The official blog of the Libertarian Party
November 22, 2005
West Palm Beach Is Going to Be Covered With Surveillance Cameras
Police in West Palm Beach are planning to install surveillance cameras downtown and in the city's most violent neighborhoods, according to the Palm Beach Post.
The cameras, costing approximately $17,000 each, will be able to rotate 360 degrees and read a license plate a half-mile away. The cameras will record 24 hours a day and the footage will most likely be kept for several months, according to Assistant Chief Guillermo Perez.
Cities including Chicago and Baltimore have used surveillance cameras on a large scale and have credited the cameras for a significant reduction in crime.
The widespread use of surveillance cameras in West Palm Beach has raised privacy concerns. It is still unclear how the police department will process the endless camera footage and whether the public will be able to view it under public access laws.
Some critics have doubts that the cameras will actually lead to a reduction in crime. Others have said instead of buying expensive cameras, the money could be better spent on hiring more police officers. Kevin Watson, the spokesman for the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, stated, "The more cameras you use, the more data you have and the more you have to pay to process it. If you use the same amount of money and put officers on the street, you're guaranteed to have arrests."
Posted by at November 22, 2005 04:29 PM
Reader Comments:
 |
Here we go again! A local government placing survellience cameras in certain sections of the city for the purpose of spying on citizens, neighborhoods and other. This is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution's fourth amendment protections and guarantees.
What is worse is that this is not only happening in West Palm Beach, Florida. It is happening in Jersey City, New Jersey, Tampa Bay, Florida, New York City, New York, Boulder, Colorado, and other places in the United States. These local governments are stepping over a boundry that should never-ever-be crossed. My fear is that more towns and municipalities will follow their lead.
All Americans who believe in freedom should write their local, state and federal elected representatives (and write a letter to the editor), and let them know that Big Brother is not welcomed. That privacy, personal security, decency and dignity, is all to important to be violated and that government has no right to tresspass there. The sooner politicians and other public officials know this, the better it is for all.
It must be something in the water these days.
Boston, MA is dusting off 40 odd cameras purchased for the 2004 DNC and installing them in crime plagued neighborhoods. The kicker is that the police commissioner wants to network these cameras with existing police cameras plus private security cameras.
I do not think that surveillance cameras by themselves deter crime. Consider all the crime footage on the evening news. The cameras are easy to defeat by simply donning a mask.
If the police department does not have the required number of police officers to patrol, perform investigations and make arrests the surveillance system will fail to deter crime. As long as the cities are unwilling to make the necessary budget allocations or the taxpayers are unwilling to bear higher taxes to fund a sufficiently staffed police department the surveillance system will perpetually fail to deter crime.
How long before a mayor proposes more cameras, storing the data in perpetuity or removing whatever civil liberty safeguards that were originally put into place as the solution to increasing crime?
How long will it be before a governor advocates networking all the state databases with the system?
Lastly, how long after that before the state’s database/surveillance system is networked with federal and other state systems?
Is 1984 in the future and not in the past?
If I were a criminal, there would only be one thing that would "deter" me from commiting a crime; Knowing that the intended target of my intended crime was armed.
What is a camera going to do to stop a criminal from, say for instance, raping someone? That's right, it's just going to sit there and record. Even farther, unless there is a police officer in every square foot in the city, more cops are not going to be a deterrant either. What kind of deterrant is a public official showing up to take pictures and make a report when the crime is hours old? However, if that rapist went to commit his perverted crime and saw the barrel of a firearm, you can bet he would probably turn tail and run.
I wonder if and when more people are going to start rising against this. We should demand that cameras be placed in every public officials home, office, car, etc. and linked to a website for all to see until the street cameras are taken down. If they can look at us, we should be able to look at them.
Control crime eh? As innocent as that sounds, these cameras are just a $17,000 way of the government saying that they control your privacy anyway they want just so long as they can convince you that it's safe. Homeland "security" is such a drag.
Law enforcement has little to do with preventing crime. Law enforcement's job is to catch and punish criminals AFTER they've committed crimes.
