57 comments

• 

  Alicia

  8 months ago

  I have been pretty quiet for a while now but I might have a little bit to contribute to this discussion.
  
  I am a lifelong resident of the City of the Rochester and I feel uncomfortable with the idea of mass policing and surveillance cameras. Crimes do happen when people have the opportunity, but I really don't see any point in having police cameras everywhere since no one would ideally plan to kill someone in front of one. Perhaps there is some correlation to smaller crimes, but I don't know that these cameras will actually affect murders.
  
  I actually spoke with a city councilman not too long ago who conveyed to me a sense that people have agreed to these cameras as part of an initiative to deter crime, but they cannot be permanently funded and sustained. He agreed that the use of data was a potential problem, and that many people have expressed concern about it. We also discussed how a free society could not be watched 24 hours a day; people themselves have to decide not to take someone else's life. Governments can't stop people from killing one another, yet the social, economic and political climate of this country has been one cause leading to violence and other crime. Can we prove that these cameras catch the actual murderers?
  
  Is your reason for wanting police cameras, Ryan, that you personally want to be safe when you venture into the city to grab a hot dog or hang out in the East End? I suppose I understand that not feeling safe is a deterrent to hanging out in a city, but I don't feel my life is threatened...What do you think is the psychological impact on actual city residents, both "law abiding" and criminals?
  
  I don't know that more police around or cameras could have prevented that shooting at Mark's Hots either. I also don't feel any less safe going there, because I don't tie that crime (albeit horrible and senseless) to Mark's. It could happen anywhere. You could be standing in line at a bank and someone could come in and shoot everyone.
  
  However, I do think that police presence out on the streets in areas like Monroe and East Ave where there are bars is completely reasonable...there's probable cause that someone would get into trouble in that case.
  NPR had an interesting little segment regarding some of the pros and cons to surveillance cameras in London. I think I've read some stuff on how the crime rate in London hasn't really budged much despite the cameras and this brief clip mentions that
  
  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...
  
  I just think that we are too willing to try and patch up problems instead of addressing the roots causes of most crime. That's why I'm against it.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  8 months ago

  I agree Alicia. We can't take a crime that is admitted to be a random act of violence and use it to justify radically altering our society. Your points about feeling safe hit on another point --- it's not the job of the RPD to make sure that the city is catering to the will of the suburbanites. Is it a consideration? Absolutely. But should the city compromise the will of it's residents to meet the will of people that feel that the city is just their spot to hang out? No.
  reply
• 

  Ryan

  8 months ago

  All I can say is apparently I haven't learned my lesson. This past weekend I went to Mark's Texas Hots around 9pm with a friend. As we were finishing our meal my friend noticed a guy who at just come in standing by the counter with a handgun concealed on his person. We got out of there as fast as we could. I didn't see anything on the news about a shooting, but regardless it was quite disconcerting.
  
  If I feel unsafe grabbing a hot dog in the city, how safe would I feel living or working in the city? A lot of people I've talked to who worked in the city through the sixties claimed the violence associated with the race riots as a main reason for leaving the city. Crime isn't just deterring suburbanites, its deterring many people who would potentially want to live and work in the city. I for one would love to live in an area where I wouldn't need a car.
  
  Check out James Slater's case:
  
  http://www.rnews.com/print.cfm?id=60240
  
  Amazingly, they've convicted the two guys of robbing him at gunpoint, but they've both been acquitted of murder. WTF? The jury cited difficulties in the credibility of the main witness (who was the other guy in the robbery). If video had recorded this would there be any question? If the robbers knew they were being filmed, would the have shot and killed the guy over an ipod and two cell phones in the first place?
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  8 months ago

  Believe it or not, carrying a concealed weapon isn't a crime. You do have to get a permit (which violates the 2nd Amendment - permits are for something that's otherwise illegal). So you're telling me you'll wet your pants when you see a citizen with a gun, but you just love it when it's some guy in uniform, be it black or blue? AGAIN Ryan, do I have to remind you that tyranny comes to your door in a uniform? Hell, I'd sure carry a gun to Mark's if I had a permit. The more these criminals know our city isn't a victim disarmament zone, the less they're going to pull this stuff.
  reply
• 

  Ryan

  8 months ago

  Yep, I am telling you that. Our law has to presume innocence, but I don't. Should I have gone up and asked him if he had a permit? Maybe I could have asked him at the same time if he planned to rob the place, or shoot an innocent bystander or shoot me (hey I may have had my ipod on me)?
  
