"As government surveillance cameras proliferate, the best way to fight back
may not be to rally the masses against Big Brother but to encourage the
proliferation of private-sector Little Brothers....Watchful eyes everywhere,
under the control of everyday citizens, may be the most powerful bulwark we
have against state surveillance and abuse of police power." --Reason, June
2009, p. 64.
Dear Dr. Mike;
The best defense against spy cameras is a can of spray paint and if the camera is on a pole a can of spray paint tied to a broom handle with a pull lever attachment. Then merrily spray away the camera lens or do as they have done in the UK. This has happenend in the UK where speed/license plate cameras have literally been torchd with flammable liquids and a lit match.
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno
Ron,
Let's make this an activity at our next meeting.
Warm regards, Michael
Dear Dr. Mike;
Such an anarchist! Striking blows against Big Brother! Beneath that mild mannered public exterior of a clinical psychologist dwells a freedom fighter!
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno
In some rural areas of the UK, it's been reported that they also make excellent target practice for riflemen. Too bad the sheep-like Americans don't copy more of the practices of the "Mother Country'.
If you think clincial psychologists equal 'mild-mannered' you should read about Freud's encounters with the Nazis.
Does that pledge I signed against initiating force cover malicious property damage? Red light cameras are going up all over down here.
Harland Harrison
LP of San Mateo County CA
----- Message d'origine ----
you could always wear a swine flu mask while driving. I personally prefer ones with convenient pre-cut holes for drinking straws. 
d
.
Dear David and Harland;
The pledge is against initiating force BUT it does not stop you from defending yourself when aggressed against.
Defend yourself and your wallet and smash away against the aggression of red light cameras and all surveillance cameras by the Govenment Big Brothers.
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno
Ron - Since you're getting serious about it - there is an argument (anarchist?) that destruction of state property is moral as any property is inherently stolen in nature and untraceable back to the original owner.. Regardless, there is no natural or constitutional right to privacy and I doubt any non-celebrity could successfully argue public photography, in and of itself is an initiation of force. Also, in my opinion there is little difference in concept between street cams and a policeman on every corner taking notes with a notepad.
A libertarian solution to the problem is to do away with public property. Private property owners have the right to install cameras on their property and publishing of footage is something constrained by contract with the inhabitants or visitors (implied or specific)
d
David,
The idea of doing away with public property is a worthy topic for debate, but clearly that's not likely to happen any time soon. The issue I see here is how we combat state surveillance that's happening now. I agree with Michael Edelstein that the right to privacy is protected by the U.S. Constitution's Ninth Amendment, however recognition of this does not solve the problem, since governments in the U.S. routinely violate that constitution.
I would agree with you that there is little difference in concept between street cameras and a policeman on every corner taking notes with a notepad. This equivalency suggests a libertarian perspective on the topic. Since even those libertarians who do believe that police embody a legitimate function of government presumably would not want a police officer on every corner, it makes sense that we would also oppose cameras that record what's happening on the street when the footage recorded by such cameras is likely to be available to government law enforcement. I think that is generally true of fixed-location mounted cameras, since government agents can in most cases identify the owners of such cameras and demand footage. However it would not tend to be true of a private individual with a camera who just happened to be filming on the street and was not doing so at an established time and location readily identifiable by government agents. Therefore I believe libertarians should oppose fixed mounted cameras (automated surveillance) and defend the use of mobile, untraceable cameras (personal surveillance) when conducted by private individuals.
There's a parallel here with how the law already treats other types of actions when they are personal versus when they are automated. It's legal to send someone you don't know a personal email even if it's unsolicited, but it's not legal to simultaneously send that same unsolicited email to thousands or millions of people you don't know. I think this is a reasonable standard.
For anyone who believes there is an unfettered right to private surveillance which we must defend even when government is likely to have easy access to the footage generated by such surveillance, please tell me whether you would support the following types of surveillance being directed at people by private owners from private property:
• RFID scanners that can identify the nature and source of various products that people are wearing or carrying, visibly or otherwise (limited utility at this point since RFID technology is not widespread, but certainly conceivable in the near future)
• "Fastrack" type scanners that can read the ID cards in peoples' wallets and reveal personal information such as drivers' license or Social Security numbers, bank account information, etc. (mostly theoretical now, but certainly conceivable in the near future)
• directed microphones that can listen in on private conversations at a distance (currently existent and usable, just expensive)
• x-ray surveillance that allows viewers to see under peoples' clothing (expensive and possibly currently limited by need for bulky equipment people have to physically pass through -- or maybe not; anyone?)
