Open Carry as a deterrent to crime

[Citizen]

imported post

Kevin108 wrote:

While the cameras might work to reduce crime, who wants to invite Big Brother in?

I'm all for survey....surveill...sirveyall....video cameras--as long as the master feed switches are literally in the hands of civilians, not the gov't.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Kevin108 wrote:

While the cameras might work to reduce crime, who wants to invite Big Brother in?

But once again..... what is the true problem? What can "Big Brother" do by watching TV that would be so detrimental to the citizens that arebeing recorded by so many other civilian sources already?

 

[Kevin108]

imported post

I'm not interested in starring in a reality show unless I'm getting paid for it. I just don't trust all the cameras everywhere. Even the "Traffic Jam Cams" I have no use for.

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Kevin108 wrote:

While the cameras might work to reduce crime, who wants to invite Big Brother in?

But once again..... what is the true problem? What can "Big Brother" do by watching TV that would be so detrimental to the citizens that arebeing recorded by so many other civilian sources already?

Yes sir.. that is precisely the problem. We have gotten to the point over the years, that for many of us, a good deal of our waking day is recorded in the form of transactions and visibility existence. We are far beyond the simple things like cameras. It's just that cameras are so, well, up front and obvious that we balk at them. While much of our daily movement is recorded and stored.

Did you know that in the UK, you can be finger printed during a routine traffic stop with a relatively small device which takes two prints, and if they get and ident, you are in trouble. This could be coming to a state near your here in the U.S. since it is we who developed this technology in the first place.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Kevin108 wrote:

While the cameras might work to reduce crime, who wants to invite Big Brother in?

But once again..... what is the true problem? What can "Big Brother" do by watching TV that would be so detrimental to the citizens that arebeing recorded by so many other civilian sources already?

Do you know what the expression "Big Brother" means, LEO? Have you ever read that book? If so you would understand the absolute despotism that results from being watched and losing all your privacy. The absolute power that surveilance gives an agent of the state over his subjects.

Of course, maybe you did read the book and thought that looked like a nice society to live in...there are such people.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Do you know what the expression "Big Brother" means, LEO? Have you ever read that book? If so you would understand the absolute despotism that results from being watched and losing all your privacy. The absolute power that surveilance gives an agent of the state over his subjects.

Of course, maybe you did read the book and thought that looked like a nice society to live in...there are such people.

It does not bother me in the least..

I am aware that as I walk through the department store and pick the drawers out of my crack... some loss prevention guymay be watching. Am I worried about it.. nope.

If the government wants to watch me adjust my jewels as I walk down the street... so be it. I know that I will not be breaking any laws worth dispatching an agent to come get me.

If they really want to watch me.. they can doso without cameras.... They can have people follow me but for what purpose..? I havebroken no laws and have no concerns over being viewed on TV.


Please tell me... What privacy am I losing out on a public street?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

It does not bother me in the least..

I am aware that as I walk through the department store and pick the drawers out of my crack... some loss prevention guymay be watching. Am I worried about it.. nope.

If the government wants to watch me adjust my jewels as I walk down the street... so be it. I know that I will not be breaking any laws worth dispatching an agent to come get me.

If they really want to watch me.. they can doso without cameras.... They can have people follow me but for what purpose..? I havebroken no laws and have no concerns over being viewed on TV.


Please tell me... What privacy am I losing out on a public street?

I think the underlying concern is that the time may come when the laws are oppressive.Many consider that time has already arrived. What if aLondon residentdecidesthat he is tired of being under threat of arrrest for carrying a firearm to defend himself. And then he drops his briefcase, the latch springs, and the camera is the only one who sees the momentarily exposed weapon. I know its a strained example, but you get my drift.

Its not really so much a matter of privacy, as the amount of coercive influence that can be brought to bear when the gov't knows who and where you are and can see what you're doing. Its knowledge. Intelligence. With it the gov't has that much more power and will be that much harder to put back in the box.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I am aware that as I walk through the department store and pick the drawers out of my crack... some loss prevention guymay be watching. Am I worried about it.. nope.

Nor should you. It's a private place and you agreed to the rules when you walked in. More importatly, that pimple-face watching the video cannot use the power of the state to harrass, imprison, torture, or kill you. But if he's working not for a private business but a paranoid state bureaucracy, he can do some damage.

It takes two items for this to happen: a paranoid repressive state (not quite there yet, but stay tuned for Patriot Act 3, 4, and 5) and a way to surveil the citizenry so you can keep them in line.

Please tell me... What privacy am I losing out on a public street?

Technically and legally speaking, none. But it's nice to walk through a city at night in the knowledge that you are free to wander as you will without someone looking over your shoulder. That's freedom, and it's harmless.

Cameras on streetcorners are the sign of a paranoid society, where every person walking down the street is a potential criminal and noone should be trusted.

 

[vrwmiller]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Do you know what the expression "Big Brother" means, LEO? Have you ever read that book? If so you would understand the absolute despotism that results from being watched and losing all your privacy. The absolute power that surveilance gives an agent of the state over his subjects.

