, visibility etc.
The speed limits are set for cars designed in 1950. The speeds in Houston are set by the flow; the laws should be adjusted.
Education examples:
Make Rt. turn - stay in Rt. lane
Make Lft turn - (at a light) U can pull to the middle of the intersection; this allows at least 1 more car to que up for turn. U are in the intersection on a green therefore legal.
Of course the cash cow would go dry and they would have to threaten citizens with cameras
#24
We had a declaration of war??
Maybe Grupenfurher Hurta learn the meanings behind our laws:
“Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our Heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep the government off the backs of the people. The Bill of Rights was added to keep the precincts of belief and expression, of the press, of political and social activities free from surveillance. The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from Assemblies of People. The aim was to allow men to be free and independent to assert their rights against government.” [Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1; 92 S.Ct. 2318 (1972)]
#29 trb 56: the 9/11 hijackers were free to assert their rights against the gov’t. Wish someone had been listening on them. . .
OUTSTANDING, trb!
I wish they’d install one of those in front of the crack house down the street from me. Maybe the crack dealers would at least move inside.
29 & 31: In a way I do agree with you. But in war time standards, rules and attitudes have to change. As individuals and as a nation we must be more vigilant and that is going to result in some intrusiveness upon those living in the nation. Just can’t be helped. One way to insure that someone does not come along and have a perpetual state of war declared is to only dispense this intensified state in increments. In other words, the Congress needs to acknowledge and vote to continue or stop the intensified state say every 6 months or year or so.(kinda like what their doing with the Patriot Act) Something like that. Even under these intensified conditions America has unparalleled freedoms compared to other nations. But anyone who thinks that we should just continue on, business as usual, after 9/11 is just living in lahlah land. We all have to make sacrifices. But I do believe the sacrifices should be temporary. The faster we win this war the sooner we return to our comfy old ways.