I got so mad about our not-yet-completed Equal Access Playground recently being vandalized. This is the playground with special features that enable handicapped kids to play more easily than they would at typical playgrounds. The folks involved with it spent many months raising money and driving the project forward. Some hooligans took just a short time overnight to vandalize one piece of the equipment.
The city suggested they might put in some bright lights, but I question if that really will deter any vandals? The playground location is out of sight from most views. During the night, most of Idaho Falls‘ parks and recreation areas are not watched and are vulnerable to vandalism. Tautphaus Park is closed nightly, but nothing prevents anyone from walking in and through the park.
I think the best solution is to setup a webcam network, broadcasting 24 hours a day. The webcam net would serve to promote our city’s beauty, and to provide security. A network of webcams setup throughout Tautphaus Park would increase security and decrease vandalism immediately. Even if one webcam could not capture a vandal’s identity, another might get the license number.
Furthermore, I think a city-wide video surveillance network would be helpful to our city. We could catch red-light runners and drunks sipping beers, easily determine who was at fault for an accident, catch vandals in the act, track runaway criminals, and generally provide a tool for determining your commute path. The only way this kind of city-wide video network could be acceptable is if it were made publicly available over the Internet. This way anyone can tune into any of the cameras, and watch over the city’s shoulders to ensure perverts are not directing the cameras to peek into windows. Such a public system would make it easy for ordinary citizens to watch and report the red-light runners and drunk drivers. They could reference specific cameras and times when they report to the police.
For an example of how this type of network could combat vandalism, imagine one camera capturing someone spray-painting the settler statue on Memorial. One camera sees them commit the act, but can only make out a white coat. However, it is clear on the camera that the person runs east down B Street. A camera setup on B street captures the vandal getting into a car and driving to Yellowstone Highway. A camera on Yellowstone is able to finally get a clear picture of the license plate.
Some people will say that a camera network like this infringes on our privacy too much. I do not agree, but I am definitely willing to listen to their points. I think that we suspend most of our rights to privacy in public, so a video network is not unduly invading our privacy. The video network could also do exponentially more good for our society than the minor privacy concerns.
What privacy concerns do you have with a city-wide video network? What privacy rights do you think we should have in public?
Popularity: 26%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 129 comments… read them below or add one }
This is good only if they make all cameras public all the time. Without that it is too much big brother.
How much power would that give to potential stalkers. Being able to watch their prey from anywhere in the world???
Maybe a better solution is to have all cameras recorded and not viewed unless a crime was committed. No live monitoring!
We’ve already got camera’s all over this country everywhere we go, watching our every move. They’ve become so commonplace, most people don’t even notice them anymore. Big brother is alive and well in our country and the last thing we need is MORE cameras. Cameras do not deter crime, period. People STILL rob banks to this day, people STILL shoplift every single day and there are cameras in pretty much every store and every bank in this country. Now you’re suggesting putting cameras in our parks and places of recreation? I don’t think so! People are going to steal, vandalize, and destroy the city and other peoples property anyway, whether there is a camera there or not.
So my opinion is no….no more cameras. Give us one or two places on this planet where we can enjoy a little peace and quiet without big brother watching our every move, or the public checking us out online.
Just relax and have fun with it. When I take money out of the ATM machine at the bank, I wave to the camera or show it my empty wallet. Gives the poor bank drone who has to watch all this boring video something to laugh at. . .
Now, spot the redundancy in my last post on this subject. The winner gets a free gov’t photo of an ugly man scratching his armpits. (Old Berkeley Breathed joke)
Good points.
The part about if we have so many cameras already, why are robberies still happening? This is explained because the crooks know there is only a camera in the business. Once they run behind the building or a street over and drive away, they know there are no more cameras. A city-wide camera network would be able to catch the suspects running away, getting into the vehicle, where the vehicle went, etc. It would be much more and much better than a single store camera. Two completely different leagues.
The point about stalkers, ehhh if someone’s going to stalk then they’re going to stalk, I don’t think a city-wide camnet is going to really spur them to action any more than seeing a pretty girl walk by will spur them on. If they are going to do it they will anyways, regardless of the tools available. I would say let’s not let the fear of a potential bad use by one person deter us from using tools for the greater good.
The one or two places where a camera does not capture you? Your home and yard, and anywhere outside city limits.
I think a city-wide camera network would make Idaho Falls safer, that it would deter crime more, that it would help catch criminals and vandals, and I think people would not mind it much so long as no cameras are pointed into homes or yards. It would also probably become a huge selling point for moving to Idaho Falls 8^)
Interesting topic – not sure where I’m at with it. A few things that came to mind:
1. Kissing your girlfriend/boyfriend in the park would be over with except for exhibitionists who want to put on a show…(I’m not talking about situations where someone should get a room!)
2. Might such cameras drive more crime into residential areas?
3. I understand the position of “if you’re not doing anything wrong you’ve got nothing to worry about” but I think that’s a bit oversimplified. When I’m walking in a nice park, I like the notion that I’m alone and not having an “audience”. Not having an expectation of privacy doesn’t equal an expectation of having an unseen audience.
4. Plus, I’ve got a cute wife…it would be ok for her to walk in the park now but I don’t need some guy sitting in his ripped Sears underwear in front of his computer monitor waiting for “his type” to walk on the screen before taking a drive to the correct park to hit on her.
I’m not in favor of city wide web cams except in traffic areas and they can only be viewed by law enforcement.
Whats wrong with “ripped Sears underwear”!?? Joe, I take serious offense to that!! My ripped Sears underwear is not something to be made fun of!
Now I’m going to have to go get some JC Pennys underwear!
The nerve of some people!
we’d see London we’d see France…
How about offering a nice $$ reward for junior high or high school friends to anonymously snitch who did the dirty deed? (if it leads to a conviction) Kids who do this type of thing can’t help but brag to someone. They have siblings who hear what is going on too sometimes…..
Money rewarded might be less than the cost of cameras.
The police can’t take the word of a citizen as opposed to an actual video of said crime. If that were the case, there’d be an awful lot of people in jail. its the classic case of “he said, she said”. That don’t fly in a court of law.
Anyone remember the book “1984″? (and I do hope I got the title correct). If you don’t….its a good read and very much on topic for this discussion.
…..also, why, when they show crimes on the news, is the quality of the video so poor? They go to the effort to put in a security system and the cameras seem to be lacking in detail.
I was wondering when someone would bring up 1984 8^) Although that has to do with larger issues, their cameras were inside homes and this idea is just for the public roads and important spots like parks, etc.
There are now online free web cam streaming feeds, I’ve heard of two recently but cannot recall the names. They are free and handle several hundred or thousands of simultaneous viewers. That could take care of the streaming bandwidth problem for the city-wide cameranet
I didn’t read the book but remember watching the movie….funny how art often times imitates life.
Little by little we’re giving up our freedoms. So many people say, “but it’s for the sake of our safety” or “if you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about”. That’s not the point people! The point is, if we continue on this path, it won’t be long until camera’s are on our property, in our homes, watching our every move. Which they pretty much are already. Our homes are the next step, and don’t think it can’t happen.
It makes me think of the movie “Minority Report” where police had enacted “Pre-crime”. Arresting people for crimes they hadn’t committed, but where likely to commit in the near future. So many people think that could never happen, but in reality so many things like that already HAVE happened! We’ve been slowly giving up our freedoms over the years and it happens so quietly and at such a slow pace, the average person doesn’t even notice it, or their so busy trying to keep up with the Jones’ they just don’t care whats happening around them. Until we all wake up one day and notice things like the Patriot Act and cameras on every street corner and in every place of business, and all these petty laws that get passed each year without any publicity regarding them. Pretty soon you won’t be able to sneeze in public for fear of infecting people.
