Video Surveillance in Public Spaces

I'm all for it. Truth be told, I'm sure some members of the force will have a peek at the footage for personal reasons just to have a laugh at some kid who does a face plant on his skateboard, but it can at least help identify criminals when needed. I get held up or shot somewhere, I'll be damn glad if a camera catches the effer who did it so he can enjoy dropping the soap in front of a hulking tattoo artist named Bubbles. The whole big brother thing, I can find creepy, but only after a night of reading Philip K Dick.

Public spaces are pubic spaces, and anyone venturing into them should have the expectation that they will be recorded.

But why do the police, the city and other public entities not make these camera feeds accessible over the web to the public that pays for them?

As the police are so fond of saying, if they are not abusing the privilege, then they have nothing to hide.

I think that public surveillance should start by focusing on the things which do the most damage and cause the harm to people.

Because cars kill more people than guns do, I think the police should focus the lens on the streets. We should have red light cameras at more intersections and photo radar giving out tickets by mail. Just this past weekend two pedestrians were killed. I think it is time to put an end to the carnage.

Let's not stop at cameras on the street, because they certainly won't. What's next? I live in america (Would rather live in Canada) and I can't believe what I'm hearing. People are actually supportive of surveilance cameras. So what does Big Brother say next? Well, gee, if they will allow warrantless searches and video surveilance, i wonder what we can do next? We're going to regret this, one day. Stop living in fear.

Isn't it that kind of attitude that allows criminals to feel fairly safe pulling a gun on a crwded street, hence there are far more gun crimes in America than any other country in the world?

He did, however, suggest that with cameras already in malls, banks, and many other privately owned locations, we're already on camera in our everyday lives and when we enter into public spaces.

And our bags get searched at airports so why not when we enter a store or randomly on the street?

I've always been against cameras in public places because my consent to be filmed is implied not given. In private places like banks or malls, I have a choice. I dont have to use a bank or shop at a mall if I dont like the idea of being filmed.

But as a taxpayer, I own the street just as much as anyone else and should have a say on the filming of the street.

These convictions faded somewhat once I moved to London, England. One is on camera there everywhere at all times.

If we give in to cameras, it should be clear to all people that they might be on camera. If we don't get individual consent, they should at least be clearly informed that their image may be recorded and used by the authorities at any time.

Privacy is important to democracy, we should be vigilant.

Trading away your privacy for *potential* safety? How about a national RFID card, finger print scanners at every door, and metal detectors and armed checkpoints on the sidewalks?

Just because you don't care about your rights doesn't mean you get the sell the rest of us down the river.

I can't remember where I read it or remember the exact number, but an article I read awhile ago about surveillance cameras on our streets stated that we're already being recorded 100's of times per day. I don't see what the harm of having a few more cameras recording us would be at this point, particularly if it relates to our safety. I'll try to find the article when I get home from work.

Yeah, I don't get this argument about infringing on our privacy. They're not putting a camera in your home, or even on your lawn. They're talking about places like Dundas Square, high traffic areas. You're in public. If you conduct yourself like a reasonable human being while in oublic, then whats your worry?

The cameras that are already catching us every day are privately-owned and there for the insurance of the business/building that installed them. Sears is not the Toronto Police, Not Just Noodles is not a branch of the government.

There is an enormous difference between being in public and being under surveilance. Sure, you're out on the sidewalk and you can see everyone and everyone can see you, but they're not recording you from a bird's eye view for future scrutiny and analysis and profiling, and they can't reconstruct your every movement from the moment you parked your car or stepped off the bus.

Brokenengine - "If you conduct yourself like a reasonable human being..." is just rephrasing "If you're innocent, you won't mind us searching your house".

It doesn't matter if you're innocent, or you "have nothing to hide". This is about protecting the innocent from unwaranteed government scrutiny.

"If you conduct yourself like a reasonable human being..." is just rephrasing "If you're innocent, you won't mind us searching your house".

You seriously think these two things are even remotely the same? This is a lame argument. What I do in the privacy of my home has nothing to do with what I do out on a crowded street.

Is the argument still lame if we place the camera directly in front of your home on the street? Someone would know when you came home, when you left and with whom? Its a public street after all.

I also want to add that cameras are often a cheap replacement for cops on the ground. Personally, I would rather have police physically patrolling trouble spots than leave it up to a recording device. Cameras should not be used as a stop-gap for a strapped budget.

While I agree with that Michael, you know that, if there was a cop on every street corner, people would just start screaming about the overt police presence and start wondering if we were living in a "police state".

That's unfortunately true, brokenengine.

That's why my stand against cameras has softened over the years....its one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't.

My feeling these days is that they are inevitable. I just hope that people see them as a "necessary evil" and recognize their potential to do harm as well as good.

I prefer that individual property owners own cameras that cover their little bit of the street. If necessary, police can ask them for the tape. But because surveillance of the entire street is split up amongst multiple camera owners, there would be less potential for abuse.

brokenengine - Security cameras are as much about seeing what someone is doing as they are about seeing what they're thinking.

Given the choice between more cops on the street and cameras, I'd go with the cops. Why? Well, have you ever seen a camera chase down a suspect, or take down an armed attacker? Neither have I. The cameras can't point everywhere, and the response time of a cop near the scene will always be higher than one 3 minutes away when the dispatcher calls.

And cops can be held accountable, you can see them in action. You often aren't aware of the cameras around you, you can't tell who's zooming in on whom, where that footage is going...

Didn't anybody see Die Hard 4?
Camera's + Bruce Willis scare me...

If someone is that afraid that they feel the need for surveillance camera's to "feel safe " the camera's won't do it. Your paranoia runs deeper than that. The best thing to do is stay home..oh and pretty soon that will be under surveillance too!