Cameras in public cameras could aid police detectives in identifying suspects, producing evidence for use in trials, and for reconstructing the events of the crime. But they're not likely to deter anyone from committing a crime in the first place.
As for the work required to process all the data captured by the cameras, I think it's unlikely anyone would look at it at all unless there was reason to believe a particular camera had captured something useful for solving a criminal case.
Thank god for spray paint.
next the camera will be in your own home.
I'd like to take this time to say Thank You! to everyone at HQ for their continued service and to wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving.
TW
Rob seems to have it right: the cameras are there to help investigations after the crime is committed. (Note how used in various CIS type shows.) Would there be a constitutional invasion of privacy if actual cops stood on every corner 24/7 and watched you rather than having a camera do it? So, if cops are o.k. why not cameras?
We need to have answers to why one is o.k. and one isn't in order to debate with those who say,
"If you aren't doing anything wrong, you needn't be concerned."
Someone needs to look into the spam advertisements that are being posted here, they have nothing to do with the Libertarians topic.
It's rather sad that this is what we're talking about. Sometimes the libertarians are as clueless as the major parties in failing to recognize what's really important: the debt, Social Security, and Medicare, and on local and state levels, taxes. The debt and out of control spending could completely change the face of this country. It would be a stretch to say surveillance cameras in ~public~ places could do the same. Ninety percent of politics this day and age should be about spending policy. Let's wake up, folks.
Sorry, Mat, but rights to privacy (and other constitutional liberties) ARE even more important than the political issues you listed.
Loss of liberties HAS the potential for "completely changing the face of this country," and to say otherwise is to take a short-sighted perspective.
Actually, Mat's right. I dont like security cams more than anyone, but to say they are more important than the national debt is a stretch.
CynicalGeezer, I don't think it is a "broad-sighted" perspective not to prioritize among political goals. Your statement logically leads to the conclusion that the freedom to jaywalk is as important as the right to free enterprise.
Basically, my point is this: the installation of these cameras and the continuation of Social Security are both "losses of liberty." The question is, which is bigger? Which has a greater affect on you and me? This is where I stop and say, forget the security cameras.
Cameras are being placed at intersections in the most remote parts of washington state. Places that you wouldn't expect to see more than 50 cars a day, let alone criminal gangs , murderers and drug dealers. This idea of fighting crime with cameras doesn't hold water. These cameras are being used to spy on people and will eventually be used as a huge source of revenue against speeders,litter bugs and other un-suspecting violators. Two cameras are situated on a lonely stretch of highway 17 in north central washington state and the only thing out there is a farmers house directly across the street from the intersection where the cameras are located.(And take a wild guess which direction one of the two cameras is pointed at times when I drive by this intersection? I have thought about stopping and asking the farmer if he knows that the state has put his home under permanent servailence? Maybe he doesn't mind the state being a peeping tom on his family and personal life. BUTT maybe he does.
There is also another camera watching over the town of riverside washington. A town of less than a thousand people and no crime rate.It sits directly across the highway and is always pointed down on the town instead of the highway that it sits on. Take a look around you and start paying attention to all the steel towers with cameras placed on top, you might just be amazed how many cameras are now watching YOU.
Taxes, Medicare and social security are very important issues as are personal rights. Lets not try to downplay the issue of violating personal liberties. Whether its high taxes or violation of personal liberties, they are extremely important issues and should all be talked about in an effort to educate the american voter. When the state and government is SPYING on american citizens, It needs to be talked about.
What would public officials think if people got together as a group and took their cameras to the mayors house, the governors house, the chief of police house and sat on the side of the road and recorded them and there families? If people got together with others who enjoy their privacy and as a group, started recording every move that your public officials and there families made? What if they made the footage public? With all of the corruption going on in government, would we learn a lot about the daily routines of our public officials? Maybe they would start removing the cameras that they have installed to spy on american citizens. These cameras are invasive at best and un-constitutional.
I'll say it again - thank god for spray paint or maybe some wire cutters.
Tea anyone?
I would like some tea, thank you.
Happy Thanksgiving to all those who remember and believe in our Freedom.