Don’t think it can’t happen, it already IS happening. And it all starts with the publics approval of topics such as this one.
You know what, I’ve lived with anti-shoplifting and anti-theft cameras in stores for years. I’ve lived with traffic monitoring cameras for years. I’ve lived with cameras at banks and ATMs for years. I work in a place that bristles with security cameras. And I’ve lived with the horrible thought that three dwarves are watching me sleep through a magic portal peephole in my bedroom closet. (Thanks to Terry Pratchett for that one.) Guess which surveillance activity keeps me awake nights. . .
Far as I can tell, what Joe’s proposing need only be feared by the people who are doing illegal things. This isn’t 1984. (We’re far more likely to slip into “Brave New World” (Aldous Huxley) or “Amusing Ourselves to Death” (Neil Postman) than we are anything thought up by Orwell.)
Brian has my idea. We already have spotty surveillance everywhere, all I am saying is we should tie it together into a smarter network that is more reliable than the current hodgepodge. When cameras are pointed into homes then I understand the privacy concerns.
I think this kind of camera network would help in many more ways than it could hurt the public.
Automated Teller Machine Machine? You’ve been reported to the Department of Redundancy Department!
The problem is not that we don’t have enough surveillance cameras. If only it were that easy.
The problem is that the depravity of our society is at an all-time high. People of all ages behaving like bratty, attention-starved, ignorant little children. Inattentive parents of unsupervised kids failing to model good behavior.
The result, on a small scale: vandalism, like the Equal Access Playground—a place that stands for equality and humanity—desecrated. The gorgeous piano bench downtown—a work of art and craftmanship for all to enjoy—demolished and stolen.
On a larger scale, we’ve witnessed students of all ages being gunned down in sacred institutions of learning, at every level.
There is an underlying lack of reverence for the most beatiful and consequential components of the human condition. Art. Compassion. Education. Equality. The spirit of mankind. Human life.
Unfortunately, security measures and devices lack the ability to teach a higher moral standard to the United States. And anyone who fails or refuses to see the downward spiral and their responsibility to reverse it is no better than an idle security camera—nothing but a bystander.
It doesn’t require a miracle, only small and simple acts of good and common sense. We have strength in numbers, but will we take advantage of it?
Check this story out. It is an interesting use of technology that helped capture a major felony and the perpetrator behind the crime:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303556,00.html
We don’t have to be afraid of technology. We just have to make sure it used in ways that protect life, limb and property.
I agree with you, Nevermind. We’re closest to a Nanny State than anything else.
This is going to make me sound like a total tool, but I’ve just read a management theory book I think more people shoudl read — “Leadership and Self-Deception.” The basic premise of the book is that we overemphasize our own virtue and overempahsize others’ faults. The book (and our lives) just call for a little humility).
Nevermind, your pic of Opus is on the way.
The PR reported this morning on some skateboarders hanging around the new equal access playground, and mentioned that the city has already installed a video surveillance camera to watch over this park playground.
Good – that a video cam is at that playground.
Not positive how I feel about all locations, but I certainly think areas that have a large investment and limited amount of people/police drive bys daily, should have cameras on.
It makes me sick about the bench. We’re trying to have a variety of art and culture in downtown I.F. and jerks don’t value anything.
Breaking toys for disabled kids – that’s about as low as it comes.
I sure hope one of you fine police officers who read this forum find the “little darlings” responsible and the Prosecutor charges them.
I’d like to see those responsible not only fix or replace what they broke, but maybe raise the next $20K or so, for the Equal Access Playground.
Sheez, this was so special – 1 of 3 in the area: Logan, Meridian and Idaho Falls.
If anyone knows who might have done it, please call the PD. I realize these people don’t value themselves so they don’t value others. Maybe they are connected to the person who is leaving “treasures” at the Lindsay Blvd. Overpass.
Consequently, IMO, they need counseling – big time, but also to feel the pinch economically of what they’ve done to smash the dreams of so many kids and parents.
It would also be great if those found could be taken by law enforcement by there when some kids are playing, and have to clean the grass or bird droppings etc. Something that let’s them see up close and personal those that they have hurt.
I do know many big cities are going to surviliance videos. London uses them which is why they can catch criminals usually faster than the U.S.
Maybe around banks and other important buildings that creeps might be tempted to vandalize. I’m not sure everywhere yet.
I haven’t voted, because for me, it’s not a black and white issue. The Equal Access Playground is a Black and White issue and so are the works of art-public benches.
What do others think?
Local News 8 reported on the increasing prevalence of video surveillance cameras, and how they help businesses catch criminals.
http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=8008274
Imagine if we had this proposed city-wide camera network up during the Rayce Run two weeks ago. We could have had it all on camera for the investigation.
I think it’s inevitable that Idaho Falls installs a city-wide camera network, and I hope it is sooner rather than later. Maybe there is a Homeland Security grant they could get?
There will never be camera everywhere catching everything, especially in a residential neighborhood. Who wants to live in a world where there are cameras everywhere anyway?
We already live in a world of cameras everywhere. I’m just saying we should put cameras along main city roads/areas and make it unified. We don’t need cameras in every residential neighborhood, just along the main roads. It would serve enough to see a vehicle leaving a business after a middle-of-the-night robbery and entering a neighborhood. That vehicle has to leave the neighborhood at some time via another main road.
I think it is inevitable, and the first cities to do it will be considered forward thinking.
Little do you know…..there already ARE cameras everywhere. You just don’t notice them, but their definately there. They may not be in most “residential areas” yet, but their everywhere else. Down main streets, in every store and/or business you can think of. Yet people still committ crimes. It amazing that these criminals still believe they can get away with these things when there’s going to be a camera somewhere that will catch them in the act.
Exactly! If it exists anyway, let’s do it right and create a network of them, make them useful.
True….good point. BUT….when does it become invasive and obtrusive? When is enough, enough? Especially when there’s so a large potential for abuse? Sure, it’s a great tool to catch criminals, but it’s certainly no deterrent. Are we going to continue to accept living in a “gated community” type of world where our every move is monitored and watched over? That’s certainly not the world I want to live in.
oopsss…..meant “such” a large potential….
Valid concerns, so let’s discuss what is acceptable and what is not.
Driving down main roads, I don’t feel any sense of privacy anyway. Sitting in my car, singing on the radio, talking to my passengers, nothing I’m trying to hide there.
I would say keep the cameras pointed on the roads, so on the peripherals we only see so much as sidewalks, if that. Never position a camera so a home is in view, especially a home’s door or windows.
Beyond that, I don’t see what sense of privacy anyone would think is being violated on a main road? What is anyone doing on Anderson or 17th or Holmes or Sunnyside or Broadway that is so secret a camera cannot see, but every other driver on the road can see?
Please look at recent reports from San Francisco on this topic. It is being found that video surveillance cameras are not having any deterrent effect on the perpetration of violent crime in high crime areas there. Perhaps there are other factors which would make a difference in IF, like a greater number of law enforcement officers per capita, or less for them to do ie more time for analysing video. The whole video deterrent thing seems pretty stupid to me, like the death penalty, do you really think a perpetrator is weighing these things? and if they are how hard is it to work around? Seems to me you’d just end up with a bunch of stolen surveillance cameras and lawsuits about mis-identification. Just some thoughts.