  Its a Felony to have an unregistered handgun, why? Registration is required to ensure that you haven't already committed violent crimes. I think we can both agree that selling firearms to convicts isn't a good idea.
  reply
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  Well, first if the gun wasn't registered then it proves the point that registration does not prevent criminals from possessing firearms. If I am going to commit a felony with a firearm why would I be concerned about committing a felony to obtain one?
  
  Second, perhaps you should obtain a firearm in the event that you need to protect yourself. Unless you imagine that you would instantly be transformed into an outlaw. Imagine if that man did come in with the intent to rob the place and murder the cashier and perhaps you. If you had a weapon you could have been the good citizen to stop this violent act. As it happens you were unprepared and that man was most likely the one who would have defended you.
  reply
• Comment removed.
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  What would you do? Wait for the police to save you? Too late, you would already be dead. If you have no desire to protect yourself it is not my problem.
  
  I cannot understand people's fear of guns. Yes they can kill you, but they can also save your life. If even 10% of the city of Rochester had hand guns how many armed robberies or any violent crimes do you think would happen? I would guess very few. Put yourself in the mind of a criminal. Would you rob a liquor store knowing that the cashier or the customers are probably armed? Most criminals would prefer to keep living, I think.
  
  I am not talking about vigilante justice, I am talking about self preservation. The day that I am confronted with an armed criminal I don't want to be left in the street with wet pants like Ryan.
  
  I would actually feel safer knowing that the citizens of Rochester were armed. Despite what you may think, most gun owners are law abiding citizens and I would welcome their protection. I know it is just my opinion but I enjoy life. Good luck to you Daisy.
  reply
• Comment removed.
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  reply
• 

  DAISY_YANG

  8 months ago

  Free speech may not be dead in America, but it sure is on riseupRochester.org. My comments on the board that is lamenting the death of free speech are being censored for being different than that of the moderator. I'm going to submit my thoughts on this subject (and on what is clearly a sham of a website in general) to the D&C, and get their opinion...
  reply
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  I don't think they were removed for being different than that of the moderator. I believe they were removed for the violence they were advocating. Not that what I think matters anyway, but your comments distract from real debate as well.
  reply
• 

  Nicole

  8 months ago

  I'm sure when they see your comment about the Boston Creme Pie and wiping up someone's blood off the floor they will thoroughly understand.
  
  The arguments against your opinion were clear and consise, then your comments became sick and twisted - there is no need to continue a debate with someone who, once unable to continue their side of the argument, responds with nasty semantics. It appears all the contributors welcome debates, just not the kind of childish debates you want to have.
  reply
• 

  Ryan_W

  8 months ago

  Your argument completely falls apart, don't most corner type stores in the city have armed cashiers? I'd argue you'd have to be a pretty stupid proprietor to not have some sort of protection. Surprisingly, these places still somehow get robbed.
  
  Your argument for arming the general population falls apart too. While I can be fairly certain a store owner won't shoot me (if he wants me to buy his goods) I can't be certain delinquent or mentally unstable people would. How many times have you seen a bar fight by stupid people who are drunk or overly emotional? Now imagine if each time this happened they brought out guns instead of pummeling each other with their fists? This isn't the society I want to live in.
  reply
• 

  Nicole

  8 months ago

  Ryan,
  
  I'm trying to understand you; is it your belief that we should not have the right to own firearms?
  
  I can assure you that if our right to firearms is taken away, those committing crimes with these firearms will still have firearms; it will be those of us who are law abiding citizens that will no longer have the option to protect ourselves. One of the first things that Hitler did when he rose to power was take away the people's right to own firearms. Therefore, he took away the people's right to protect themselves. They had to rely on the Nazi regime to protect them, and as history shows us, that did not work out well for a lot of people. This is definitely not the direction I want our society to go in.
  
  Why do you believe that most store owners are armed? I am a social worker within the community of Rochester and can say with much confidence that most store owners are not armed.
  
