Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
How fitting for the beginning of Banned Books Week that we come across a story that will have many crying "Big Brother." After Charles Hill became the victim of vandalism at the house he's building in West Chatham, he decided to become the first private citizen to join the city's Private Sector Camera Initiative. The program allows private security cameras to directly beam their images to Chicago's 911 call center, and is already being utilized by various businesses and organizations like Macy's, the CBOE, the Sears Tower and Columbia College. Hill has installed 5 exterior surveillance cameras of his own to monitor his block. But Mr. Hill, don't you think that's a bit, well, ooky?
"Some people talk about the ACLU and all these privacy rights. But if a crime takes place, those individuals had to come from somewhere. I don't care if it's my brother or my mother. If those cameras do what they're supposed to do, whoever suffers will suffer."Yeah, all these goddamn "privacy rights," fuck 'em! If police want to make random searches of people on the street, do it! If they're not doing anything wrong, they shouldn't worry about it. Check library records, go ahead! Don't read anything suspicious if you don't want to be bothered. Well, maybe one positive thing to come from all the extra cameras is a reduction in PDONP*. [S-T]
* Public display of nose picking
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"Ooky"? Why? If someone is steadily trashing my home, hell yeah I'm going to do what I can to protect it and if it involves providing police with pictures of them doing it, so be it. Tell people to stop being, well, people and the will be no need for cameras. What else is he supposed to do, pay for his own 24-hour security guard?
[i]If they're not doing anything wrong, they shouldn't worry about it.[i/]
My brother said that to me once. I wanted to smack his face off.
Although I do supposed he could take down the cameras, get a gun and avoid the whole disintegration-of-privacy issue.
Hrm. In a public space, you have no right to privacy. That's why it's called a "public space."
I'm looking out my window at work (1 N. Wacker Dr) and I see that the CME has cameras on the corners of their building, as does the Charter On building at 20 S Wacker. None of those people walking along the sidewalk can have an expectation of privacy because they are not in private.
Now if these cameras were pointed inside someone's house, you've got a whole different issue.
If they're not doing anything wrong, they shouldn't worry about it.
My brother said that to me once. I wanted to smack his face off.
Funny how police and politicians are always saying that, unless of course the public wants to keep tabs on them. They change their tune really fast. C'mon cops, mayor and aldermen "If you're not doing anything wrong........"
And what's wrong with this guy having all these cameras pointing *away* from his house? Cut to image of guy inside his house jerking it to your wife and kids passing by...
And what's wrong with this guy having all these cameras pointing *away* from his house? Cut to image of guy inside his house jerking it to your wife and kids passing by...
Ohmigod! People might masturbate to the images of random strangers on a TV Monitor?
Somehow I think a Cinemax subscription would be cheaper and get him better wank material.
Hrm. In a public space, you have no right to privacy. That's why it's called a "public space."
The area directly around his house is not "public space". Which is where the cameras are pointed.
And what's wrong with this guy having all these cameras pointing *away* from his house? Cut to image of guy inside his house jerking it to your wife and kids passing by...
Grainy pedestrian fetish? That's a new one to me.
Your front lawn, if not obscured from the view of passing cars and pedestrians, is still "public space" even if it remains private property.
Don't believe me? Try engaging in a (perfectly legal, between two consenting adults) sex act in your front yard and see what you get charged with.
And the pictures accompanying the article pretty clearly show a camera view that includes the sidewalk and street.
I'm all for privacy rights, people. But this is one of those often misunderstood rights, much like freedom of speech.
Don't believe me? Try engaging in a (perfectly legal, between two consenting adults) sex act in your front yard and see what you get charged with.
That's not a privacy issue, that's a decency issue.
And the pictures accompanying the article pretty clearly show a camera view that includes the sidewalk and street.
Fine, have him tilt them down a couple of degrees.
Everyone make sure to enjoy your bullshit false sense of security. If I can just put up *one* more camera I'll finally be safe and secure..
I read the guy's quote and I couldn't understand how anyone could follow up with anything dumber, then Prescott goes and does the impossible. Kudos to you, sir!
The only times that I have ever had a problem with the police is after I called for assistance. For example, I once had a store, and some of the local cops did not like being bothered with me calling about shoplifters that I had caught etc. I heard that from some of the other cops that did not mind so much.
Whatever, might makes right. Justice has a price. EIEIO
Even if that weren't bullshit (and it is), it's still HIS non-public space, with which he can do whatever the hell he wants.
That aside, you quite obviously have no right to privacy in the sense that no one is allowed to see you walking down the street. I mean this is simple stuff.
I would have thought my assertion the cameras were creepy clearly indicated that my following comments were being sarcastic...
Sfrazer is exactly right. This is not an infringement on anyone's privacy. There can be no expectation of privacy in what one does in a space that can easily be viewed by anyone who passes by.
I'm all for being vigilant against restrictions on our civil liberties and such, but this isn't even arguable.
It wasn't that the sarcasm was unclear. It was painfully apparent that the author was trying to cast doubt on a straw man in the clumsiest possible manner.
It is also pretty clear that the author doesn't understand the difference between public and private space, or the rights of property owners to photograph their own property, which makes his mockery of the article's subject even richer.
I understand the difference -- but the image from the article shows that Hill isn't photographing his own property, but also his neighbors' and the surrounding sidewalk/street. He's also not capturing the images for his own use, but broadcasting them to the CPD to use them however they please. So a bit different than the misunderstanding that you're stating.
I think a vast network of citizens setting up cameras to 24/7 spy on their neighbors/streets and giving that information to the government is a bit disturbing -- my opinion, feel free to disagree.
You know, I haven't seen this kind of senseless flamebaiting on Chicagoist for a long, long time. This post doesn't say anything, except that Prescott doesn't like video cameras because he thinks they're one step away from Orwellian police state. It's pointless, it contributes nothing to discourse, it says nothing original.
I miss Margaret.
"but the image from the article shows that Hill isn't photographing his own property, but also his neighbors' and the surrounding sidewalk/street."
Are you referring to this image?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1190996,092908cameras2.fullimage
What can you see in this image? It's the equivalent of an ATM camera ... are you decrying thiose?
My guess is that the police can't be bothered ... and if the hooligans vandalize his property again, nothing will be captured other than an unidentifiable person. There's a residential building in my neighborhood with two cameras. The neighborhood dirtbags vandalize it repeatedly *because of* the cameras!
Also, I don't know where all of the civil liberty defendents live, but maybe in Chatham, people have less lofty concerns.