Of course, maybe you did read the book and thought that looked like a nice society to live in...there are such people.

It does not bother me in the least..

I am aware that as I walk through the department store and pick the drawers out of my crack... some loss prevention guymay be watching. Am I worried about it.. nope.

If the government wants to watch me adjust my jewels as I walk down the street... so be it. I know that I will not be breaking any laws worth dispatching an agent to come get me.

If they really want to watch me.. they can doso without cameras.... They can have people follow me but for what purpose..? I havebroken no laws and have no concerns over being viewed on TV.

Please tell me... What privacy am I losing out on a public street?

LEO229, Installing cameras, even in high crime areas, is not an acceptable solution to the crime problem. Allowing people to arm and defend themselves is far better than allowing a government or police agency to monitor citizens.

Our nation has been experiencing a great paradigm over the last couple of generations, especially with the advent of technology. We are continuing to gravitate closer and closer to a police state. Police states use cameras, as you suggest, to monitor and control the population. The more surveillance data is mined the more and more our privacy is comprimised.

Unfortunately, the American public is too concerned with who's dancing with the stars, american idols, and making deals or no deals. They're all too consumed with these rather than focusing on what really matters. What really matters is maintaining a safe and private society.

So, in your police state, who "watches the watchers" (to take a quote from a Bruce Schneier essay)? The more surveillance becomes prevelant, the more absolute power becomes more absolute. It's an endless cycle.

Privacy, even if we are doing nothing wrong, prevents abuses by those in power against a society. Just because one may not break laws, doesn't mean that this surveillance will not be used against this person. Additionally, one is under threat of judgment and criticism when under constant surveillance.

I do not support the wittling away of my rights, including a right to privacy, to feel more secure. There is a price to living in a free society which affords it's nation liberty. I am willing to pay that price.

This is a fight of liberty vs. control. Not privacy vs. security.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I think the underlying concern is that the time may come when the laws are oppressive.Many consider that time has already arrived. What if aLondon residentdecidesthat he is tired of being under threat of arrrest for carrying a firearm to defend himself. And then he drops his briefcase, the latch springs, and the camera is the only one who sees the momentarily exposed weapon. I know its a strained example, but you get my drift.

Its not really so much a matter of privacy, as the amount of coercive influence that can be brought to bear when the gov't knows who and where you are and can see what you're doing. Its knowledge. Intelligence. With it the gov't has that much more power and will be that much harder to put back in the box.

So Cit.. what your saying is that people who are breaking a law... would not want to be discovered via video. Well, I can understand that.

But the idea behind the cameras is just that... to catch those breaking the law. Cameras permit the police with a means to protect the community by allowing one person to monitor several streets at once instead of having to walk or drive up and down them constantly.

It would be cost prohibitive to place a camera to monitor every square inch of any town, city, county, or state. Same goes for red light cameras.... they could generate a huge cash flow if they were placed at every light. But... they are only at the worst intersections. Same goes for the cameras being monitored by police... They are in high crime areas.

So I will wait for some other reason why BB should not be allowed to monitor the streets via cameras.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

So Cit..

Thats "Citizen," to you, buster.


Or do I need to give you another lesson in Constitutional law. Well, maybe just a little one. Who is the sovereign around here? The people, of which I am one. We cede some of our sovereignty to you, gov't, to use under specific circumstances. So unless I'm committing someoffense wherein some of that ceded sovereignty authorizes you to detain, summons, or seize me, I'll thank you to show the proper respect.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I am aware that as I walk through the department store and pick the drawers out of my crack... some loss prevention guymay be watching. Am I worried about it.. nope.

Nor should you. It's a private place and you agreed to the rules when you walked in. More importatly, that pimple-face watching the video cannot use the power of the state to harrass, imprison, torture, or kill you. But if he's working not for a private business but a paranoid state bureaucracy, he can do some damage.

It takes two items for this to happen: a paranoid repressive state (not quite there yet, but stay tuned for Patriot Act 3, 4, and 5) and a way to surveil the citizenry so you can keep them in line.

Please tell me... What privacy am I losing out on a public street?

Technically and legally speaking, none. But it's nice to walk through a city at night in the knowledge that you are free to wander as you will without someone looking over your shoulder. That's freedom, and it's harmless.

Cameras on streetcorners are the sign of a paranoid society, where every person walking down the street is a potential criminal and noone should be trusted.

A business is not a "private place" as you submit... It is open to the public and your in public view as you walk around. The only place "private" is the dressing room and that is off limits to cameras.

Sorry hawk but whatin blazesare you talking about here "cannot use the power of the state to harrass, imprison, torture, or kill you." Give me a known situation where the state has observed an innocent person via video and decided to torture them and later kill them. This is absurd.

If BB wants to do any of that... they do not need to first watch you via video... They can just pick you up and do it. The only people BB will be keeping in line would be criminals. This is the entire purpose of the cameras!