  It appears that your mentality is of the "guns kill people" belief. I, on the other hand, am of the "people kill people" belief. There are a variety of ways that a "delinquent or mentally unstable" person could hurt someone, having the right to firearms as a society does make that any more likely.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  8 months ago

  Thank you, Nicole. That's all I've ever been trying to say here.
  reply
• 

  Ryan_W

  8 months ago

  So you're positing that in the unlikely even the US Army were to start persecuting American citizens, that you think American citizens would be able to defend themselves and win?
  
  Our country has the second largest active military in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...) and is probably the best funded, best trained army in the world. No offense, but do you really think average citizens, armed with whatever would stand a chance?
  
  I fully support gun ownership by small at risk businesses. If smaller, vulnerable stores aren't armed I think they should be. Why? I only really endorse gun ownership for those who have strong incentives to keep me alive: police, store owners, military personnel. None of these people could benefit by killing me.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  8 months ago

  You should acknowledge that you disagree with the founding fathers. They were clear with their intentions. No one doubted why the 2nd Amendment was included at the time.
  
  http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm
  
  http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm
  
  http://www.fdrs.org/founding_fathers_and_gun_co...
  
  There really is no debate here as their intentions are well documented. George Washington even stated that sports were a waste of time and young men should be taught how to shoot a gun instead.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  8 months ago

  Also, the police, store owners and military did a great job of protecting the "people" in WWII Germany, USSR, US, etc.
  reply
• 

  Nicole

  8 months ago

  There are several layers to my belief: personal protection at a community level and protection from the government in the event that I needed it. Unlikely or not, if history teaches us anything...
  
  But you're right, since YOU feel personally incapable of protecting yourself, the right to own a gun should be taken away from the rest of us and only given to a list of people deemed deserving of the right.
  
  Unlike you, I do not want to place my fate in the hands of others. This is a right that our founding fathers believed we should have and I am in full agreement with them.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  8 months ago

  Nicole, would you like to become a contributor on the site? You could start posting articles almost immediately. I believe Ryan is considering becoming one.
  reply
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  I think that since this discussion evolved out of an article about cameras on city streets perhaps it is deserving of its own article. Or perhaps a pair of articles from opposing view points?
  reply
• 

  Nicole

  8 months ago

  Yes I would, maybe I'll even write about this whole right to bear arms issue.
  reply
• 

  Nicole

  8 months ago

  Additionally, do you understand though, that even if we had a "list" of people that were the only ones who could own a gun, that the people who are committing crimes with guns are still going to have access to the same gun supply that they had before, as most of the people committing crimes with guns are obtaining those guns illegally. So, like I stated before, the criminals will still have their guns, but us law abiding citizens will not have the protection we deserve/desire.
  reply
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  "I only really endorse gun ownership for those who have strong incentives to keep me alive: police, store owners, military personnel."
  
  You didn't list yourself here. Why is that? Don't you have a strong incentive to keep yourself alive?
  reply
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  "No offense, but do you really think average citizens, armed with whatever would stand a chance?"
  
  It doesn't much matter if the people would win or not but you do pose an interesting question. The way I see it, much of the military would refuse to fight and even turn against those who did. If the people do have access to guns and know how to use them, I think they certainly would be capable of putting up a fight. Just look at the problems our military has faced in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  reply
• 

  Ryan_W

  8 months ago

  Oh, and by the way I didn't wet my pants down at Mark's Texas Hots, I just left. I never actually saw the gun, my friend did. How? Well, I asked him again about it, it wasn't concealed, it was out on his lap in his hand. I left because I trusted my friend's judgement, not because I had seen it for myself. Now what would you have done?
  reply
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  If that's the case I don't fault you at all for leaving. You should always leave a place you don't feel safe, but if he had threatened your life before you could leave wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself.
  reply
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  No, my argument does not fall apart. If a drunk pulls a gun and everyone else is armed, the drunk is stopped before he can harm anyone. But I can totally agree that I wouldn't want to live in a country were everyone is waving a gun around threatening everyone. I just want to retain the right to defend myself.
  reply
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  I'd also like to point out that it is the prerogative of an establishment to decide if weapons are allowed on premises. That is a part of private property law.
  