"Kevin Watson, the spokesman for the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, stated, "The more cameras you use, the more data you have and the more you have to pay to process it. If you use the same amount of money and put officers on the street, you're guaranteed to have arrests.""
And thats what its all about, isnt it? Making more arrests. Arrests make the government money in the form of court costs, fines and other revenue streams.
I have a better idea. Ditch the cameras. Cut the law enforcement budget in half. Use the savings to repeal a local tax.
Go one step further...
Decriminalize recreational drugs, allow private stores to sell them (and of course tax them to pay for treatment programs), and crime will drop by over 30% and we won't need the danged cameras.
"What would public officials think if people got together as a group and took their cameras to the mayors house, the governors house, the chief of police house and sat on the side of the road and recorded them and there families? If people got together with others who enjoy their privacy and as a group, started recording every move that your public officials and there families made? What if they made the footage public? With all of the corruption going on in government, would we learn a lot about the daily routines of our public officials? Maybe they would start removing the cameras that they have installed to spy on american citizens. These cameras are invasive at best and un-constitutional."
Sounds like fun.
I think everyone would prefer a human to a machine anyday. 1984 here we come!
Cameras put freedom in jeopardy? Yes. Unconstitutional? Probably, yes.
But regardless of their constitutionality, stupid idea. Crime is a deep problem and cameras will not help anything. Like trying to patch up wood that's already rotted through with water. Don't patch; replace the bad wood. Find a way to get criminals' families/friends involved. Urge these kids to psychologists. Do something more meaningful; get to the source of the problem.
WE HAVE A CANDIDATE! .......But I can't spell his name........Badnar-something
Leave it to the Neoconservatives to create the atmosphere of distrust in America today. The Patriot Act wasn't enough for these "power-hunger mongers" who want the bloody thing expanded and made permanent. They have assaulted our Constitution time and time again since Bush took over! We are living in a civil liberties crisis and that is why I left the Republicans and joined the Libertarians. You can't trust the Democrats either.
All you anti camera-ites would be right in an ideal world. But don't live in an ideal world. We live in a very violent world. If cameras in public places can extend the eyes of the police who are protecting us, and do it more cheaply than hiring more officers, resulting in lower taxes, so be it.
My right to be protected as I walk down a public street easily trumps your right to privacy on that same street.
Guy R. Gregory, I want to Thank You for joining the Libertarian Party. Welcome Aboard!
Bill
I live in West Palm Beach, so this article hits home. How should I go about protesting this?
Great, one more place I have to boycott. Now the only places I can go are my house, the liquor store, and Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Make sure you make a follow up post once the cameras are vandalized, and west palm beach is out a few hundred thousand dollars. You know, just so I can point and laugh.
tekprof wrote:
"My right to be protected as I walk down a public street easily trumps your right to privacy on that same street."
I agree, but the cameras don't protect you. They MAY aid you in prosecuting later. Would there be a need for cameras if people were allowed to protect themselves without a permit in the first place?
The camera issue seems to be another case of trying to cure the symptom and not the cause.
Tekprof,
Please point out where your "right" to be protected is in the Constitution. Must have overlooked that part, along with the section on my birth certificate promising me a safe, cushy and stress free life. The police only protect us when they have to, otherwise they are little more than revenue collection agents for the state. If walking down the street leaves you so paralyzed with fear, stay at home. I do not like peeping Toms of any sort and I like even less people or governments who try to do me favors that I do not petition for. I do not grant the right of anyone to capture my image for any reason without my specific written consent.
If you wish to live in a relatively crime free Orwellian utopia, may I suggest Cuba. Great climate and free health care to boot.
If you want protection buy a gun, don't turn the country into an Orwellian police state.
You are in a public place. You aren't entitled to privacy. Everyone can see you....hence the term, "public place". If you want privacy YOU stay at home. You are entitled to privacy there. In public, you are not.
Tekprof
Please cite in the constitution where a person is not entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy to his person and effects even in a public place. If you are a woman in a public place, does another individual have the right to look up your dress?