Needless to say, I believe we should oppose all of the above, and feel that such examples illustrate why we should oppose the automated use of video surveillance (street cams) as a dangerous precedent if for no other reason. Perhaps there is an argument that this or other types of surveillance should be allowed in a libertarian society, but in the society we live in I think automated surveillance constitutes a serious threat to liberty and should be opposed on that basis.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Okay Starchild -
First of all, I am solidly against broad state surveillance for both the
practical issue of wasted taxpayer money as well as the legal area of probable
cause. However, I don't agree with many of your points below (comments inline)
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:16:32 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Combatting State
Surveilllance
David,
The idea
of doing away with public property is a worthy topic for
debate, but clearly that's not likely to happen any
time soon. The
issue I see here is how we combat state surveillance
that's happening
now. I agree with Michael Edelstein that the right
to privacy is
protected by the U.S. Constitution's Ninth
Amendment, however
recognition of this does not solve the problem,
since governments in
the U.S. routinely violate that constitution.
Well, I'm not a purist on all
libertarian matters but if the crux of the matter is lack of private property
and/or unconstitutional government then the 'party of principle' should pursue those
matters first, correct? Otherwise, bandaid solutions that address the ill-of-the-day
are synonymous with the unprincipaled ways of other parties.
I'd also like to hear more
about why it is you think the privacy is protected via the 9th amendment. If it
is, is the right to free ice cream on Fridays also protected by the ninth? How
about a clean reputation reputation as I mentioned earlier?
I would
agree with you that there is little difference in concept
between street cameras and a policeman on every
corner taking notes
with a notepad. This equivalency suggests a
libertarian perspective on
the topic. Since even those libertarians who do
believe that police
embody a legitimate function of government
presumably would not want a
police officer on every corner, it makes sense that
we would also
oppose cameras that record what's happening on the
street when the
footage recorded by such cameras is likely to be
available to
government law enforcement. I think that is
generally true of fixed-
location mounted cameras, since government agents
can in most cases
identify the owners of such cameras and demand
footage. However it
would not tend to be true of a private individual
with a camera who
just happened to be filming on the street and was
not doing so at an
established time and location readily identifiable
by government
agents. Therefore I believe libertarians should
oppose fixed mounted
cameras (automated surveillance) and defend the use
of mobile,
untraceable cameras (personal surveillance) when
conducted by private
individuals.
So now we are down to how best
to manage the commons. My point is - it doesn't matter what libertarians or
anyone 'wants' to see happen on the streets. They need to come from a position
of being morally wronged or potentially wronged as per my first comment. At
least provide a facial constitutional argument against mounted cameras. For
instance, what if these cameras fed directly to the internet so everyone could
view the feeds on youtube.com? Does that change the argument against government
installing the cameras vs joe tourist? aside from the illegitimate tax expense
of course
There's a
parallel here with how the law already treats other types
of actions when they are personal versus when they
are automated. It's
legal to send someone you don't know a personal email
even if it's
unsolicited, but it's not legal to simultaneously
send that same
unsolicited email to thousands or millions of people
you don't know. I
think this is a reasonable standard.
For anyone
who believes there is an unfettered right to private
surveillance which we must defend even when
government is likely to
have easy access to the footage generated by such
surveillance, please
tell me whether you would support the following
types of surveillance
being directed at people by private owners from
private property:
• RFID scanners that can identify the nature and
source of various
products that people are wearing or carrying,
visibly or otherwise
(limited utility at this point since RFID technology
is not
widespread, but certainly conceivable in the near
future)
If your property is
broadcasting personal information indiscriminately, then you should take
appropriate action to disable that functionality.
• "Fastrack" type scanners that can read
the ID cards in peoples'
wallets and reveal personal information such as
drivers' license or
Social Security numbers, bank account information,
etc. (mostly
theoretical now, but certainly conceivable in the
near future)
I agree that mandatory tracking
devices are illegitimate and initiation of force
• directed microphones that can listen in on private
conversations at
a distance (currently existent and usable, just
expensive)
Go somewhere where privacy is
assured. Superhearing is not the fault of the receiver.