  I believe a better system than requiring permits for hand guns would be a database of those people deemed not to have a right to a hand gun due to previous violations of law or diagnosed mental illness. Although this system, like the current one, would not completely prevent guns from being obtained by criminals, it would certainly make it easier to exercise your right to own a firearm and protect yourself. I think it is ridiculous that it costs over $100 just to exercise your right in NY.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  8 months ago

  Not to mention a huge run-around and wait periods that can extend to over a year. The justification for a wait period (I've been told) is to allow for a cooling down period. Hypothetically, someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, but since they have to wait a year to obtain one legally, they become discouraged and think better of it. However, the reverse is also true. Someone could become concerned for their own safety and wish to obtain a handgun to defend themselves. The waiting period prevents this person from protecting themselves with a gun for over a year, giving anyone that wishes to do that person harm ample time to hurt them.
  
  Going with the "people kill people" vs. "guns kill people" theory, I'd say it's the criminals that are advantaged in this type of system.
  reply
• 

  DAISY_YANG

  8 months ago

  PENISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
  reply
• 

  Ethan

  8 months ago

  Yes, yes. You make a very good point here Daisy, but I must disagree.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  7 months ago

  I just realized that the bank that was robbed on Monroe yesterday, besides having dozens of it's own cameras, had TWO Rochester surveillance cameras at that intersection which could see the entrance of the bank.
  
  Perhaps someone can explain to me how they helped to deter crime in this situation?
  reply
• 

  Roger

  9 months ago

  We do have right to privacy and this camers scam is a Treasonist act in my book. It is obvious that Ryan doesn't read the Constitution much or beleive in limited government. As far as buisness' having camera's it's for their own premise that they own, not to spy on the public. This is a deliberate crime that is being perpetrated on We the People and in Secret, as a way of conditioning of your mind and to get you to accept the crime. Anyone that knows the truth about 911,chemtrails,rex84,project paperclip,waco,Ok.City bombings,Operation Northwoods,Trilateral Commission,CFR,Bilderberg,unPatriot Act.Military Commissions Act,Blackwater or the North American Union. When We the American People are completely left out of any debate process and dont get our seat at the table it becomes a Crime to impose Fascism upon anyone without their conscious knowledge of the workings. If you want to take someones picture in public, dont you ask that person and if they say no, do you do it anyway? Why is there over a Million toops from Foriegn Countries based right here in Amerika under the U.N.-UnAmerican agreement? I fear for my country when I see it being ripped to the bone by Secret Vultures that will sell their soul for a buck,and not just buck but a Fiat Reserve Note with the Masonic Seal right on the reverse side.So long as this rogue government continue's to spy on me,I'll be excerciseing flipping the bird every chance possible. One last thing we need remember "Condemnation without Investigation is the height of Ignorance". Albert Einstein
  Peace,Roger
  reply
• 

  Ryan

  8 months ago

  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
  
  If its unreasonable to have cameras, then is is also unreasonable to have police patrols? This is all I want to know, and what distinction you guys make since you have adamantly damned video cameras.
  
  "If you want to take someones picture in public, dont you ask that person and if they say no, do you do it anyway?"
  
  Technically, according to most guides on photographer's rights you do have the right to take it anyway.
  
  http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
  
  "This is a deliberate crime that is being perpetrated on We the People and in Secret, as a way of conditioning of your mind and to get you to accept the crime."
  
  Roger, your assertion that this is being done is secret is ridiculous, there are articles in the newspapers as well as flashy blue lights at each camera, its well known to the public what they are. Does the city need to buy billboard space to advertise it in order to satisfy you? Also, I don't have time to pick apart all the conspiracy theories you listed above, but I hadn't heard of the claim that one million foreign troops were in North America. Did a google search and it revealed.... only a bunch of conspiracy theory websites that had any mention of this. Could you provide a reputable link to substantiate your claims? You seem awfully paranoid,
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  8 months ago

  Ryan, there are advocacy groups that DO feel that video cameras are a violation of our rights. They can be seen as an unreasonable search because they are pervasive, can be connected to databases and widely increase the scope of government surveillance of citizens. Would you feel any less comfortable if there was a police officer standing at every corner? Keep in mind, the capabilities of a camera to search people passing by go far beyond those of the officer.
  
  Do I even have to remind you that tyranny comes to your door in a uniform?
  reply
• 

  Ryan

  8 months ago

  "Would you feel any less comfortable if there was a police officer standing at every corner?"
  
  Well, I'd feel more comfortable if there were a policeman on every corner. As a law abiding citizen this would vastly increase my safety in the city. I'll make reference to the Adam Emling incident, which if you're not familiar with you can check out here:
  
  http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/jul/19/tragic-a...
  