Tekprof had it right when he/she put the article up about the guy wouldn't have been convicted without the camera footage. From what i could tell from the article though, that camera was owned by a carwash, which is a private company; and the footage was taken on the property that the company owned. I don't have a problem with someone putting a camera up on their own property that records said property for aid in crime prosecution. I do have a major problem with the GOVERNMENT putting cameras up in public at my expense to watch my every move.
Even if i am in public, i have a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Since cameras absorb light that is emmitted from me and "sieze it" by recording it, they are "seizing" my image without just cause; which is a clear violation of my 4th amendment right.
Actually going to the skirt you do not have an entitlement of privacy. Looking up the skirt is equivalent to breaking one's privacy in one's own home. I have no problem making the distinction....and where most of us would agree is almost absolute privacy in one's own home.
As for public vs private cameras...that distinction I don't see and frankly the responses here don't either. It matters little to me who is paying for the camera...in fact, an argument could be made that at least public cameras we are paying for thus we have a little more control over them.
That last paragraph in the response above is just inane....camera absorbing light and seizing it....oh c'mon! Can you be more silly?
If that is the best you can do, the L in LP stands for "loser" party. It doesn't matter whether you vote because, based on the way the electoral college votes are distributed, your vote doesn't count anyway.
These cameras are positioned such that they see nothing more than an individual would see standing in the same place. I would be opposed to cameras positioned under the sidewalk since that would invade a person's personal space, but cameras at eye level or above are no different than a set of eyes. I would rather save the tax dollars and put around a few cameras than hiring a lot more cops to do the same thing.
Techprof:
Did you wander onto this web site by accident? The concept of property rights is what Brent was referring to, the right of private property. An individual has a right to protect what is his/hers; the public has no inherent right of protection by cameras, the police or anything else. The second amendment fills that void nicely. Again, please provide Constitutional backup for your claims. Have you ever even heard of the Constitution of the United States?
Please don't tell me that you are foolish enough to believe that after you have given the Governmental wolf your money, you will then be able to direct him on how to spend it? Next time you pay your tribute money to the IRS, send along a note telling them where and how you'd like it spent. I'm certain they will snap to it.
I do not feel the need to wear Groucho Glasses or a ski-mask to protect my privacy. I do have no problem with spray paint. I do not want the sort of protection you advocate, nor do I wish to live in today's "bicycle helmet" society, we have become a second class culture of whiners and losers as a result. Read the history of the Roman Empire for a sneak peek into the future should we continue on this path. Here is a better suggestion, take the money for the cameras, and distribute it back to the taxpayers.
The nanny stateists you are looking for are called Democrats and Republicans. They have websites of their own, scratch the surface and you will see very little difference between them. They are the ones who will promise to pamper you and powder your bottom from the cradle to the grave, provided you march lock step to their tune and allow them to access and pillage your wallet, your personal life and your thoughts.
Libertarians are people who believe in individuality, personal responsibility and personal freedom from Big Brother. We understand that life comes without guarantee of safety or warrantee of security. Many of us may even believe that it is those challenges that make life worth living.
Maybe you are right those cameras on the street are the same as a policemans eyes watching you, safeguarding you; to hell with your 4th Amendment rights. Just how long do you think it will be before those cameras move from the street into the living room. After all you might fall down and hurt yourself or eat the wrong food, or (dare I say it?) SMOKE. Think of it as having your mommy right next to you 24/7 - forever. NOW WHAT COULD BE BETTER THAN THAT?
I too believe in individual responsibility. But, ironically, that is not something I can do alone because we all aren't responsible. When my wife, daughter or even myself walk down the street we have a reasonable expectation that we are going to be safe. If cameras can help that process so be it.
It is not a slippery slope to jump from cameras on public intersections to cameras in your bedroom....it is a chasm leap. No one is talking about putting cameras in your house. They are talking about putting them on public thoroughfares. The operational word here is PUBLIC. They are NOT PRIVATE throughfares. That would be your house. There is a BIG difference between public locations and private ones.
What you do in your own house is your own business. I strongly support the defense of that right. You want to smoke, drink, do drugs...whatever....I completely support your rights to do that, as long as it doesn't impinge on my rights....so keep it in your house and that is fine.