• x-ray surveillance that allows viewers to see
under peoples'
clothing (expensive and possibly currently limited
by need for bulky
equipment people have to physically pass through --
or maybe not;
anyone?)
X-ray is active technology and
one could prove x-rays are an initiation of force. Passive infrared is not.
Needless
to say, I believe we should oppose all of the above, and
feel that such examples illustrate why we should
oppose the automated
use of video surveillance (street cams) as a
dangerous precedent if
for no other reason. Perhaps there is an argument
that this or other
types of surveillance should be allowed in a
libertarian society, but
in the society we live in I think automated
surveillance constitutes a
serious threat to liberty and should be opposed on
that basis.
I tend to agree with Michael
that the quest for liberty is against the state, and not my fellow citizens.
It's not about the technology per se, but the manner in which it's used.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))> Ron - Since you're getting serious about it -
there is an argument
> (anarchist?) that destruction of state property
is moral as any
> property is inherently stolen in nature and
untraceable back to the
> original owner.. Regardless, there is no
natural or constitutional
> right to privacy and I doubt any non-celebrity
could successfully
> argue public photography, in and of itself is
an initiation of
> force. Also, in my opinion there is little difference
in concept
> between street cams and a policeman on every
corner taking notes
> with a notepad.
>
> A libertarian solution to the problem is to do
away with public
> property. Private property owners have the
right to install cameras
> on their property and publishing of footage is
something constrained
> by contract with the inhabitants or visitors
(implied or specific)
Dear David,
Now that I have a chance to get back to you and your question and statement.
there is an argument (anarchist?) that destruction of state property is moral as any property is inherently stolen in nature and untraceable back to the original owner..
Actually there is in reality no such an animal as state (State) property. As we the people are the state and if we the people wish to destruct the state and its property we are only destructing our property as the money used to buy and or build or whatever came from us and as such it is we the peoples property. The nebulous being referred to as the state or State is a concotion of those in power who wish to remain in power and those who wish to come to power to raise up the state as a deity or some such thing as the state does things for you and is for your good because we the state State are all knwoing there's a LAtin phrase which describes this power brokering on behalf of you the peoples the Latin phrase describes is: Non nobis, sed aliis, or, "Not for us, but for others." Which means, it's for your own good, and the legislators know what's best for your own good. They're the ruling elite, and rulers must be obeyed or else. So the state
declares it needs red light cameras to catch speedsters and surveillance cameras to catch crooks - who gives a poop about speedsters or crooks? If it is a crook and if we the citizens were freely allowed to carry without ghetting the states permission there would be a whole heck of a lot of dead crooks and prisons not being filled up by convicted criminals costing taxpayers literallly billions for the prosecution and incarcertaion of criminals. As fara s speedsters go if they have an accident then let them hang from the nearest lightpole and prosecute them for casuing death and damage to someones life or property then make them work to pay off the damages instead of sending them to prison.
I say the hell with it shoot out the cameras wherever you seen one - screw the state (State) and if you are weaponless because the state won't grant you the permission you need to defend yourself and or your family by being armed then torch the damn things with flammable liquids and a match or use wire cutters their electric cables snip snip snip or last but not least spray paint the lenses.
screw the state ( State)
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno
There's a good reason why you'll be seeing more and more cameras all over intersections everywhere as the economy continues its downward spiral:
http://www.leftlanenews.com/six-us-cities-tamper-with-traffic-cameras-for-profit.html
Terry Floyd
David,
You raise some challenging points. My responses interspersed with your comments follow...
Okay Starchild -
First of all, I am solidly against broad state surveillance for both the
practical issue of wasted taxpayer money as well as the legal area of probable
cause. However, I don't agree with many of your points below (comments inline)> From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:16:32 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Combatting State
Surveilllance
>
> David,
>
> The idea
of doing away with public property is a worthy topic for
> debate, but clearly that's not likely to happen any
time soon. The
> issue I see here is how we combat state surveillance
that's happening
> now. I agree with Michael Edelstein that the right
to privacy is
> protected by the U.S. Constitution's Ninth
Amendment, however
> recognition of this does not solve the problem,
since governments in
> the U.S. routinely violate that constitution.Well, I'm not a purist on all
libertarian matters but if the crux of the matter is lack of private property
and/or unconstitutional government then the 'party of principle' should pursue those
matters first, correct? Otherwise, bandaid solutions that address the ill-of-the-day
are synonymous with the unprincipaled ways of other parties.I'd also like to hear more
about why it is you think the privacy is protected via the 9th amendment. If it
is, is the right to free ice cream on Fridays also protected by the ninth? How
about a clean reputation reputation as I mentioned earlier?