If your so concerned about people looking over your shoulder.... do you avoid going to the mall? They have cameras inside and out in many cases. You still have your freedom and cameras that may or may not be pointed in your direction are harmless.

Cameras on a street corner are because there is too much crime in that given area. I am not sure how you conclude that people walking about are viewed as criminals. If this is true... Loss prevention probably sees honest customers the same way. They can monitor them all they like but they do not step out and accuse them of shoplifting. There is no need for loss prevention to fake a charge and torture a customer into making a confession.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

So Cit..

Thats "Citizen," to you, buster.


Or do I need to give you another lesson in Constitutional law. Well, maybe just a little one. Who is the sovereign around here? The people, of which I am one. We cede some of our sovereignty to you, gov't, to use under specific circumstances. So unless I'm committing someoffense wherein some of that ceded sovereignty authorizes you to detain, summons, or seize me, I'll thank you to show the proper respect.

That is my pet name for you... You know you like it!!

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

vrwmiller wrote:

LEO229, Installing cameras, even in high crime areas, is not an acceptable solution to the crime problem. Allowing people to arm and defend themselves is far better than allowing a government or police agency to monitor citizens.

Our nation has been experiencing a great paradigm over the last couple of generations, especially with the advent of technology. We are continuing to gravitate closer and closer to a police state. Police states use cameras, as you suggest, to monitor and control the population. The more surveillance data is mined the more and more our privacy is comprimised.

Unfortunately, the American public is too concerned with who's dancing with the stars, american idols, and making deals or no deals. They're all too consumed with these rather than focusing on what really matters. What really matters is maintaining a safe and private society.

So, in your police state, who "watches the watchers" (to take a quote from a Bruce Schneier essay)? The more surveillance becomes prevelant, the more absolute power becomes more absolute. It's an endless cycle.

Privacy, even if we are doing nothing wrong, prevents abuses by those in power against a society. Just because one may not break laws, doesn't mean that this surveillance will not be used against this person. Additionally, one is under threat of judgment and criticism when under constant surveillance.

I do not support the wittling away of my rights, including a right to privacy, to feel more secure. There is a price to living in a free society which affords it's nation liberty. I am willing to pay that price.

This is a fight of liberty vs. control. Not privacy vs. security.

A police state to me would be having a police officer posted on every corner armed with anmachine gunlooking everyone over. This would help stop crime and make people upset and cost more in taxes.

Cameras or more cops.. what do you want? With crime at the level it has... the existing cops are not having much of an impact. More cops may help but that costs more money and raises taxes. So either way the people will be upset and never be satisfied. At least cameras are not as visible and cost less overall.

Having the citizens arms themselves is an option but there are MMM that do not like guns and will not carry a gun. So how are we to protect those who cannot protect themselves on a cold, dark night?

You continue to speak about control and privacy. You have NO PRIVACY while out in the public view. How are you being controlled by a camera? Do you hear voices at the ATM that commands you to do things?

Who watches the watchers....? Who polices the police?? It really makes no difference. You would rather have more police out on the street that can torture and kill you verses a single person in a room watching you on a camera. I am confused.

Give me an example on someone who had been monitored walking down the street and based on being viewed on videowas abused.

"one is under threat of judgment and criticism when under constant surveillance."

This can happen at any time from a LEO watching you from his car!!! In either case.... you may or may not even know your being watched. Where exactly is there a problem. This also happens with citizens you watch you walk down the street as you pass by. Is it wrong for that citizen to think you could be a threat and he decides to keep an eye on you till you pass?

Again with "control".... BB can control the camera.. not you. You do what you like around the camera.

I appreciate your thoughts and views but feel your being paranoid and full of nothing but speculation on things that could happen.

I think that if the state allows everyone toCC in a bar... they will get drunk and shoot people.... what are the chances?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

That is my pet name for you... You know you like it!!

Please. NOT in public.

 

[Kevin108]

imported post

Malls are public places but they are private property and behind the lenses and wires of any of their cameras is not a government employee.

I'm not paranoid but this is the government we're talking about. They can already read your mail and listen to your phone conversations. Why give them the infrastructure to infiltrate our lives any further? If the government has our best interests in mind, why do we have to fight constantly to maintain our rights established by the Constituion?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Kevin108 wrote:

If the government has our best interests in mind, why do we have to fight constantly to maintain our rights established by the Constituion?

That is what we call "a good question."

Thank you, Kevin108.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Well, I guess a small fact is in order. Every day you go off your property you are caught on a camera on average 13 times. On the way to deliver the bomb in Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh was caught on camera not less than 5 times.

It is a little too late to stop the tidal wave of surveillance.

Regards

 

[Kevin108]

imported post

Those cameras weren't much of a deterrent for him.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Well, I guess a small fact is in order. Every day you go off your property you are caught on a camera on average 13 times. On the way to deliver the bomb in Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh was caught on camera not less than 5 times.

It is a little too late to stop the tidal wave of surveillance.

Regards

OK, that does it. I'm getting shirts and a jacket that say:



[align=center]2nd Amend. Assclown[/align]


[align=center]SN#[/align]