However, when the drunk gets in the car and ambles down a public street risking my life coming the other way, I draw the line. One is private intoxication. The other is public. You do what you want in private....but you have no right to do force it on the rest of us in public. If cameras can prevent you from misbehaving in my face by causing you to take responsibility for your actions, so be it. That is the ultimate Libertarian philosophy.
Tekprof
No one has a reasonable expectation of safety on any public street anywhere. Who ever sold you that notion should give you your money back. That is not real life. That is the growing problem with people in this nation, the desire for an unobtainable and unrealistic level of safety and security at the expense of civil liberties. Bush and company have been beating this drum since 9/11/01. They tell us "give up a little liberty and we will make you safer". People buy into that lie so something as simple as air travel is turned into a nightmare. If you feel safer taking off your shoes before walking through a metal detector or having your wife and daughter groped by a $9.00 Security Guard, more power to you. I now drive.
All the cameras on all the streets in every city in the world couldn't make you, you wife or your daughter safer. Cameras are passive observers, recording life. The most they could do is possibly help clean up the mess after the deed was done. No one is sitting behind a desk, eyes glued to monitor screens waiting with their finger on the button to dispatch police at the first sign of trouble. The images are recorded on time lapse DVR's, stored for a period and recycled. Occasionally, when Large Brother is feeling particularly zealous, he will run images past facial recognition software. That is not exactly the most reliable technology on the planet. It does however violate the 4th Amendment. It is another feel good measure that is nothing more than a placebo at great expense to the taxpayer. Something that empty headed politicians can point to around election time to prove that they are "tough" on crime. Smoke and mirrors, a needless eroding away of our RIGHT to privacy. A camera in the fact of a criminal will not prevent or even slow down their behavior. Convenience stores and banks are chock full of cameras, they are still robbed aren't they?
Want to protect yourself and your family, buy a gun and learn how to use it. It is no absolute guarantee of survival, but it will improve your odds; or rip that camera off its housing and bash the criminals brains in with it.
If you "believe in individual responsibility", practice it.
"Those who would exchange liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither." Ben Franklin
Ok...we agree to disagree. There is absolutely no way you will ever convince me that public cameras are bad and I will never be able to convince you of their benefits.
With that said, how do you feel about cameras in police cars?
People in the United States of America got by just fine before these cameras were even invented. The crime rate was much lower in this country before there were gun control laws and drug laws. The real solution when it comes to crime reduction is not putting up a bunch of cameras so the government can spy on us, it's repealing all of the stupid gun control laws and drug laws.
Tekprof,
Excellent comment about the "loser" party, did you think of that all by yourself? Sounds like a used Carrot-Top joke. If you think that people are loser's because they don't want the government recording everything they do, you might want to run for chair of the Democratic or Republican parties.
Allow me to follow up my point about cameras seizing my image in public. When a privately owned video camera catches a crime, the government can not sieze that footage without a court ordered warrant. If the government can not seize private video of private citizens without a warrant, what makes you think that the government themselves should be allowed to sieze images of private citizens without a warrant?
In sum of point, if you are so determined to save tax payers money AND put up cameras, please use your own money and put them up yourself. Just make sure that the government provides a warrant if they decide to claim your footage. I have a feeling though that those cameras will have the same impact that cameras do in convenience stores, banks, car-washes, hotels, jewelry stores, etc... on crime prevention; which is nill at best. Last time i checked, security cameras prevented crime as well as drivers licenses prevent auto accidents (for history purposes, that is what the government claimed when they lobbied to pass a law that required people to posess drivers licenses)
Anyhow, we can agree to disagree, as long as the government can not sieze my image without a court ordered warrant, be it video, a photo, or oil painting.
Your right when you say that it is a pretty far stretch to apply the slippery slope phenomenom to "cameras on the street to cameras in our homes"; but in contrast we didn't think that the 4th amendment would ever let something like the Patriot Act see the light of day.
It's a sad fact, but true: give the government an inch, and they'll take a mile. Thanks to Chuck for bringing up Ben Franklin's point as well, i couldn't have said it any better myself.
Best wishes!
Tekprof:
"With that said, how do you feel about cameras in police cars?"