And one more thing (hope you don’t spam me!) :
Taxpayer money would be better spent in my opinion by subsidising the installation of webcams in every licensed child care home. Or is property crime more important than crime against children?
Crystal, as in former daycare provider Crystal? I can see why you would like that idea, cameras in the daycare.
I worked with a woman whose daughter is in one of those daycares in this area, and she loved to log in and watch her child on her break.
Thank you for bringing up the topic of other citys’ experiences with these cameras, Crystal. I started thinking, “Well maybe it is a bad idea”, but from what I read it depends on the goals and implementation.
For example, San Francisco is being slammed for their camera network for different reasons than I am suggesting.
The SF cameras were apparently setup in low-light areas, so most of the time they could not capture usable pics of suspects. Okay, then Idaho Falls learns from that mistake and ensures we focus cameras on well-lit areas. Maybe this cues our city to better light some areas than they are now.
SF apparently deletes camera footage after just 7 days. This is completely ridiculous given the cheap price of hard drives now, and given the cheap price of online storage (Amazon’s S3 for example). Idaho Falls can learn from this and keep footage for up to a month.
SF is getting criticized because they only give footage to police on request, and nobody else, despite possible footage which could exonerate defendants. Holy Cow! Heck yes Idaho Falls could learn from this and provide it to anyone with a legitimate written request. If the public pays for it, the public should be able to access the footage. I say “legitimate written request” so we can prevent the inevitable pervert request footage of his favorite stalking victim as she drives around town.
SF is being criticized because they tried justifying the cameras as catching more red-light-runners, however only 1/3 of the pics are good enough to use in prosecution. Then to make it look better, they tripled the red-light-running fine. I figure 1/3 more than without the cameras is better than nothing, and we have tons of dangerous red-light runners in Idaho Falls. I really don’t see a big problem with this. Maybe SF officials created too many expectations? I think 1/3 is good, and they claim red-light running has been reduced as a result.
SF is criticized because nobody is constantly watching the cameras, so it does nothing to help in-progress crimes. Okay, so Idaho Falls learns from this and puts the camera monitoring equipment in our 911 center. Dispatchers can use the camera network as another tool to help direct police. There will be extra costs to hire another person 24 hours a day to monitor the cameras, but that is to be expected. Our 911 center is historically understaffed anyway, so this could be a reason to add personnel into their important department.
This article seemed to present a balanced view of cameras in San Francisco and Chicago and London: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/24/MNACSA80Q.DTL
I am glad you brought up the problems, because I think it is important to acknowledge them and figure out how to not make those same mistakes. The other main idea is this will not completely rid our city of crime, but is just another tool to help reduce crime.
Unbelievable! Outright support for Big Brother and his ever watchful eye. As if a cop on every corner now it seems isn’t enough, some want cameras on every corner to go along with it? PAPERS PLEASE! Tell Big Brother, even here in Idaho Falls, where he can stuff it!
Okay, it’s easy to shout, “FASCIST!” but I would rather hear why exactly you are opposed to the cameras as suggested? We don’t have cops on every corner, what are you talking about? The point is to reduce crime, do you not want to reduce crime?
The poster opposing fascism above would be pretty glad cameras were around if it caught a kidnapping, shooting, or car theft (especially if it was his kids being grabbed, shot at or car stolen).
Joe Vandal made a good point earlier: There is no expectation of privacy in open public spaces. Cameras are set up by many private businesses as well. How many bank cameras have helped catch bank robbers or caught murderers trying to use the victims ATM card? Answer–alot! Fascism would be the government requiring private businesses to put up cameras and link all the footage to the Big Brother Video Center. That simply is not the case. Private businesses have the right to set up cameras on their property. That is not fascist. They also have a right to share the footage with police upon request. That is not fascist. It is called being a good neighbor and helping solve crimes.
Often times, when “liberal” type thinkers can’t come up with a cogent argument they start throwing around the terms fascist or nazi to make their point(s). The only point here is that the poster above has nothing better than using the Nazi card. Kind of a Joe McCarthy type tactic if you ask me.
I really find it hard to believe that proponents find nothing wrong with cameras watching your every move. You know, even in public places there is expected a certain amount of anonymity. Is playing hooky from work a crime? What about looking around to see if anyone is watching and picking your nose or scratching your nether regions? How about if you’re just spending a lot of time in a certain area, will then some cop alerted by the cameras of a citizen’s call inspect that otherwise benign person, questioning his/her reasons for being there? To me, this issue is sort of like any other pertaining to personal rights such as gun control; that being, freedom isn’t free! I like the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights such as the right to carry but I realize too that there are costs to society. I like being able to walk in the park without some voyeur on the other end of some unseen camera following my movements but realize that occasionally some idiot will vandalize something without the cameras. Additionally, If you cannot see the potential for abuse by governmental entities, you need to remove the rose colored glasses.
I would like to pose a question pertaining to this discussion. Does the damage from vandalism incurred warrant the cost of installation and maintenance of a camera system? Even Department of Homeland Security grants must come from tax dollars.
While I can appreciate the fact that people want to protect their privacy….as do I, it is important to note that the technology does not force anyone to engage in behaviors that are illegal or uncouth. It merely records what has happened for whatever purpose it may serve, legal or otherwise.
As for the point about loitering too long in one spot and getting questioned as a result, that can happen even without a camera. If one loiters in one spot and is observed by the watchful eye of a police officer or security guard, I would expect them to politely inquire about one’s intentions in a public setting. Remember the London sub-way bombings? How about the bomber(s) loitering in one area for an extended period of time. Or how about persons loitering in front of a convenience store waiting for the right opportunity to rob the place….or the proverbial burglar loitering in a car in a residential neighborhood waiting for the right indicators of an unoccupied home to strike? The point is, what the eye can see in public is no different that what the electronic eye can see in public. Granted, some cameras can zoom in more than the human eye; however, unless the cameras are covertly hidden to the human eye, I don’t have a problem with cameras.
As for the cost of cameras, the cost benefit analysis here has a multitude of avenues to see benefits. For example, there is obviously the deterent effect to a small degree. To a larger degree, the ability of police and other interested parties to solve thefts, assaults, and even murders make these devices well worth the purchase price. Additionally, if a camera helps assist a person to mind their Ps & Qs in public all the better for social order. The next time you think about littering and think better of it because you might be on camera….well, now you have just become a better environmentalist by not littering!!! lol
As far as the virtual fence option on the border, the use of cameras and sensors allows the Border Patrol to focus resources where they are needed. This results in the need for fewer personnel and more budget savings. Additionally, we need not operate as many vehicles along a vast expanse of desert. This also saves money and time. If we can cut the social and economic costs through this use of technology then we should move ahead full-bore with and understanding on the limits of cameras and restrictions on their use. For example, no use of cameras in dressing rooms, bathrooms, and other locations where an expectation of privacy is rock-solid.
Oh, this feels like a slippery slope for me (remember me, I’m the one who shouts “Libertarian!” at every opportunity) because I can definitely see the potential for massive amounts of abuses by the government. Mike, I respect your opinions in many areas, but in this one I’m afraid it isn’t as simple as saying “if I’m not doing anything illegal I shouldn’t care if the government routinely takes my picture while I’m out in public.”
Is in our homes, or in a bathroom or dressing room elsewhere, the only place where we can have an expectation of privacy? Just because I’m on a city sidewalk, or in a park, do I give up the right to have an expectation of privacy?