  People don't do things like this unless they reasonably think they can get away with it. I would like to think a larger police presence would have prevented an instance like this because any cop would immediately see a problem with someone carrying a shotgun openly down on Monroe Ave, hopefully before the criminal had a chance to use it. In this case the guy managed to kill someone, an innocent bystander at that. This was a crime against society in the sense that it now instills a fear in me every time I go back to Mark's Texas Hots I may be accidentally shot and killed (formerly Mark's Texas Hots was one of my favorite places to eat down on Monroe). Businesses suffer, people live in fear and someone was killed, what more do you need for a case for stronger police presence?
  
  The fact of the matter is that there are consequences to living in society. Cities by definition are places with lots of people and lots of potential for trouble. Cities with high crime don't function well, hence the need for security. This is only a question you can answer for yourself: are the drawbacks of city life outweighed by the benefits? If your answer is no, you are free to live in a rural area, post a lot of "No Trespassing" signs on your property and not deal with society.
  
  The purchase of these cameras was passed by the Rochester City Council, a group of elected officials, unless you disagree with the democratic style government this means that the general public feels this is a reasonable consequence to living in the city of Rochester.
  
  Interestingly, even the local ACLU council admits the cameras legality:
  
  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4180/is...
  
  "It's basically Big Brother expanding," said Scott Forsyth, counsel to the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
  
  The cameras do not violate the Fourth Amendment because there is no right to privacy on public streets, sidewalks, or in someone's yard or when a person knowingly exposes himself to the public, even in a home or office, Donohue and Forsyth said.
  
  Lastly, could you please substantiate this statement:
  
  "Keep in mind, the capabilities of a camera to search people passing by go far beyond those of the officer."
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  8 months ago

  How did the cameras prevent the two pizza delivery people from getting shot? What about the home invasions? What about the murders that don't happen in front of cameras?
  
  I guess there's no point in debating you further. You said it yourself: "Well, I'd feel more comfortable if there were a policeman on every corner."
  
  You are OK with a police state and I think you should just admit that. I'm not against preventing crime, I'm for preventing a police state. You really would have loved fascism - all of the secret spies running around as tattle tales, the military on the streets policing the citizenry and all the rest.
  
  The number of police officers on the streets has expanded vastly in recent years. Is this helping crime? No. Poverty is the cause of crime, not the opportunity to get away with it. I could probably get away with a myriad of crimes, but I don't go hurting people and stealing things because of the police. It requires a moral compass and a solid source of income to prevent crime. Government can't help out there. Sorry.
  reply
• 

  Ryan

  8 months ago

  "You really would have loved fascism - all of the secret spies running around as tattle tales, the military on the streets policing the citizenry and all the rest."
  
  Except I wouldn't have, because I respect tenants of constitution. I respect your freedom of speech and your right to run this website, I disagree with your opinions. I respect your right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure, I don't think cameras are unreasonable. The Nazis or Soviets would have locked political dissidents up or worse, I would protest against this. Don't make me out to be a fascist just because I disagree with you.
  
  "How did the cameras prevent the two pizza delivery people from getting shot? What about the home invasions? What about the murders that don't happen in front of cameras?"
  
  Technology won't catch everything, and if criminals are smart, they won't commit crimes in front of cameras. That said, I could potentially see an externality problem created if cameras shift crime from one area of the city to another, perhaps one legitimate claim against them. Right now the problem is what about all the murders that don't happen in front of policemen, thats a lot of murders. I believe cameras can help.
  reply
• 

  Common__Sense

  8 months ago

  "Poverty is the cause of crime, not the opportunity to get away with it."
  
  Frankly, I'd say both were. IE. If you left me 100 gold bars outside of my house and clearly marked it as yours, by night fall, I will transport these bars inside my house and remark them as mine. I'm not poor, but I will certain take advantage of you.
  reply
• 

  Schrodinger's Cat

  9 months ago

  The Libertarian part of me is quite wary of this Police State stuff - but I honestly can't see how Goverment can be restrained in this matter.
  
  In outdoor Public areas, an individual cannot presume privacy as if indoors or on private property.
  
  I hate it, and it certainly doesn't deter crime, but I can't see how Government is overstepping it legal limits here.
  reply
• 

  SCP

  12 months ago

  Good work!
  