Wonderful, as long as it captures the complete picture without benefit of editing by the police.
How about putting camera's on our cars.Oh right they will probably make it illegal like taking away our guns because we are not cops.
In response to the question about cameras in Police cars. Those cameras are turned on when they are in pursuit of, or in contact with a suspect. In order for the police to stop somebody, they have to have reasonable suspicion that the contact is guilty of breaking a law. So no, i don't have a problem with that at all. As Chuck noted, the footage can not be edited to show favor of the situation either.
I'm still trying to get some hard numbers from the U.S. department of justice, but from what i can tell right now, a little over 70% of all violent crime is commited on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Who in their right mind would want to spend so much money monitoring areas where less than 30% of all violent crimes are commited? If blind surveillance crusaders really wanted to prevent crime, wouldn't it make more sense to go after the larger offender? So with this juxtaposition between desire and action, it raises a fair amount of suspicion.
In order to effectively monitor public property, let's take a look at the numbers. There are 2.52 million square miles of public land area in the U.S. where 1.5 million violent crimes were commited in 2004.
So taking into account those fancy $17,000 a piece cameras are only going to have an average 10,000 square foot view area, and there are 43560 square feet per acre, we would need 10.98 million cameras to effectively monitor all public land. At 17,000 dollars a pop, it would cost U.S. tax payers about 186.66 billion dollars. Averaged out over the 126.6 million taxpayers, that would be about $1474.00 per person, and that's just for the cameras, not including the people and equipment needed to manage the data. For $500 bucks, everyone could go out and buy a Glock, and spend $250 for some classes, and then we could actually prevent crimes instead of watching them on a screen afterwards.
I'll admit, the intent of the cameras is noble. But with our government, intent seldom takes into account results. I carry a firearm daily and even though fortunately i have never had to use it, i am prepared to defend myself and others from a perpetrator when the time arises; AT NO COST TO MY FELLOW CITIZENS. My conclusion then is that this ploy for security cameras is another excuse for democrats and republicans to increase their death grip of taxes and control on us. Making only 40K a year and paying about $16,800 dollars in taxes and government "fees" last year, this is not an expenditure I am willing to support.
I just recently read an ariticle in my local newspaper that a public school in Union, New Jersey is putting up security cameras in certain sections of the school so it can monitor students. If this were a private facility, I would have no problem with it. Because it is a government runned entity, I fing it very troubling. Just as with cameras being placed in city and town streets is a gross violation of the forth amendment of the Constitution, so is this. It is violating the privacy of students and other personnel.
I understand the need to deter crime, but not at the expense of hampering or violating constitional rights.
I have heard a rumor that students can be good with spray paint also.
Some friends told me about this site, and now i'm glad they told me about it. Percieve Pair is very good TV: http://www.startribune.com/ , Table can Bet Chips Big is feature of Big Slot , Curious is feature of Astonishing Pair Percieve Plane is very good Mistery
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference West Palm Beach Is Going to Be Covered With Surveillance Cameras:
» Bits of homeland stupidity from Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
Yet another selection of government and related news briefs. I’m going to need about 100 surveillance cameras to record all the stupidity coming out of Washington, California, Massachusetts and Florida. But unlike these morons, I’ll actual... [Read More]
Tracked on November 22, 2005 10:58 PM
| 
Here we go again! A local government placing survellience cameras in certain sections of the city for the purpose of spying on citizens, neighborhoods and other. This is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution's fourth amendment protections and guarantees.
What is worse is that this is not only happening in West Palm Beach, Florida. It is happening in Jersey City, New Jersey, Tampa Bay, Florida, New York City, New York, Boulder, Colorado, and other places in the United States. These local governments are stepping over a boundry that should never-ever-be crossed. My fear is that more towns and municipalities will follow their lead.
All Americans who believe in freedom should write their local, state and federal elected representatives (and write a letter to the editor), and let them know that Big Brother is not welcomed. That privacy, personal security, decency and dignity, is all to important to be violated and that government has no right to tresspass there. The sooner politicians and other public officials know this, the better it is for all.
Posted by: Alex Pugliese at November 22, 2005 05:46 PM