Let’s take it a step further. Cameras work so well when used in all public places, hey! why not microphones! If you don’t have anything to hide, if you’re not saying anything illegal, why would you object to having recordings of your conversations? If you wanted to have a confidential conversation, why would you be so stupid as to hold it in a public place?
Why would conversations be more private than pictures of you, if you’re in a public place? And I bet we could catch lots of people committing crimes, or plotting to commit crimes, if we could just hear the sneaky things they’re saying!
I can understand public buildings and businesses having cameras for security reasons. I’m just not sure where I stand on this issue, it makes me uneasy. And not because I’m about to commit a crime or want to have that freedom to do so. It’s because I’m just not seeing how this will be beneficial to the public good without starting down the path of giving the government tremendous power over its citizens.
When I made my first two posts, I had only read the article wherein the topic was mitigate the vandalism perpetrated by some miscreants in the parks in the city. However, I have read the posts in particular by Joe Vandal (the author of the article) and Mike and I see the topic and proposed benefits and USES of camera surveillance has greatly increased. This is the danger. I don’t generally endorse “slippery slope” arguments but I think the ability to “spy” on people with anonymity will lead to illegitimate and or more intrusive uses. Also, using examples of high value terrorist targets like the London subway is a far cry from an Idaho Falls City Park. And, why do you feel the need to “help people mind their P’s & Q’s;” just what sort of Country do you want in the end? I will simply restate my opinion that if we are to continue to enjoy living in a free country we must endure societal costs. For my part I would much rather run the current risks in Idaho Falls than have an untold number of cameras recording my daily activities. Let’s stay grounded in our arguments and look at real posed threats.
I’m with Nemesis on this one . . .
I hear a few people claiming they have expectations of privacy in public, and I don’t think we do. I think there have been court cases stating this also, the only exception to photographing in public is of important architectural buildings. I’ll try to find more on this, but I’m pretty sure courts have already rule we have no expectations of privacy while out in public. Otherwise you would have bums peeing in public and claiming you were wrong to look at them, etc.
I don’t necessarily mean privacy from other individuals while out in public, after all, we are all there in public for anyone to see. If someone wants to spend their time staring at me while I’m in the park, that’s their problem. I may not like it but it’s a free country. (So far.)
But for the government to have the power and the ability to watch me while I’m in public, that’s a problem for me. Why would they be interested? That’s just too big brother for me.
If there was a vandalism or violent crime problem in the specific park, and the city wanted to install cameras to catch the perps…if they promised that the only use for the cameras was to catch someone committing a crime and if I knew the videos were routinely destroyed unless needed for court cases against the criminals, I might reluctantly agree to it.
I just don’t see the government uses for surveillance video in public places stopping there. I’m thinking facial recognition technology and outstanding warrants and conspiracy theories and it really does leave the realm of being a simple vandalism deterrent.
I agree with #44 that if we are to continue to enjoy living in a free country we must endure some societal costs.
Joe Vandal, you don’t understand! I know there are legal limits to the expectation of privacy in public, however when one is in a Wal-Mart, they know they are being watched. It is that feeling “of being watched” all the time that I’m opposed to. You’re comfortable with being constantly under surveillance when in public? I realize why in a Wal-mart there would be cameras, but to me there would be a oppressive feeling to have cameras watching me on a sidewalk or in a park, as if I’m not to be trusted. In fact, I think that is exactly what would happen, everyone within the cameras view would become a suspect, to be watched for any misdeed.
I can understand people not wanting to be watched in public places by the government or anyone else. However, one thing we need to keep in mind is that the vast majority of cameras are maintained by private persons on private property. The government has nothing to do with that aspect of the debate. If you own private property you can and should be able to do almost anything that you want so long as it does not harm others or violate zoning laws established to keep property values and living environments protected.
As far as the government getting involved in this business, the 4th Amendment doesn’t necessarily follow that one has protections out in public places. Garbage on the side walk doesn’t even fall under the 4th Amendment. I realize many want the privacy, but that right is not conferred in the Constitution. If you want it, then amend the 4th.
Nemisis raised a great point about microphones. That is another issue altogether. However, it still begs the question that if you say something in a public place that any government agent (or regular Joe Blow) has the right to be in overt or covertly, it will not be suppressed at trial, nor should it be. To do so would fly in the face of a reasonableness standard set up by the Courts as to whether evidence was properly or improperly obtained. Take for instance the would be terrorist who sits in Starbucks planning to blow up Idaho Falls High School. Let’s say Nemisis is sitting in that Starbucks and overhears the nut job talking about this. Nemisis calls 911 and reports the terrorist. Police use this information to get a warrant to search this guys phone calls and home and find explosives, etc….is that such a bad outcome? If the guy is stupid enough to say it in public he deserves to get caught. If you don’t like it, don’t air your dirty laundry in public…sure it can be embarrassing sometimes, but that is a far cry from leading to incarceration talking about embarrassing vs. criminal content of speech. To put a lid on listening to both can have the unintended consequences of harming public safety. The government, like it or not, does have an interest in maintaining public safety. Cameras and even microphones go a long way toward promoting this goal. The reasonableness test used by Courts has been effective in suppressing police conduct that has gone too far, i.e. taping in a bathroom for instance. We can’t have it both ways and we need to recognize what our priorities are. It is precarious. Too much in any one direction and people can get hurt and other people can get away with monstrous acts against others. So, liberty vs. safety. It is a tough call and a tough balancing act. Good posts here though! Keep em coming.
I remain unconvinced. Mike, Joe Vandal, I assume you two are in law enforcement and feel compelled to defend the increased surviellance. However, I firmly believe that most people do not wish to live under such circumstances. I also feel that most people are good and that current conditions do not warrant such extreme measures of monitoring.
I’m getting off point here from the original story but since I’m not the first, I feel justified. The question really is- Is all this necessary? Look at what has happened in the last 7 years. A new inward looking Department of Defense (DHS), a national ID card, no travel to Canada or Mexico without a passport, new banking standards that secretly report your transactions (if large enough), US govt. agents authorized to write their own search warrants, US citizens having their phone calls monitored, suspension of habeus corpus. I could go on, but I don’t believe for one solitary second that any of these domestic policy changes has foiled any acts of terrorism. How ironic that in part the US govt. has played into the hands of the terrorists by sickening the minds of so many Americans to think that these actions are necessary. Just read some of the posts on this thread. It seems as if some are convinced that Idaho Falls could be a terrorist’s target. It is that level of paranoia that worries me.
I have to agree with peeper on this one. Having lived in a number of large cities and experienced the over abundance of video cameras prying into citizens lives on a daily basis, I have to say the people that are “caught in the act” so to speak, are not nearly large enough number to justify a “city wide network” of cameras. Especially in this city, let alone a large city.
Theres is a big difference between local store owners wanting to protect their merchandise, and our local govt wanting to watch the goings on of people at the green belt or other city locales.
Not to mention camera technology like this is quite expensive. Especially if you want decent cameras with light sensitive capabilities (which will have to work equally well in both extreme sunlight and at night) and good zoom features. Theres just no need for cameras like this in this town. How many crimes do you hear about along the greenbelt? Or in our city period? I’ve been here for 2 1/2 years and haven’t heard of one crime on the greenbelt. So who’s going to foot the bill? Of course “we” the taxpayer would. I sure don’t want to. Why not make that a poll Joe?
