ACLU & SF Surveillance Cameras

Activists List
1

In a message dated 1/10/2007 5:48:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sfdreamer@earthlink.net writes:

Sarosh,

I'd be in favor of putting cameras inside the offices of the mayor and
Supervisors, and broadcasting the feed on public access TV. I WD HAVE NO
PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL! IN FACT, WE SHD BE PUTTING TOGETHER A BALLOT MEASUTRE
WHEREBY ALL CITY/ LABOR NEGOTIATIONS SHD BE OPEN TO PUBLIC AND PRESS, RATHER
THAN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WITH PRIVATE SIDE DEALS BEING CUT TO MISUSE
CITIZENDS MONEY IN RETURN FOR ELECTORAL FAVORS. We know
there are lots of crimes being committed there, and I'm sure the public
would be able to identify many of the miscreants. 8)

However I don't favor giving government more power to spy on ordinary
residents. Imagine how a totalitarian regime might use these cameras,
then ask yourself what real assurance we have that the United States,
or this part of it, will not become a totalitarian regime. Certainly
not the Constitution, since it is already being violated right and
left. The will of the people to resist despotism? It's far from obvious
when the people will wake up. I AM SURE YOU SEE THAT IF THE FBI OR CIA WANTS
TO SPY ON CITIZENS, IT WILL DO SO REGARDLESS OF THE LAW -- BUT I AM
TARGETING ORDINARY STREET CRIME, WHICH ACTUALLY WILL BE DETERRED BY STREET
SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS. IT ALREADY HELPS PREVENT CRIMES IN PRIVATE AREAS LIKE OFFICE
BLDGS -- SO WHY NOT ALSO IN PUIBLIC AREAS? DONT FORGET THAT THE HUNDREDS OR
THOUSANDS OF PUBLIC CAMERAS IN BRITAIN HELPED TRACK DOWN THE LONDON SUBWAY BOMBERS
-- I WAS IN UK - HEADING FOR PICADILLY WHEN BOMBINGS OCCURRED, AND I AM GLAD
FOR THE SURVEILLANCE.

Surely you can see that the dangers of inviting additional government
surveillance measures in a climate where such a scenario is conceivable
outweigh any benefit to be gained from possibly apprehending a few
extra street criminals at no inconsiderable cost to taxpayers?
According to the Examiner, the city currently has 33 cameras, which
carry a $450,000 price tag. I'd rather see them spend the money
improving street lighting, which not only deters crime, but improves
safety and aesthetics. THAT IT COSTS $ 13K PER CAMERA IS AN OUTRAGE -- I AM
SURE THE ENTIRE CITY CD BE BLANKETED BY CAMERAS FOR SUCH A SUM, ESP W/ WIFI
AND WIRELESS CAMERAS THAT UPLOAD TO WEBSITES

Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>

Sarosh D. Kumana
_www.sfrent.net_ (http://www.sfrent.net/)
_www.sustainable-future.org_ (http://www.sustainable-future.org/)
Tel: 415-861-4554
Fax: 415-931-4004
Cel: 415-425-5184
SkypeVideo: sarosh.kumana

2

Sarosh, et al;

The deterrent effect of video cameras everywhere has been proven to be little or none. Many studies (12+) were done in UK on this (so I was told by the ACLU).

So, the average London resident is now tracked on camera on average 300 times per day. For no proven deterrent effect. Add in RFID (e.g., Real ID Act in the US), and the government will be able to track almost every movement you make. Don't think this capability won't be misused... it already has been. Remember, these are the same police units that sent undercover agents in to spy on anti-war groups, with no justifiable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing or intent.

In interviews with perpetrators, ranking what deters them, cameras ranked #10 (lowest) out of 10 options.

Some of the proven better deterrents are visible beat cops and improved lighting. The later is the most effective of all, and does little to threaten our civil liberties.

Rich