  -- the Surveillance Camera Players
  reply
• 

  Ted

  1 year ago

  Nice. Fuck the cameras and the police state. This is out of control.
  
  Have you been able to verify the camera locations you cite? If so, I'd like to add them to the article I published on Rochester Indymedia.
  
  See the link here:http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/21445/index.php
  
  Thanks for your work!
  
  Ted-
  reply
• 

  Roger Wood

  11 months ago

  We must continue to let them know that we are watching them also. We must organize a group of us to go to City Hall and DEMAND answers from the Mayor Duffy himself in a respectful but URGENT way, I'm down is anyone with me.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  11 months ago

  Roger, yes! I plan on making a short documentary and getting many, many Rochesterians on film saying they hate the system. We need to fight back hard and now!
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  9 months ago

  You don't think it qualifies as an illegal search? There's no probable cause...no warrant. I think it has overstepped its limits quite a bit.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  9 months ago

  Some people just don't understand the meaning of privacy. Private means secret - not being watched. Some people also don't understand that you are paying to be watched by the police. It also becomes a question of what kind of society do we really want to live in? I'm not a criminal and it's not really a question of if I have anything to hide. I simply don't want to feel like I'm living in a prison.
  
  As for their effectiveness, from electronics.howstuffworks.com:
  
  

  ...of the 73 cameras installed in Washington, D.C. since 2006, none have provided footage that has helped solve any crimes [source: Washington Post]. Also, the New York Police Department reported a 30 percent drop in crime in a tough neighborhood in the Bronx after camera installation [source: Lee]. However, the camera installations coincided with increased police patrols.
  
  So taken as a whole, what do all these numbers mean? The Home Office Research Group conducted another more comprehensive study in 2005, confirming that CCTV networks appear nearly ineffective [source: Gill]. A similar evaluation from 2006 by the U.S. Department of Justice, also questioned the reported success of CCTV systems, finding little evidence that they significantly reduce crime [source: Ratcliffe]."

  
  
  Also, I'm sure you can understand how this falls under illegal search and seizure, as prohibited by the 4th amendment. The ACLU does:
  
  

  Nevertheless, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) fiercely opposes police camera surveillance, citing ineffectiveness and the chance for abusing the personal information recorded. In short, the organization views it as an unnecessary intrusion into private lives based on the Fourth Amendment that protects against unlawful search and seizure.

  
  
  Also, Alicia and I talked to a City Government official last week who confided that the cameras have not really done that much. He conceded a few drug arrests, but acknowledged that they had not caught any serious criminals.
  
  Have you read about the London CCTV system ineffectiveness?
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  9 months ago

  Also, to clarify:
  
  About holding a "double standard" for the police (read government), isn't that what our Bill of Rights is all about? It is not about protecting the rights of the government or securing more power for the government. The Bill of Rights was designed to limit the power of the government and uphold the rights of the individual.
  
  Do you want to be on equal footing with the government, its subject or its master? Last time I checked, we were supposed to be in charge. Remember the "We the People" part? The government serves us, not the other way around.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  9 months ago

  Yes, my traditional position would normally be as follows:
  
  Surveillance cameras by private businesses: OK
  Surveillance cameras by government: NOT OK
  
  Unfortunately, under corporatism (read fascism) there is no distinction between the government and the corporations. They have grown together and are able to get the other's information at will.
  
  If any of you would like to write another article on this topic feel free!
  reply
• 

  Ryan

  9 months ago

  Alright, I'm still a bit confused though I would like to try and understand. I guess I don't feel like my question from above was answered, so let me rephrase it in a more clear language:
  
  If we allow officers to patrol areas of the community, (and I guess I'm making a possibly incorrect assumption that you agree that this is ok) what sort of distinction is there between a video camera and a patrol officer? Both seemingly provide the same services (to monitor the area) with the exception that the police officer is a more expensive alternative (because lets say one security guy can monitor many cameras back at base). Is there another distinction here that I'm missing? Or do you simply argue that the government should not have the same level of technology, or should be denied the right to do their job more efficiently?
  