It’s just unnecessary and the negatives far outweigh the positives. You may think that because a camera is watching you that you’re safer, but that’s a false feeling of security. If somebody is going to mug you or commit a crime, their going to do it regardless of whether or not a camera is present. The majority of crimes caught on tape are unusable as it is because most of the time the footage is not clear enough to make a positive id. Are you really THAT afraid to go out in public without Big Brother watching over you? If so, then I really feel sorry for you. If this is what you want our country to turn into than that’s pretty sad. Our govt already has everybody afraid of their own shadows and some on this site would have it go a step further with a “city-wide network” of cameras.
Personally, I’d rather “watch my own back”. Which I’ve been doing for 40+ years without any problems.
Cameras in stores, banks, along insterstate highways are fine. Their already in place anyways. A “city wide network of them”….not so much….
Just my opinion.
Peeper, you said in #50:
“How ironic that in part the US govt. has played into the hands of the terrorists by sickening the minds of so many Americans to think that these actions are necessary”.
I remember that argument when Homeland Security and the WhiteHouse started asking to take away some of our freedoms, in the name of foiling the terrorists.
Here’s MY kind of paranoia: I don’t think we played into their hands as much as the terrorists played into the hands of the extremists in our government, folks who WANT to have that kind of control over us but didn’t have any leverage before.
September 11, 2001 gave them the leverage.
Mike, I guess there isn’t a right to privacy in a public place, whether audio or video. (Businesses, I totally understand, but I think of them as private property and within their rights to record patrons/visitors.) But I don’t want the government spying on me in the name of Homeland Security.
I agree, all good points of view about public cameras in general.
“If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear”.
Hitler’s SS used that very argument to control the populace. Along with strict gun control. How quickly we forget the past.
It took the Dept. of Homeland Security about five seconds to begin abusing their enhanced spying privileges with the so-called Patriot Act. If we allow city-wide spy camera networks how long do you think it will be before they install long range microphones along with every camera? And don’t for a second think the surveillance will actually stop at public areas.
I don’t believe in the concept of “Just get used to it because we can’t stop it”.
microphones are standard anymore thanks to d.v.r technology.
I don’t have time at this late hour to read every post from today, but here are some added thoughts:
Why don’t we blanket the areas in question with social workers to work with whoever the criminals are who we need to observe
and
can’t we just adapt some kind of biped motion recognition software to monitor the criminals for us so we don’t have to rely on overworked underpaid dispatchers to monitor remote cameras in real time since it’s either too cold or too scary in Idaho Falls for people to go outside and handle their own neighborhoods there own selves?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080326/lf_nm/usa_security_drones_dc;_ylt=AkmHvs6BJXrbhwH9oab7nDGs0NUE
hope that link works for you.
Here’s a formula you don’t want to lose control of:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles + Biped Motion Recognition Software
Doesn’t take much imagination to figure out the risks might outweigh whatever petty crime started this discussion.
Well, a lot of ground got covered in the posts by both sides of the argument yesterday and we’ve strayed from the article’s topic. But I think that what it boils down to for opponents is the fact that we refuse to embrace some people’s vision of a paternalistic government role in society. We desire to retain the dwindling liberties afforded us even if this means there will be down sides, such as an occasional act of vandalism or other crime that goes unsolved.
That hits the nail on the head perfectly. It is about trade offs of personal safety/crime prevention vs. civil liberties. Excellent points brought out.
I appreciated the fact that peeper pointed out the paternalistic government side to this debate. I normally come down against invasive government. However, as I said above, it is about a trade off and the scales weigh more on the side of public safety in this instance.
I can agree with the government overlord points.
One way to avoid that would have the camera network function like one of my original ideas in the article: to promote our city’s beauty. If cops are the only ones who can see the network, then yeah that lends weight to the overlord problem.
If the cameras are webcams, broadcast live online all the time, then anyone could check them out, and we can ensure all cameras are pointed only into public spaces, etc. Then outsiders who wonder what Idaho Falls has to offer can take a virtual tour around our city. Commuters could check their routes for accidents or heavy traffic, and change routes.
I hear and understand and agree with your concerns about big brother, I am just more positive that we can address those concerns and make it a better system because we addressed those concerns.
Also, instead of just still picture cameras, put up live-streaming web cams. Many websites now offer FREE live online camera streaming, like ustream, stickam, and qik. Idaho Falls has a huge bandwidth fiber ring, let’s use it for some interesting civic use.
Joe vandal, Mike, I would still like to know your capacities and stake in this project. Your posts ever expand on the ‘beneficent’ uses of these things. I surmise you are city employees and you seem bent on having this camera system despite the opposition to it. It is indicative of the responsiveness to constituencies found of government in general today.
The cameras will be the property of a governmental entity thus their control, use, availability to the public is controlled by none other than the government. You can go on and on about the wonderfulness of it but I, for reasons already over stated, will oppose it. Enough said, this is now a dead horse issue.
peeper, forgive me for not answering you before. I’ve said this several times before in other discussions on this site so I get in an autopilot mode where I think you’ve read it before.
No, I am not currently and never have been a city employee or law enforcement officer. I’m not working for a company selling camera systems or network solutions. I also do not work for the government in any capacity (federal, etc.) I don’t know who or what Mike is but that’s my side.
I just see a single technological solution to problem, and it could provide some side benefits. I understand the opposition is policy in nature, so I’m trying to suggest how policies could be crafted to make it acceptable.
I wouldn’t sweat it too much. I’ve suggested many nutty ideas here that don’t make it far.
Mike,
He who surrenders privacy and civil liberty in exchange for security, ends up with neither.
Look, I believe that statement myself, I’ve said that statement myself several times.
However, I don’t see what privacy you are giving up in public?
You have ZERO legal expectation of privacy in public, dude! Google the term, “no expectation of privacy in public” and come back with what you find.
If you can see it from the public street, you can take a picture of it, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I understand your concerns about this topic, but you are approaching it from a mistaken assumption that you cannot be photographed in public. Approach this topic from a true assumption and we can talk reasonably about it.
If you are so concerned about big brother, why not go after Bush opening our mail and tapping our phone calls illegally? Why not go after corporations compiling profiles about you and your family, selling them for low prices, or worse yet failing to adequately protect your profiles and your information gets stolen?
I don’t see how a few cameras to deter crime in our city could possibly equate to those privacy violations.
Why are so many under the assumption that our city is rampant with crime and the only thing that will cure that is a city-wide network of cameras? That’s just not the case.
I personally don’t see the cost of installation, backing up the data, and people to man and maintain such a network, being a very good alternative to solving the occasional crime. Especially when we’ve got such a low crime rate to begin with.
Like others have stated: Where will it end? The govt already has acess to our phone records, mail, medical records, etc. without needing to obtain a warrant. We’ve already got cameras installed where their needed, there’s no sense in having the govt watch our every move, even it we are just walking down the street. We all know people are “fair game” walking along the greenbelt and anybody can take a picture or video of you. But seriously, how often does that really happen? I’ve been on the greenbelt hundreds of times and nobody has ever taken a picture of me. (at least not to my knowledge)
This seems to be one of those posts that we’ll have to agree to disagree on. I do however think a poll on this topic would be interesting.
I just think it would be a sad day in history if it gets to the point that you can’t step foot outside your home without big brother watching your every move. Especially in a small town such as ours.
Maybe I get lucky, but I see red light runners at about every other intersection when I drive around Idaho Falls. I’m not talking about their tail being an inch in the intersection, but the light goes red as they enter the intersection. It is a huge problem in Idaho Falls and these cameras could help reduce that, and at the same time raise revenue for our city.
Again, these cameras could also be used to check your route for an accident jamming traffic, and for people checking out Idaho Falls to truly check out our area.
