Cameras vs. police officers... what's the difference?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Here are two articles discussing the positive and negative about government run (police) surveillance cameras...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309604578434712417328162.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-timothy-p.-carney-civil-society-not-big-brother-is-the-american-way/article/2527754

My question is this...

What is the actual difference between having surveillance cameras in a city, vs. having police officers patrolling in a city? If a camera watching you is a violation of your rights, or an illegal search, why isn't that true of a police officer watching you? Neither one touched you, impeded your progress, etc... they just 'watched' you.

Discuss.

[fj1200]

To stay safe we don't need fewer civil liberties. We need more civil society.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-timothy-p.-carney-civil-society-not-big-brother-is-the-american-way/article/2527754

My question is this...

What is the actual difference between having surveillance cameras in a city, vs. having police officers patrolling in a city?

Not much difference, there is no expectation of privacy where the cameras are. Carney is incorrect in stating we'll have fewer civil liberties.

[tailfins]

It depends if you get charged with something. You have the right to confront your accuser. If cameras are used to target law enforcement presence it's one thing. If they are used as evidence it's another.


Here is a discussion of red light and speed cameras:

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/articles

http://www.motorists.org/speed-cameras/articles

[Marcus Aurelius]

It depends if you get charged with something. You have the right to confront your accuser. If cameras are used to target law enforcement presence it's one thing. If they are used as evidence it's another.


Here is a discussion of red light and speed cameras:

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/articles

http://www.motorists.org/speed-cameras/articles

So, you're saying that in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, the use of cameras constituted an illegal search?

[tailfins]

So, you're saying that in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, the use of cameras constituted an illegal search?

For one, just being legal is a really low standard. Secondly, there is plenty to convict the bomber without camera footage. Third, there are plenty that want to severely restrict camera placement. All I'm advocating is not allowing them to be admissible in criminal court.

[jimnyc]

For one, just being legal is a really low standard. Secondly, there is plenty to convict the bomber without camera footage. Third, there are plenty that want to severely restrict camera placement. All I'm advocating is not allowing them to be admissible in court.

Cameras in public view have always been admissible in court. And I guarantee you, the video of the bomber dropping the bomb off at the marathon, walking away, and having it explode a few seconds later - that WILL be the nail in his coffin at court.

[Marcus Aurelius]

For one, just being legal is a really low standard. Secondly, there is plenty to convict the bomber without camera footage. Third, there are plenty that want to severely restrict camera placement. All I'm advocating is not allowing them to be admissible in criminal court.

In my opinion, there is no difference between a cop who saw someone commit a crime being allowed to testify in court, and a camera that saw someone commit a crime being used in court. The cops testimony is not considered an unwarranted search, so neither should the camera footage be so considered.

[jimnyc]

In my opinion, there is no difference between a cop who saw someone commit a crime being allowed to testify in court, and a camera that saw someone commit a crime being used in court. The cops testimony is not considered an unwarranted search, so neither should the camera footage be so considered.

People want to film cops and other things in public, and claim it's their right. Well, works both ways, and the police are fully within their rights to use their own cameras in public, and also of those of public businesses filming public accessible areas.

[Robert A Whit]

People want to film cops and other things in public, and claim it's their right. Well, works both ways, and the police are fully within their rights to use their own cameras in public, and also of those of public businesses filming public accessible areas.


Could an outstanding lawyer bring up Photoshopping? Generally photos are now digital, easily manipulated.

[jimnyc]

Could an outstanding lawyer bring up Photoshopping? Generally photos are now digital, easily manipulated.

Well, we were talking videos, but add photos in too - if shopped, it would be noticed. I'm confident forensic specialists would figure out something like that in a nanosecond.

[Robert A Whit]

Cameras in public view have always been admissible in court. And I guarantee you, the video of the bomber dropping the bomb off at the marathon, walking away, and having it explode a few seconds later - that WILL be the nail in his coffin at court.

I agree. That is the actual evidence I kept asking for. Finally it comes out Sunday, 4/21. Defense lawyers will pull out all stops, if they are good competent lawyers, to try to cause that evidence to be kicked out. (by the way, the cops had the evidence which put them on the trail of the two young men, however they could have shown the photos of the bomb being placed much earlier, quelling my problems with lack of evidence. Of course this has been allayed)

[jimnyc]

I agree. That is the actual evidence I kept asking for. Finally it comes out Sunday, 4/21. Defense lawyers will pull out all stops, if they are good competent lawyers, to try to cause that evidence to be kicked out. (by the way, the cops had the evidence which put them on the trail of the two young men, however they could have shown the photos of the bomb being placed much earlier, quelling my problems with lack of evidence. Of course this has been allayed)

The photos that were released on Wednesday evening at 5:10 showed a picture of the 2nd bomber placing a bag at a spot, just behind the 8yr old who was killed, just prior to it exploding. This picture was posted here several times. That's the pictures that the police used. The video in question was apparently found/released after all was said and done. What you call a lack of evidence in all the photos during the week is exactly what they used to identify and find the 2 suspects.

[Marcus Aurelius]

People want to film cops and other things in public, and claim it's their right. Well, works both ways, and the police are fully within their rights to use their own cameras in public, and also of those of public businesses filming public accessible areas.

excellent point. i'd bet that people opposed to the cameras are fine with filming police activities.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I agree. That is the actual evidence I kept asking for. Finally it comes out Sunday, 4/21. Defense lawyers will pull out all stops, if they are good competent lawyers, to try to cause that evidence to be kicked out. (by the way, the cops had the evidence which put them on the trail of the two young men, however they could have shown the photos of the bomb being placed much earlier, quelling my problems with lack of evidence. Of course this has been allayed)

The police are not required to show you evidence to convince YOU. They are required to show evidence in court to convince the judge/jury. Your desire for the evidence is unimportant.