  Budget is one of the principle problems facing the city of Rochester right now. If video cameras can serve as a substitute for some patrol men (and can serve as a way to cut costs) what is wrong with this scenario? I mean this town has seen record police expenditures with the institution of Duffy's zero tolerance. Does anyone on this site think that the number of homicides in this city needs to be reigned in?
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  8 months ago

  "Does anyone on this site think that the number of homicides in this city needs to be reigned in?"
  
  Ryan, of course we don't like the high number of homicides in the city, but what do you think cameras on street corners are going to do to stop MURDERS?!?!? Seriously, how many of the yearly murders occur on a well-lit street corner where these cameras have been installed.
  
  Here is the paradox of trying to fight crime with new laws and tactics like these. Criminals commit crimes because they don't care about the law. IF someone wants to kill someone else, I don't think they're really going to care about any laws standing in their way. Murder has been illegal for all of time and people have been killing eachother since before guns existed.
  
  If you make guns illegal you just create victim-disarmament zones. If you DID manage to get rid of all guns people wouldn't stop killing eachother. Guns are just a tool.
  reply
• 

  DAISY_YANG

  8 months ago

  Free speech may not be dead in America, but it sure is on riseupRochester.org. My comments on the board that is lamenting the death of free speech are being censored for being different than that of the moderator. I'm going to submit my thoughts on this subject (and on what is clearly a sham of a website in general) to the D&C, and get their opinion...
  reply
• 

  virgin mary statues

  5 months ago

  Alicia i agree. Im from Germany and here it is the same
  reply
• 

  Ryan

  9 months ago

  I disagree with the viewpoints in this article. First you cast doubt on the actual effectiveness of the system. If surveillance cameras were ineffective, why do so many private institutions have them? Does the surveillance camera in the quickie mart not help identify who held the place up? Or better: Andrew do you think the cameras on U of R property have been ineffective?
  
  Second, I agree with the poster who claims this does not violate our constitution. As a photographer I have every right to take pictures in a public place, do we hold a double standard for the government? If a police officer making rounds were to make the same observation, leading to an arrest, would you protest this? Should we outlaw police use of vehicles because they also extend the range an individual officer can monitor?
  
  Can you really claim that observations of individuals committing crimes openly on public property are illegal searches?
  reply
• 

  pauldenby73

  8 months ago

  Ryan,
  
  About the use of cameras on private property - they use them precisely because they want to control what happens on their private property. It most likely makes sense that they work on private property, both as a deterrent and a technology for catching bad guys.
  
  This is my issue with cameras - where does it end? Shall we live in a city like London, where almost every move is watched? And what will London look like in 20 years, especially with the increased cost efficiency of cameras? Cameras on every corner? And how far behind will we be?
  
  Ryan, I agree with you that there doesn't seem to be a constitutional issue with cameras in terms of the 4th amendment. That's not what the 4th amendment is set up for. I do think that the somewhat nebulous "right to privacy" under Griswold v. Connecticut does come into play, but I don't think that that is the best attack against the use of cameras on public property. I think the best attack is to challenge cameras through the democratic process - informing fellow citizens, taking part in public forums, supporting like-minded people, etc.
  
  This is the sort of issue that we need to be fighting. I don't remotely understand the conspiracy folks - they think that thousands of people conspired to take the World Trade Center down, yet they seem to do nothing about it. If I believed that thousands of people conspired on 911, I would certainly be living a rebel life, and I would certainly not be concerned with a few cameras in Rochester.
  
  But then, the conspiracy nuts think that I'm a secret agent.
  reply
• 

  Alicia

  8 months ago

  Paul--
  
  I actually didn't see your comment before I posted mine, since I was only looking at the first page, but I think your points here are excellent.
  
  What I don't like is your connection to conspiracies and "nuts." Obviously I would never wish to censor anyone's comments, but I think your connection to those who take in part in so-called "conspiracy theories" and mental illness, which may not be intentional, is a little inappropriate.
  
  People with differing view points are constantly being marginalized using terms like "nut job" to discredit them; that term lends to an assumption that anyone with viewpoints that you do not find to be credible is mentally ill or has some mental impairment that makes their judgment on things off. If you are trying to promote debate, just do it sensibly, there is no need for ridiculous name calling...
  
  Not to get off-topic either, and keep in mind I don't know where exactly I stand on the issue of 9/11, but people who believe it is an inside job are out there taking action. We Are Change, for example does a heck of a lot. But then you criticize them for being nuts anyway...
  reply