The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
It is interesting to note that we give up various rights and protections when we board airplanes. It certainly is accepted in society. We also give up various rights to society with the caviat that we want to be protected and not killed.
I agree that giving the government an inch means they will try to take a mile. However, if we do nothing to secure our safety where does that leave us? Perhaps we would be experiencing freedom. However, would this be the freedom to be killed by someone practicing their own brand of freedom? There is no easy answer to this question and governments complicate the matter by not being able to stick to basic protection strategies that are time proven to work without going overboard. Therein lies the problem that Machievilli noted that ‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely.’
I applaud the discussion here. Are there any other ways to draw out this debate besides setting up the dichotomy of privacy vs. safety?
Those types of cameras are already set up, just not operational. Once again because of the cost. I don’t have a problem with those types of cameras. Most larger metropolitan areas already have these types of networks up and running.
I think you are one of the lucky ones though, as I can’t remember the last time I seen somebody blatantly run a red light. (seen a few late yellows here and there, but that happens everywhere)
Are you willing to pay more taxes to get this network operational? What would we tax? Parking? I think it’s nice we don’t have to pay to park anywhere in this city. Do you know how irritating it is to stop for change somewhere everytime you want to park? It’s usually 25cents for 10-15 minutes worth of time. Then you have to keep and eye on your watch for fear of going over, or having to run to your car to add more change to keep from getting a ticket?
What else could they tax? Aren’t they trying to do away with the grocery tax?
It’s a huge cost to man a network like this, which is probably the main reason these cameras aren’t already opperational.
I also appreciate these comments on all sides of this issue. (And as a side note, CR67, I’ve seen so many people here run red lights, some who weren’t yet even at the intersection when it turned red, that it’s almost scary…)
Giving up some liberties if I want to fly, I see as okay, it’s not a public enterprise, it’s a corporation providing a service. I also understand that for security purposes I will be photographed when I enter many businesses, or use an ATM or gas up my car.
But the private company is doing this, not the government. I’m also okay with them providing these tapes to law enforcement if a crime occurs on the premises or nearby. If I were to find out they routinely supply all their videos to the government, I’d be very angry and stop patronizing that business, for sure.
I realize the traffic intersection cameras aren’t functioning, and it’s probably due to funding. Cameras in highly vandalized park areas, wouldn’t they just end up being targeted by the vandals? Seems they would not be an effective deterrent as much as a challenge. I kinda like the idea they’d be available to all to see, but then I see pedophiles or other predators using them for nefarious purposes.
I just can’t figure out a way to like the idea of surveillance cameras in public parks or city sidewalks.
Defensive driving = a quick fix to those people running red lights. I personally don’t drive through an intersection without looking both ways, even when the light is green. I’d much rather see a few idiots run the occasional red light, than have a traffic cop or a camera at ever intersection. I’ve lived in my share of cities where every wrong move you make a cop is right there to give you a ticket and let me tell you, it’s no fun. I like the fact that there aren’t cops hiding behind every bush in this town clocking your speed or waiting for you to make a lane change without signaling. (which happens to be my biggest pet peeve in this town…..nobody uses turn signals here!)
oh well….this post has been beat to death. Neither side is convincing the other.
I absolutely would oppose such surveillance. Because it quickly go beyond mere catching criminals in the act.
Do you own a cell phone? If so you can be tracked because every cell phone is a mini GPS device. Your cell phone can even be remotely turned on so don’t think shutting it off helps. Right now our government says it only uses this to track terrorists but this is the same government who promised the same thing about the Patriot Act.
Here are just a few ways such a network could be used against “law abiding” citizens.
Your car insurance company would track your movements to see if you ever sped, didn’t stop completely, etc. Up go your rates. How are you going to fight video surveillance showing, by timing and measurements, that you were going 43 mph on 17th st.
Your health insurance would watch to see what foods you bought. Too much junk food and they deny a claim. They already monitor cards like those at Albertsons when they can so I have no doubt they would so here.
I’m just hitting the tip of the iceberg but I hope you see my point.
They can make promises that this stuff would stay private. But when has our government ever been good at keeping promises? Better if such a system never exists.
I think our founding fathers, whose paranoia of government power, along with authors Orwell and Huxley, were all very prescient.
I can’t imagine a government wouldn’t take advantage of any authority they were given, with the intent to do good things. But then, depending upon who’s in power, and how much oversight there is, those good things will inevitably go sour.
As was said, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It can’t be helped, it can only be diligently, and with due vigilance, be guarded against.
So, Crystal alluded to a possible way around this. If we truly have areas where vandalism is rampant, why not recruit, train, and utilize citizen patrols? These citizens would monitor the areas that are at risk, during the risky times. Neighborhood watch folks? If this is handled well, I believe it could be effective.
It directs a solution specific to the identified problem instead of a overarching blanket of coverage on the offchance that something bad might happen somewhere.
What I’m reading is that you folks rolled over when all of those other privacy issues were violated, but for this one idea you feel have to make your stand.
I would love to see you fight to regain those other privacy rights with the same vigor.
I was against the Patriot Act. Not that I can prove it on a message board but I accurately predicted that the government would use the PA for non terrorist related activities. The only thing I was wrong about was how long it would take as they started using it in non terrorism investigations within the first year and I figured it would take several.
Re privacy concerns with surveillance and all the ways it can be used to limit freedoms, I think some of the fears expressed assume a level of organization and competance that I have yet to encounter (but would love to expect). If a serious crime transpires which merits the time and resources can’t we use military or commercial satellite imagery to identify the culprits? One can certainly purchase such data for the right price, or so I understand…
How about mandatory jail time for red light runners? Why all the red light runners in IF? Are they high? drunk? visually impaired? Is there a greater than average per capita pedestrian injury rate? Why would people want to run red lights?
Also, are you seeing the same handful of red light runners over and over? Is it something about the setups at certain intersections? Has anyone reported this to law enforcement? This seems like a more serious concern than vandalism, and more easily remedied.
Joe, you gotta give more details, here. Who rolled over when what privacy rights were taken away? I see the same folks who defended the patriot act, defending the idea of police cameras in public areas to catch criminals.
Are you referring to the possibility that cell phones can be monitored, or to the insurance companies monitoring my driving habits?
‘Cuz I agree that my driving habits could be monitored by the insurance companies [hey, I'm an excellent driver and they'd LOWER my car insurance rates
] but I’d probably dislike knowing my cell phone calls were monitored.
Or my health insurance company monitoring what I buy with my Albertson’s card to see if I’m contributing to my obesity. More power to them. I see businesses (including websites) using such personal information all the time.
I just don’t want the government doing it.
Crystal, I see it every time I drive in this town, blatant red light running, speeding, failure to yield to pedestrians, no turn signals, agressive driving, etc.
I would presume police have better things to do, and don’t do traffic stops on a routine basis, or else there’d be less of it happening.
It’s not limited to one intersection or specific drivers that I can identify. It just happens often enough that I know to take extra precautions on my end of things to stay safe.
It is a more serious concern than vandalism, but I disagree that it’s more easily remedied. Police can’t be everywhere at once, and once it happens it’s not able to be proven (at least, not without those doggone traffic cameras that aren’t functional!) so it’s just business as usual until an accident happens.
Seems to me that the public responds well to police presence and to concrete penalties. I see it in the area I live in, the CHP and other law enforcement agencies are rotated in manners that cause drivers to be on better behavior due to an actual or perceived presence. Red light running I would imagine would result in greater than average accidents and injured pedestrian and bicyclists. Are IF Auto Insurance rates resultingly higher than in other areas? Are Idaho’s requirements for obtaining a driver’s license particularly low? Maybe it’s the Californians!!!!