The reason I think privacy is protected is that the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people") clearly assumes that other rights exist besides those listed in the Bill of Rights, and the right to privacy seems one of the likeliest of such rights (some of the other Constitutional amendments seem designed to protect aspects of it, yet it is not named as such). But more broadly, I think it is protected because I think all individual natural rights not mentioned in the Constitution are protected. As Ed Brayton writes at http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/the_9th_amendment_means_what_i.php:
"[The individual natural rights model] is the model favored by [author of "The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says" Randy] Barnett, and by me, as well as *by most libertarian legal thinkers* [emphasis added]. The thesis here is that the 'unenumerated rights' referred to in the 9th amendment refers to the entire mass of individual natural rights. Those natural rights, argued Madison, Jefferson and many others, were pre-existing (that is, they exist prior to the formation of governments, which are instituted for the purpose of protecting those rights) and inviolable (that is, it is always unjust to violate those rights, regardless of what form of government violates them).
Brayton quotes Barnett as saying:
"According to the individual natural rights model, the Ninth Amendment was meant to preserve the 'other' individual, natural, preexisting rights that were 'retained by the people' when forming a government but were not included in 'the enumeration of certain rights.' These other rights retained by the people are as enforceable after the enactment of the Bill of Rights as the retained rights of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and free exercise of religion were enforceable before the enactment of the Bill of Rights when they too were still unenumerated. In other words, the purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to ensure the equal protection of unenumerated individual natural rights on a par with those individual natural rights that came to be listed 'for greater caution' in the Bill of Rights.
"On this reading, the Ninth Amendment has the important function of negating any construction of the Constitution that would protect only enumerated rights and leave unenumerated rights unprotected."
Brayton then observes, "What this means is that when someone asks, 'Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to do that?,' they are asking precisely the wrong question. The 9th amendment means that unenumerated rights are every bit as protected and judicially enforcable as enumerated rights."
The reason there can't be a right to free ice cream on Fridays is because that would be a "positive right" (i.e. one that requires action by someone else) as opposed to a "negative right" (i.e. one which requires only that one be left alone in order to exercise). I don't recall reading what you said about a clean reputation and believe I may have deleted that post. But I can say that while a clean reputation would not have the problem of being a "positive right," the problem there is that guaranteeing a clean reputation would involve infringing on the free speech rights of others. Walter Block also makes the argument that one does not own one's reputation, because it exists in the minds of others.
> I would
agree with you that there is little difference in concept
> between street cameras and a policeman on every
corner taking notes
> with a notepad. This equivalency suggests a
libertarian perspective on
> the topic. Since even those libertarians who do
believe that police
> embody a legitimate function of government
presumably would not want a
> police officer on every corner, it makes sense that
we would also
> oppose cameras that record what's happening on the
street when the
> footage recorded by such cameras is likely to be
available to
> government law enforcement. I think that is
generally true of fixed-
> location mounted cameras, since government agents
can in most cases
> identify the owners of such cameras and demand
footage. However it
> would not tend to be true of a private individual
with a camera who
> just happened to be filming on the street and was
not doing so at an
> established time and location readily identifiable
by government
> agents. Therefore I believe libertarians should
oppose fixed mounted
> cameras (automated surveillance) and defend the use
of mobile,
> untraceable cameras (personal surveillance) when
conducted by private
> individuals.So now we are down to how best
to manage the commons. My point is - it doesn't matter what libertarians or
anyone 'wants' to see happen on the streets. They need to come from a position
of being morally wronged or potentially wronged as per my first comment.
Again I'm not sure what you may have said in the comment to which you refer; perhaps you can restate it. But how does the presence of a rights-violating government that can readily obtain and use footage from private surveillance cameras to violate rights not qualify as a "potential wrong?"
At least provide a facial constitutional argument against mounted cameras.
I don't understand what you mean here. Obviously the U.S. Constitution predates the invention of cameras, so it could not possibly say anything about them directly.
