Red light cameras and creeping fascism

Many law abiding mainstream people dismiss concerns about surveillance cameras with the assertion that they have nothing to hide.

A few points should be made to address that complacency.

1. Everybody breaks a myriad of laws every day and is not even aware of it. Paying ;yyour nanny in cash, hiring an illegal, hugging your son in a way that could be caught by a camera looking for child predators, spanking your daughter in a way suspicious for those looking for abuse. Hungry prosecuters could use these images to make a case. This could chill relations of all law abiding people between adult and child.

Another reason, is that if everyone knows that are being watched, then virtueuous behavior is never done for the right reasons , but because people know that are being watched. It destroys spontaneous virtue, and destroys spontineaty in general. This cripples life and makes it very drab for everyone.

Now tell me why it does not matter for Mary and Joe Suburb.

Phil:

You are right; unfortunately, most Americans don't
care. The Whitehall police state will soon be
recreated in this country as well.

I've pretty much resigned myself to this -- apart from
a few other people who lived in the UK when this was
taking shape, and traveled to other countries (the US)
where it wasn't in practice, most people are the
proverbial frog in the slowly heating pot. The US is
feeling a lot like the UK in 2003 -- replete with the
police dramas where "CCTV" (as it's called in the UK)
is used to stop diabolical terrorists and serial
killers.

The reality, of course, is that CCTV does nothing to
stop truly violent crime, and is usually used after
the crime is committed to try and figure out who did
it. "Minor" crimes, such as property damage, never
get prosecuted. Even assualts often don't get
prosecuted. However, it's now being used to monitor
the comings and goings of residents of entire city
blocks -- the cameras are trained on the doors of
apartment blocks, and used to observe who enters and
exits, and when.

Computerized cameras are used for maintaining the
"congestion zone" and road tax scheme in the United
Kingdom. The country recently bragged that it can now
track every car, at every minute of the day, in every
part of the country, and retains that information for
two years.

Now, New York City is preparing to introduce the same
camera for a "congestion charge" in Manhattan. No
doubt the cash-hungry governments of San Francisco,
Chicago, and other cities will attempt to implement a
system of their own with similar applications. Once
the major metro areas are blanketed with these
computerized cameras, the Department of Homeland
Security, the state authorities, and even local
authorities will be able to determine where you've
been and where you're going, for most of the time
you're in a major city.

Large towns will get the cameras as well, since they
can double as "traffic offense" cameras.

Incidentally, there's a strong "states rights"
argument being used to justify this entire thing,
underscoring the truth that federalism is not a
protection from government predation, but rather a
process facilitating competition between levels of
government as to which level can do the most damage to
individual freedoms.

As I said earlier, and in a sincerely non-hyperbolic
way, welcome to the Brave New World.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Philip Berg <philip@...> wrote:

Many law abiding mainstream people dismiss concerns
about surveillance cameras with the assertion that
they have nothing to hide.

A few points should be made to address that
complacency.

1. Everybody breaks a myriad of laws every day and
is not even aware of it. Paying ;yyour nanny in
cash, hiring an illegal, hugging your son in a way
that could be caught by a camera looking for child
predators, spanking your daughter in a way
suspicious for those looking for abuse. Hungry
prosecuters could use these images to make a case.
This could chill relations of all law abiding people
between adult and child.

Another reason, is that if everyone knows that are
being watched, then virtueuous behavior is never
done for the right reasons , but because people know
that are being watched. It destroys spontaneous
virtue, and destroys spontineaty in general. This
cripples life and makes it very drab for everyone.

Now tell me why it does not matter for Mary and Joe
Suburb.
  From: Brian Miller
  To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Red light cameras and
creeping fascism

  Hi Starchild:

  The talking camera was in an alley a block or so
south
  of Market between Fifth and Sixth streets (near
the
  old mint).

  Cheers,

  Brian

  --- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

  > Brian,
  >
  > I completely agree. The more government can
watch
  > us, the more it
  > can control us. And the installers of course are
  > private companies,
  > but they are collaborating with government
because
  > there's money in
  > it for them. If the light poles on which these
  > surveillance devices
  > are mounted were privatized, would that make it
  > suddenly OK for them
  > to monitor public space and give the images to
  > government? I don't
  > think so. Where did you see this "talking
camera" in
  > SF? I would like
  > to mention that in the surveillance brochure,
along
  > with the Oakland
  > plan to use red-light cameras for 24-hour
  > surveillance, if Michael
  > Edelstein is OK with it.
  >
  > Love & Liberty,
  > <<< starchild >>>
  >
  >
  >
  > > Oh, I have no doubt this will be the norm
within
  > 48 months in the
  > > entire Bay Area.
  > >
  > > Red light cameras are a HUGE profit center for
  > their installers.
  > > They often stick them on the lights at no
charge,
  > in exchange for
  > > "revenue sharing" of the ticket penalties.
  > >
  > > We will, no doubt, soon be like London, with
the
  > average person
  > > captured 300x per day in various surveillance
  > cameras -- all of
  > > which are accessible to law enforcement. The
  > British have been
  > > operating "talking cameras" for a while that
allow
  > people in
  > > monitoring stations to shout at people in
public
  > places to stop
  > > doing things -- I was stunned to see a similar
  > camera in use in San
  > > Francisco last month (though I think it may
have
  > been privately
  > > owned rather than publicly owned).
  > >
  > > The surveillance state is here, and people
will
  > have to get used to
  > > it -- not enough of us are willing to put up
the
  > fight necessary to
  > > stop it. . . and truth be told, a lot of
Americans
  > happily embrace
  > > it (and many others don't understand its
degrees).
  > >
  > > Another story hitting the wires this week is
that
  > the US government
  > > now maintains records of your sexual
orientation,
  > and "sexual
  > > partners" in a database that it shares with
the
  > EU. They claim
  > > that such databases are "never accessed except
in
  > emergency" and
  > > that they "don't believe" such databases have
ever
  > been actually
  > > used. Do you believe them? I don't.
  > >
  > > It's entirely possible that when I enter the
  > country, they'll swipe
  > > my passport and list that I'm a gay man (as
  > determined by the
  > > British authorities), that I once dated two
  > Britons, am dating a
  > > Canadian now, and who knows what else. Axciom,
  > the information
  > > processing company that Wesley Clark is a
board
  > member of, can
  > > combine this information along with credit
card
  > and store purchase
  > > information and tell you (and the government)
more
  > about your life
  > > than anyone else. . . perhaps even yourself.
  > >
  > > Welcome to the Brave New World!
  > >
  > > Cheers,
  > >
  > > Brian
  > >
  > > tradergroupe@... wrote:
  > > tradergroupe@... shared the following
  > article:
  > > Sent by a friend from theNewspaper.com Website
  > > http://www.theNewspaper.com
  > >
  > > Article Date: 7/30/2007
  > > Title: California City to Transform Red Light
  > Cameras Into Spy Cameras
  > > Subtitle: Oakland, California to lobby
legislature
  > to allow 24-hour
  > > video surveillance with red light camera
system.
  > >
  > > Privacy advocates have long viewed red light
  > cameras with the
  > > suspicion that the devices were the first step
  > down a path of
  > > increased surveillance. Those fears may come
true
  > as the city of
  > > Oakland, California has revealed that it is
  > working with the state
  > > legislature to secure a change in the law that
  > will allow red light
  > > cameras to become full-scale surveillance
cameras.
  > In a memo from
  > > the Oakland Police Department dated June 26,
  > Police Chief Wayne G.
  > > Tucker recommended that the city's lobbyist be
  > ordered to advocate
  > > a new law in Sacramento.
  > >

=== message truncated ===