Well said Joe. The posters on this site did roll over whenever it was a “criminal” whose privacy rights were violated, but they’re taking a different stance now! They don’t ever expect an officer to pull them out of their car and search it because “I’m not a criminal.” But when they realize these illegal government intrusions might extend to their little corner of the world – whoa, look out nellie! I always said they would sing a different tune if it ever encroached on their own world, and that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Crystal – the requirements for obtaining an Idaho license are essentially ZERO. If you can read a few letters on the eye chart they hand you your license. Thus all the insane driving behavior we have here. Add to it the complete lack of sensible traffic planning and you can see why there are so many red light violators and why pedestrians may as well have a large target painted on them. In light of the universal lack of driving skills here I don’t mind the traffic cams in key intersections. We have more than our fair share of accidents and the cameras would be great for sorting out who did what and passing out appropriate citations. But I oppose a city-wide security camera network for all the reasons cited by previous posters.
Here’s an interesting article from Wired magazine regarding the world’s top surveillance societies. The US ranks right up there in the “endemic surveillance” category with China, Singapore, Russia and Malaysia:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/worlds-top-surv.html
Thank you for the interesting link, CafedelSol…Surveillance doesn’t get us anywhere without organization and competance…Ironic that we can conduct so much surveillance but aren’t organized enough to test motor skills and response time in potential drivers. Imagine, with a city wide webcam network we can observe all the folks we forgot to verify were competant to drive!
Regarding comments #72 & 80…..nobody rolled over. The American public had NO say whatsoever in regards to the Patriot Act. It was enacted and passed without any say from the public. I’ve been fighting it from the beginning. I’ve written my state representatives, the President & the Vice President and they all come back with the same tired story of “its in place for Americas safety & to prevent future terrorist activities”. I say BS!! It’s just one more way for our govt to do something without actually doing anything, but infringe on the freedoms of the American public. It’s all about fear and control, and little by little they’re winning.
If you’re so concerned about the rampant crime in our city…..(of which there is none!)….than start a neighborhood watch group. Personally, I’m all for neighborhood watch groups. These have been proven to work in numerous places around the country. If you’re so concerned about a few people running red lights…..than take the initiative and drive defensively! I say look after yourself and your neighbor, instead of leaving it up to the govt or big brother. How many of us actually “know” our neighbors? Aside from the “hi’s & bye’s” on the way to and from work. I’m willing to bet not many of us do. I say stop being so dependant on the govt for your own safety and wellbeing and take action yourself. Take back your community instead of waiting for your govt to do it for you.
Well said, CR67!
I agree, well said CR67, if Joe’s comments were about the Patriot Act.
I don’t know if there is rampant crime, but I would suspect there are areas of concern that the police could target, then devise a workable solution using other resources as identified.
We need to teach kids to be responsible for their actions, not violate our rights to privacy. Get a grip!
Well….i understood part of your comment, but I don’t see how kids are violating our rights to privacy.
Regardless, I do think our youth needs to be more responsible for their actions. Such as that case where those two punks were caught shooting out the windows of 32 cars with their BB guns. Personally, I think the judge went way to light on them by only charging them with two counts each. (one count for each night of vandalism) They should have been charged for all 32 counts AND made to pay back each and every person the money in order to fix their windows. Along with a couple hundred hours of community service, such as cleaning grafitti, picking up trash, etc.
Actually I think it was the prosecutor Dane Watkins III who reduced the charges from 32 to 2. Isn’t he also a local Republican chairman or some similar party title? I’m surprised to see him go soft on crime.
Do you realize that had they gone with all 32 counts that the defense lawyers would have forced 32 separate trials? Do you realize how long that would take and how much it would bog up the system? And do you realize that the potential punishment for one conviction in terms of jail time would be the EXACT same as for 32 convictions. The punishments do not stack in most cases.
Reducing the # of counts does not mean they avoid paying restitution. It does not mean they get a slap on the wrist since the judge will still consider the # of victims even if only some were charged. But it does save the courts a lot of time and money while still getting the offenders the same amount of jail time and the same amount of fines they would have gotten anyway.
When are these numbskulls supposed to be sentenced?
El Diablo is correct. The typical response from most prosecutors, Republican or Democrat aside (nice try to slam Republicans again Joe), is they stack the deck initially with all counts. The defendant then agrees to plead guilty to several counts, the rest are dismissed with the written stipulation they pay restitution to all victims. The sentences are typically run concurrent (meaning at the same time) vs. consecutive (meaning when one finishes the next starts).
Thanks to both El Diablo, and Mike, for the explanations. You know, unless we have inside information that you must be privvy to, those of us on the outside just get really incensed at some of these sentences, or plea bargains, or reductions of charges.
Because we don’t understand all the stuff that went into making these decisions in the first place.
All we see is the final piece, the one that seems way too easy and way too soft on the criminals.
Does this bring us to the argument about spanking?
I love the security camera ads on this page! didn’t notice till just now (and no I’m not using a cell phone while visiting this site).
The ads are a function of the article your looking at. If this article was about sexual disfunction you would no doubt be seeing Viagra ads or the like. Many internet sites work that way, key words in whatever your looking at are scanned by the site and a related ad is put in.
I really don’t pay attention to ads, but I imagine that explains the sometimes eery spam I get. Thanks for the explanation.
The prosecutor charged each of those boys’ crimes under a separate case number? Wow! That’s not bright since they can all be brought as separate counts under the same case number and the boys can be co-defendants in the same case. 32 Counts, 2 Defendants, 1 Case, 1 Trial. Does anyone know their names? I’d love to send the prosecutor a letter on that one!
I wonder if Ammon residents would support a webcam network in their little city, now that they have been hit hard lately with hard core gang graffiti and a kid was stabbed at a bus stop?
http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=8139166
The next problem I see is where would they put the webcams? Everyone is going to want them by their place, and obviously they can’t be everywhere. The vandals would probably just go to places where there were no webcams. I see more people buying their own security cameras.
Excellent 3333…..this is the beauty of the situation (especially if you are a camera maker), people can and should start to rely more on themselves for personal protection. It is unwise and foolish to rely on the police to protect you 24/7.
This is another reason for the growth of the ADT signs for burglar alarms that people put in their yards. It clearly advertises to a burglar to keep on moving because the property is protected!!!!
I heard of this a couple of years ago regarding the sale of mock ADT and other security signs and that they’re selling like hotcakes in speciality stores and on the internet. These signs are made up to look like a real ADT sign with the slightest alterations so as not to infringe on the security company’s copyright. People would rather spend 50 bucks on a mock sign to put in their yard than hundreds or even thousands of dollars for a real security system, not to mention the monthly monitoring costs. And most burgalars cant tell a difference between a mock sign and a real one. But the fact that the sign is in the yard is enough to deter a thief from breaking in.
Pretty ingenius I think!
New campaign promise: ADT signs for everyone!
Interesting story about how an in-school camera network busted a girl’s national-wide attention grabbing assault claim. You may have heard about the 13 year old girl in Athens, Texas who made an anti-illegal immigration sign for a class project. She said after class she was attacked by Mexicans, scratched, choked, face hit against a brick wall, and threatened with rape and death.