For instance, what if these cameras fed directly to the internet so everyone could
view the feeds on youtube.com? Does that change the argument against government
installing the cameras vs joe tourist? aside from the illegitimate tax expense
of course
You mean if Joe Tourist's video camera were feeding directly to the Internet? That would admittedly complicate the picture. Such footage would probably be as accessible to government agents there as in the case of it being physically possessed by a private business owner with a mounted closed circuit camera. The difference however would be that unlike the footage from the closed circuit camera, the Internet footage would be just as available to the general public as to the government. While that is certainly a positive consideration, I'm not sure it's enough of a positive to outweigh the danger of government having access to the footage.
> There's a
parallel here with how the law already treats other types
> of actions when they are personal versus when they
are automated. It's
> legal to send someone you don't know a personal email
even if it's
> unsolicited, but it's not legal to simultaneously
send that same
> unsolicited email to thousands or millions of people
you don't know. I
> think this is a reasonable standard.
>
> For anyone
who believes there is an unfettered right to private
> surveillance which we must defend even when
government is likely to
> have easy access to the footage generated by such
surveillance, please
> tell me whether you would support the following
types of surveillance
> being directed at people by private owners from
private property:
>
> • RFID scanners that can identify the nature and
source of various
> products that people are wearing or carrying,
visibly or otherwise
> (limited utility at this point since RFID technology
is not
> widespread, but certainly conceivable in the near
future)If your property is
broadcasting personal information indiscriminately, then you should take
appropriate action to disable that functionality.
In other words, if you're Joe Tourist, you should not feed video footage of people captured on your camera directly to the Internet?
> • "Fastrack" type scanners that can read
the ID cards in peoples'
> wallets and reveal personal information such as
drivers' license or
> Social Security numbers, bank account information,
etc. (mostly
> theoretical now, but certainly conceivable in the
near future)I agree that mandatory tracking
devices are illegitimate and initiation of force
Yes, of course we're in agreement on that. But drivers licenses aren't technically mandatory -- in the U.S., I understand that government only require you to possess one when operating a motor vehicle on a government road (see http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.php). Just like it presumably won't be mandatory to carry money, if/when money becomes digital and trackable by electronic surveillance. Tracking devices don't have to be mandatory in order to be a threat to liberty.
> • directed microphones that can listen in on private
conversations at
> a distance (currently existent and usable, just
expensive)Go somewhere where privacy is
assured.
Where is privacy assured? Clearly not in one's own home, if you're saying what I think you're saying. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that people deserve privacy only to the extent that they can protect it, and that if someone chose to train high-powered telescopes, listening devices, night vision goggles, heat-seeking scanners, electronic tracking devices, and whatever other high tech equipment might become available in the future (with the exception of "active technology" like x-rays), on someone else's home, that this should be perfectly legal.
Superhearing is not the fault of the receiver.
Unless the receiver naturally possesses "superhearing" without the use of any voluntary technological enhancement, I would say it clearly is the "fault" of the receiver ("responsibility" might be a more appropriate term).
> • x-ray surveillance that allows viewers to see
under peoples'
> clothing (expensive and possibly currently limited
by need for bulky
> equipment people have to physically pass through --
or maybe not;
> anyone?)X-ray is active technology and
one could prove x-rays are an initiation of force. Passive infrared is not.
I'd like to hear you say more about this distinction.
> Needless
to say, I believe we should oppose all of the above, and
> feel that such examples illustrate why we should
oppose the automated
> use of video surveillance (street cams) as a
dangerous precedent if
> for no other reason. Perhaps there is an argument
that this or other
> types of surveillance should be allowed in a
libertarian society, but
> in the society we live in I think automated
surveillance constitutes a
> serious threat to liberty and should be opposed on
that basis.I tend to agree with Michael
that the quest for liberty is against the state, and not my fellow citizens.
A rhetorical question: Who do you think makes up "the State," non-citizens? Do you think a private individual or company compiling and publishing a list of people failing to make tax payments required by law should be acceptable to libertarians? I don't think we should be required to defend every action that would be acceptable in a truly free society, if in the context of our present society that action puts liberty in jeopardy.
It's not about the technology per se, but the manner in which it's used.
I agree. If someone wants to install a fixed mounted camera in a public location as part of an art sculpture, where it is clearly non-functional or functional only in a manner that does not put the public under surveillance, I don't see any problem with that from a libertarian perspective. 8)
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))