ACLU Questions Chicago's Security Camera Network - I Don't.

In this recent report (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/08/aclu-questions-network-security-cameras-chicago/) the ACLU has come out forcefully against the widespread use of security video cameras on public streets. In contrast, Chicago police have praised the cameras' use, and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has even called for cameras to be installed on every city corner to help fight crime. I agree. There is a much greater benefit than cost to having the cameras recording public activities.

I saw a report on Fox news today where an ACLU representitive said the cameras represent an invasion of privacy. Huh ?

EARTH to ACLU : When you are out in the public streets, YOU DON"T HAVE PRIVACY. Here are two opposite words > Private & Public. Get it ACLU ?

So once again, the American Civil Laughingstock Union puts the FREEDOM of criminals to abuse people, above the SAFETY of those people to be protected from those criminals.

The most notorious example is the schoolyards. When I was a kid, kids were routinely beaten up, robbed, etc. with no adult supervision in sight. While spineless teachers and school administrators chose to remain uninvolved, kids were were at the (lack of) mercy of bullies and gangs. This went on for years, and from the reports I see on TV news, it apparently still is that way in most schools. If video cameras were in place to record, the perpetrators could have been caught and it all would have stopped from there on.

Similar case applies to the city streets. I don't believe the studies the ACLU says show that cameras are ineffective. I believe the Chicago police when they say the camera/recorders help authorities respond more quickly, and have led to more than 4,000 arrests.

This is a no-brainer. With 10,000 cameras out on the streets of Chicago being monitored by police or security guards, when crimes occur, they are far more apt to be spotted and reported to patrol cars, than without the cameras.

I also disagree with the ACLU that there should be public notice before installing a camera. Why ? So criminals can tailor the activities to avoid the cameras and not get caught ? Quite the contrary, I think the public should be notified of nothing, and the cameras should be well hidden to more effectively scan public activity and record it for use in court, when necessary.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/08/aclu-questions-network-security-cameras-chicago/#ixzz1aJ2AtLih

Do you think the now Mayor Rahm Emanuel will change any of this?
Progress must have been made since February.

 

Ah the Anti-American Criminals Liberties Union. What a surprise. The same idiots that still can't explain how people's liberties are being violated in a PUBLIC place. If they could they would do away with license plates.

The ACLU is true ANARCHY incarnate.

 

I forgot to mention the full name of the ACLU. > The American Civil Laughingstock Union (ever since their leadership imposed a GAG RULE on their membership aganst criticizing them - HA HA HA. Too funny.)

 

Chicago would better serve the people if they repealed the draconian gun control laws which leave the law-abiding at the mercy of criminals.

 

A name I had always slapped on them is "American Criminals Liberty Union" and yours is very appropriate also.....

Am I understanding this right? - the ACLU imposed a gag rule against anyone criticizing their members? Whut?

 

I agree, and they should publicize the law change with TV ads to put the bad guys on notice.

 

as long as the cameras don't look into homes, or otherwise see anything a cops on the street wouldn't see, i don't see the issue.

 

That's right. Read about it in the Dick Morris/Eileen McGann book > Outrage, Chapter 3 - HYPOCRISY AT THE ACLU : Against Criticizing the Liberties Union. Pages 71 - 78. It's hilarious.

 

Maybe it's just me but something about cameras on every corner seems big brother-ish to me. Even if it is in public.

 

If I want to stalk a woman, seeing when she comes and goes, and who might come and go for or with her would be advantageous.

Luckily most women live on public streets.

No thanks.

 

That's the problem I have with it. I was disappointed to see so many think it is nothing. I know it is public but it's taking taxes from people and using it to spy on them. Don't we get enough of that in this country already? Is that really a judicious use of that money?

 

Hilarious is right .... so what happened to the 1st Amendment, according to the ACLU?

 

i'm more concerned about warrentless GPS tracking devices. at least following people with cameras requires some effort.

 

We've had 'Big Brother' watching us for quite awhile now. Doesn't bother me at all - in fact, in the day and age, I'm glad 'Big Brother' is there.....

 

Too bad these cameras rarely work when the police beat people to death.

Such an odd technical glitch....

 

And when the government starts selling the camera footage to private companies who use facial recogntion to sell your daily activities to businesses or your wife or your competitors to know who your customers are?

 

I was about to say.....
This is tantamount to being monitored for my every move. The government has no right to record my personal daily routine. This could easily be used to harass people because of their political beliefs. I haven't broken any laws but yet I'm being watched like a common criminal? Not a good precedent.

 

Good point and I agree, but Big Bro has been watching us for a long time now - every stop light, on the freeways, in all stores, the apts & condos, all parking lots, airports & other public transportation, etc etc - it's all over and not a thing we can do about it.

At first it bugged me, but after reading several incidents where the criminal was caught on camera in the parking lot and other places & was arrested, I saw the plus side to it and it stopped bothering me....

 

Why do people here actually think that their lives are so important for the government/companies to give a f#$k about you and what you're doing? Either that or go get some meds for that paranoia.

 

Stop crime?

All this means is anyone that is planning to commit a crime on a street with a camera will just conceal their face.
But since most serious crimes (like murder, rape, robbery) happen indoors and/or usually away from busy areas - what crimes is this going to prevent that justifies having the government be able to track someones every move?


But I will tell you what?

When every single politician agrees to allow EVERY single thing they do during the course of a working day (short of going to the bathroom) to be filmed (both audio and visually) - THEN I will agree to cameras on the streets... probably not before.

 

I just recognized you.

First you want to ban a religion.

Now you want Americans under constant surveillance.

What other threads have you started?

Forced abortions?

Forced GPS devices implanted in each American?

Do you believe in freedom at all?

 

Such as? the ban was overthrown by the Supreme Court. What else is there?

 

Not all crime is planned and a lot of criminals are idiots. Anyway, even if the camera operator spots a criminal with their face covered, they can still track them and guide police to their location.

So we shouldn't do anything to try to prevent less serious crime?

For all those who object to cameras watching people on public streets, do you also object to police officers watched people on the streets? What about other civilians who might report what you do to the police?

 

Using mass government surveillance? No.

You honestly see no difference between the government being able to track your every move and a cop looking out for crime?

Come on now.