After reviewing the in-school video tapes, it became obvious a couple Mexican students did grab the sign from her and threw it away (for which they served in-school detention), but the girl scratched herself up as she walked around the halls. The parents were at first outraged at the school’s “lack of response” but both admitted their daughter lied and deceived and that criminal charges are appropriate against their daughter.
http://www.kltv.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=2371009
Do Idaho Falls area high schools and junior highs have video cameras in the halls? I said earlier that it would have been nice to have a camera network to catch that 17 year old who got stabbed by Cloverdale elementary school. Now we find he did it to himself, which would have been seen immediately on a camera tape.
What do you think?
Joe,
Both Idaho Falls High and Skyline High do have camera’s in the school. I believe most of the Jr. High Schools have camera’s as well.
An interesting point I found out is the SRO’s stated all the camera’s are linked. So they can access the cameras from Claire E Gale and view the camera’s images in Eagle Rock Jr. High.
I was told this was done in preperation for a possible school shooting. For example: If a gunman took Claire E Gale students hostage the police could use the other schools camera systems and access the images from Clair E Gale’s cameras.
The SRO I met also said they have used the cameras to deter, and even solve crime. Problems he has solved with the cameras were theft from lockers, students who started fights and said they didn’t and from students making false 911 calls from the inside payphones. I would say Kudos to the local law enforcement for having a preventive system.
That is awesome, and yes kudos to the local law enforcement and school administration officials who made that happen.
Anyone know if District 93 has such a system?
How would you keep public access webcams from being used by sex offenders to watch children?
You wouldn’t anymore than you could stop them from standing on the sidewalk or visiting a park.
I agree with Mike. How do we keep them from watching kids now? Public access cameras probably shouldn’t be close-up forums…
Don’t registered sex offenders have to stay a certain number of feet away from places children frequent and from children themselves, at least if they are registered child molesters????
Crystal, a registered sex offender risks arrest if they don’t obey that distance requirement. I would think many of them who can’t control their urges would find ways to break that requirement, and some do end up getting caught, but I’m betting that not all of them do get caught.
A pedophile will find ways to do what they want to do. So some of them may indeed look at public access cameras to watch (safely, anonymously from a distance) children at play. This may not be such a good idea as it could give them time to notice patterns and plan crimes. But the same could be said of anyone who preys upon people, they may use these cameras to spot patterns and plan crimes.
I’m not sure I like the idea of public cameras in the first place, but if we as a society feel they are needed, there will be those who misuse them and that piece of the equation will need to be part of the debate when the cameras are being considered.
why would the cameras have to be public access? I guess I don’t understand what you mean. If the public wanted to view them, wouldn’t they have to go to the police station (or some other secure location) and view them there and only after showing a need?
3333, part of Joe Vandal’s idea for this post (see comment #59) was that the cameras could be live action webcams that anyone could see.
We don’t really want the cameras to be only police or government operated/seen if they are used in public places.
Cameras for schools should be accessible by the school district and the parents with security codes, and law enforcement if a crime is committed. The cameras for private businesses should be accessible only by those businesses (or parents with a code, when the business is a daycare) unless a crime is committed and then the footage could be used by law enforcement as evidence.
But cameras in public places, to me the footage should be accessible to all (including the police if they are trying to catch vandals). That allows for legitimate usage and sometimes illegitimate usage, in the grand scheme of things.
I guess I disagree. I think they should be accessible to the public for live viewing only (in other words as the deed is happening). They should only be available for later viewing by those with a need. Such as police.
Nemisis,
I did not know there was a distance requirement for sexual offenders (except those on probation) not to go near schools, parks, etc. There is a housing requirement that they not reside within I believe 3 blocks of schools, parks, etc….but if they aren’t on active supervision then they have no restrictions and can go anywhere just like the rest of us. So, unless the law changed I don’t think there are any prohibitions. Please let me know if I am in error.
Sorry Nem, forgot to log in.
There is a registered sex offender living within a block of Cloverdale Elementary school for the past several months, according to the state police website.
Darn, Mike. I guess I assumed if they were a sex offender and had to register, they also had distance requirements! If I am wrong, I am really really unhappy to be wrong about this, because I thought we enjoyed some measure of protection due to this distance requirement.
Shoot! (I really mean something else there)…I truly am dismayed, please tell me you’re just messing with me, Mike!
The only time they have a distance requirement is when they are on probation???
Here is a link to a law that Idaho Passed in 2006. It does provide for residency restriction zones. However, this does nothing to prohibit sex offenders who are not on probation from visiting parks, malls, comic book stores, arcades, etc…..
http://www.csg.org/policy/pubsafety/documents/ResidencyRestrictionLaws.pdf
Once they have completed their sentence and are released, they have no restrictions except the duty to register change of address timely, and not live within 500 ft. of a school…….
So Idaho does have residency restriction for registered offenders, but you are correct, they are only for neighborhood schools.
I see by that list that other states have some tougher laws (and some less restrictive) in that they also include daycares, parks or arcades or places where children tend to gather.
I work with a man whose wife visits this site. He says she is in favor of the death penalty for all first time pedophile sex offenders.
I’m anti death penalty but I also believe you can’t cure or change someone’s sexual preferences. So for those who prefer children, I sure can’t see letting them hang out anywhere there would be temptation, even after they’ve ’served their time’.
Let’s just put the drug addict to work in a pharmacy, why don’t we?
I’ll gladly second your co-worker’s wife’s proposal, pedophilia should be a death penalty crime. I would except of course cases where no force was used and there is a minimal age difference.
And I would third (if there is such a thing) the co-worker’s wife’s proposal. No worse crime than pedophilia in my opinion.
I fourth the coworkers wifes proposal!
I understand the gut instinct reaction, it’s also why these people are not safely imprisoned with the general inmate population. Pedophilia is incomprehensible and horrifying to the rest of us.
But murder is murder, even if it’s carried out by the state, so I can’t support the death penalty.
I could support locking them up forever, because as I’ve said many times, I don’t think they can be “cured” and would always be a threat. It’s not a perfect solution but it’s better than murder, and better than letting them “serve their time” and be released to a world where our children and grandchildren are potential targets.
Interesting story. http://www.kidk.com/news/tech/18973084.html
Google will now start to blur the faces of people after privacy complaints.
Nemesis, I totally disagree. Murdering a person’s childhood and being put to death for doing so are NOT THE SAME.
I can only speak for myself, but having been similarly apologist in my own history, I was greatly helped by developing a strong understanding of the mechanism of Child Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome, which can certainly persist into adulthood, and continue to cause the victim to feel protective of the perpetrator.
Crystal, you persist in labeling me an apologist. Not me. I do not distinguish between the crime…but I am anti death penalty, period.
I don’t believe the state has any business taking someone’s life.
I also don’t believe pedophiles can change or alter their attraction to children. So if one has offended, put them away for life, but do not murder them.
i cant believe this … i took my blind atustic child to this place because there is no other handicap friendly places and it was pact full of roudy teens and normal kids that hoged all the toys and disrupted the environment , my son sick of the normals acted up and atacked me … why is there no place for kids like mine in this damn town that doesnt get raided by unsympathtic people … so because my child is diffrent or handicaped he has to be a shut in , because normals wont share the handicap toys wtf…….
Abuzzduzz, try weekdays while school is in session, the crowds aren’t as bad. Also, Kate Curley park doesn’t have the rowdy older crew like some of the other parks. Also, for indoors try Pojo’s on Hitt Road, they hardly get busy it seems and maybe your son would like the back gym area. Kids are going to play with toys no matter where you go, so maybe places with less kids will be easier for you to deal with.