[aboutime]

The police are not required to show you evidence to convince YOU. They are required to show evidence in court to convince the judge/jury. Your desire for the evidence is unimportant.


Marcus. It is the same result in any, and all court cases. The Accused does not need to Prove Innocence, but the State/Accuser Must prove...beyond a shadow of ALL Doubt. Which is why the statement "Innocent until proven guilty" applies. The Prosecution has the burden. I'm sure you know that. But others fail to remember it.

[Robert A Whit]

The photos that were released on Wednesday evening at 5:10 showed a picture of the 2nd bomber placing a bag at a spot, just behind the 8yr old who was killed, just prior to it exploding. This picture was posted here several times. That's the pictures that the police used. The video in question was apparently found/released after all was said and done. What you call a lack of evidence in all the photos during the week is exactly what they used to identify and find the 2 suspects.

All i want to see is that photo alleged to have been posted here claimed to be released Wednesday evening.

When will i get the link?

We are in agreement a picture exists and was used. I merely would love to find out who posted it on this site this past Wednesday.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633170#post633170)

I agree. That is the actual evidence I kept asking for. Finally it comes out Sunday, 4/21. Defense lawyers will pull out all stops, if they are good competent lawyers, to try to cause that evidence to be kicked out. (by the way, the cops had the evidence which put them on the trail of the two young men, however they could have shown the photos of the bomb being placed much earlier, quelling my problems with lack of evidence. Of course this has been allayed)



The police are not required to show you evidence to convince YOU. They are required to show evidence in court to convince the judge/jury. Your desire for the evidence is unimportant.

That is not in dispute. My question was over that produced and posted here on this forum.

Matter of fact, as I said, this has been allayed.

[jimnyc]

All i want to see is that photo alleged to have been posted here claimed to be released Wednesday evening.

When will i get the link?

We are in agreement a picture exists and was used. I merely would love to find out who posted it on this site this past Wednesday.

It was in multiple threads, it's not for us to make sure you read them. I told you to visit the FBI website a few times, and a simple search on Google would help you too. Here's where it was posted here already:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40246-Multiple-casualties-reported-after-two-explosions-at-Boston-Marathon/page3

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633187#post633187)
The police are not required to show you evidence to convince YOU. They are required to show evidence in court to convince the judge/jury. Your desire for the evidence is unimportant.




Marcus. It is the same result in any, and all court cases. The Accused does not need to Prove Innocence, but the State/Accuser Must prove...beyond a shadow of ALL Doubt. Which is why the statement "Innocent until proven guilty" applies. The Prosecution has the burden. I'm sure you know that. But others fail to remember it.

completely not the point, and you know it.

YOU were continually posting asking why YOU had not been shown the evidence. They had no requirement to show YOU evidence, or anyone else, outside a courtroom. Whining now about innocent until proven guilty, the prosecution burden, etc., is all totally irrelevant to the continual whining and bitching you did about not having personally been shown any evidence.

Moving the goalposts like you just tried to is a pussy move.

[Kathianne]

It was in multiple threads, it's not for us to make sure you read them. I told you to visit the FBI website a few times, and a simple search on Google would help you too. Here's where it was posted here already:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40246-Multiple-casualties-reported-after-two-explosions-at-Boston-Marathon/page3

Indeed, Thursday when the FBI released the pics, they also released the video which clearly showed the dropping of the book bag. I posted it a few hours later. You've done the same, at least once if not more.

Horse. Water. Forced drink? Doesn't work.

[Marcus Aurelius]

you can apparently lead a dumb ass to a video, but you can't make him watch it or admit you led him there.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633292#post633292)

It was in multiple threads, it's not for us to make sure you read them. I told you to visit the FBI website a few times, and a simple search on Google would help you too. Here's where it was posted here already:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...Marathon/page3 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40246-Multiple-casualties-reported-after-two-explosions-at-Boston-Marathon/page3)



Indeed, Thursday when the FBI released the pics, they also released the video which clearly showed the dropping of the book bag. I posted it a few hours later. You've done the same, at least once if not more.

Horse. Water. Forced drink? Doesn't work.

I clicked his link. No such photo was on the page the link is on.

Never mind.

This issue is not worth my aggravation over this. All I had sought all along was one of those photos. Sorry gang, the first time I learned of that was Sunday.

[tailfins]

completely not the point, and you know it.

YOU were continually posting asking why YOU had not been shown the evidence. They had no requirement to show YOU evidence, or anyone else, outside a courtroom. Whining now about innocent until proven guilty, the prosecution burden, etc., is all totally irrelevant to the continual whining and bitching you did about not having personally been shown any evidence.

Moving the goalposts like you just tried to is a pussy move.


Unless of course YOU are the accused. In which case the prosecution has to show all its evidence to the defense. Again, the danger of "automated law enforcement" exists. If society considers this too complicated of a discussion, then the ACLU position needs to be the fallback.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/whats-wrong-public-video-surveillance

[aboutime]

Looks like we have another reason to remember this...

http://youtu.be/XVSRm80WzZk

[Kathianne]

...ated of a discussion, then the ACLU position needs to be the fallback.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/whats-wrong-public-video-surveillance


I pretty much agree with ACLU. Private entities are entitled to videotape in and out of their locale. Government though, bears a higher burden, whether from fixed on certain locations or trafficams.

Business and individuals are looking at protecting property and prosecuting those that harm them. Government is in the position of gathering data on those they deem disagreeing with them or it.