Have security cameras ever made you feel intruded upon?
Posted at 5:00 AM on May 19, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(18 Comments)
Filed under: Security
Security cameras are becoming such a regular feature of urban life that they raise privacy concerns in some minds. Today's Question: Have security cameras ever made you feel intruded upon?
Comments (18)
Awesome Walmart, you got the person that stole my purse I accidentally left in my car, and then decided to go on a shopping spree and get away with buying over $1,000 worth of goods at your store on your security cameras!! That is GREAT NEWS!!! Oh wait, you wont share with the police?? Um, wait, so whats the point then????
I Live in Saint Paul and have been increasingly concerned about the number of security camera that the city has been installing around town. It all started with the installation of a high tech network of camera along the University Avenue Corridor. Next, hanks to a Department of Homeland Security grant for RNC convention, the city added an elaborate network of cameras in and around downtown. Another half a million dollars was recently spent to add another one hundred and fifty more cameras around town and we are now being monitored on an unprecedented scale. The Police Depart has acknowledged that they may be adding license plate recognition software to the system.
Today I counted exactly 12 cameras at the intersection of University and Snelling Avenue including a number of recently added license plate reading capable cameras. there is the potential to keep a database of where and when you are driving around town, This feels intrusive to me because it should be my right to go anywhere I like without someone keeping tabs on where I have been. The questions I'm concerned about are what sort of data bases are being developed by the police department and if so are they sharing these data bases with federal officials.
I am all for activating the license plate reading software if there is a stolen car or a fugitive on the run and such a system would unquestionable be very valuable. My concern is for "data mining" of car movements looking for unusual patterns of traffic that could be intrusive to one's privacy and personally leaves me with a sort of “BIG BROTHER” uneasiness.
My concern is that people will get so used to these new “police tools” and that the expansion of a surveillance society will occur without any resistance until we wake up one morning finding ourselves living in a “1984” world wondering what happened to our privacy.
They've never bothered me in the least, if anything I've found security in them... They are after all security cameras, right?
Do you avoid going to Target to pick up laundry detergent so that you won't be caught on camera doing something so perfectly legal?
When you're in public, you're in public.
As to Aarons comments, I believe the opposite.. When I take a photograph I feel that I am capturing and preserving not just an image but something that resembles but is beyond my concept of "original", a moment in life, in time, that can never be repeated or relived. One worth documenting. And, it's worth while.
Why is most everyone assuming these SECURITY cameras will be used for "iniquitous monitoring of our personal lives"? Many people lump these cameras with the other concerns recent technology has created such as invasion of e-mails, breaking into computer based data banks and financial operations. A high level of paranoia exists that leads people to incorrect assumptions.
Every camera is an intruder into a moment too vast for even us who were there to know fully. Every camera snips cross-sections from a continuous whole. The commentator Andrei Codrescu writes:
"I hate photographs
those square paper Judases of the world
the fakers of love's image in all things."
Propagandists steal these flimsy cut-outs--videos, photos and even words--to reinforce a deck of simplified situations. Notably, political propagandists use them to line up all of their moral arrows in the same direction.
Indigenous cultures believed that a photograph would steal your soul. I would give them much credit for this--
--but I'd better go, I've got to choose a new killer Facebook profile pic!
I personaly don't like security cameras. I dont feel we need to be watched...the percentage of crime verses population tells me we have less crime then we are lead to believe.
I park in a ramp two blocks from my office.
There are, by my count, 36 cameras in that short span.
I LOVE BIG BROTHER.
What scares me way more than security cameras is electronic data tracking-- Google, Facebook, credit card and cell phone companies, etc. I used to be afraid of the government knowing too much about me (as in George Orwell's 1984). Now I worry a lot more about big business exploiting my personal information for profit. At least the government is MY government, and I can complain to my representatives. I have no say whatsoever over what big, amoral corporations do.
In public areas? Fine. Otherwise, stay out of my business. I was really frustrated to learn about how even my cell phone can be tracked. I'm not one of these black helicopter folks, but I want people to stay out of my business, unless they are invited.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
DTOM
What I am seeing a serious lack of is evidence. How many people are actually harmed by terrorism? The number is staggeringly low. How many crimes to cameras prevent? Few. I am not suggesting that there is no need for security, but simply implementing security because people perceive a threat is simply a political move. Let us have a honest discussion on this issue instead of placating our politically expedient needs.
One proven means of preventing home-grown terrorism is to provide quality education to everyone; overall the access to a better life. Why again are we funneling dollars away from our children's schools for an ill-conceived notion of security?
The cameras themselves have not made me feel intruded upon in most public places. However, the rapidly developing technology running behind them scares the hell out of me. The fact that soon, if not already, those cameras can be used to identify, track and then associate people with their personal information is deeply disturbing.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Of course they are intrusive. As a former maximum security officer I can tell you that they are appropriate for prisons, but to use the same level of scrutiny of the innocent is wrong. Further it doesn't work well in catching terrorists.
The best bio recognition software is 99.5%accurate. But when you are scanning 100s of 1000s of faces a day like in a typical airport or busy city intersection then you will have 500 false alerts a day per 100000 scans. That is 20 per hour or 1 every 3 minutes.
If I was an officer respnding to potential terrorist alerts and I had a glaze alert from the software then it would only be aces days before I started to ignore it.
To spend money on this kind of useless crap is nothing but a waste of taxpayer money and an obvious give away to the corporate buddies of some supply sided politician.
It is easy for a society to grow too comfortable with intrusive behavior when a perceived threat is out there. Think long and hard if one day you'll wake up and you realize that your home is no longer private, but you were the one that let it happen. By then it is too late.
There is already too much information both public and private about us. Habeas Corpus is gone. Millions too many people in prisons. Stalin is smiling in his grave.
The highly visible cameras located in public areas have never made me feel intruded upon. I am disturbed when it is revealed that iniquitous monitoring of our personal lives is being done. By all means keep an eye on traffic, shoplifters, pedestrians, and etc. - but keep out of my home, telephone, internet use, and other dealings which are and should remain private.
No. The only place I expect privacy is in my home.
| May 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock