Chicagoist: Do You Begin to See, Then, What Kind of World We Are Creating?

mikely1

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:00:02 -0600

"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.

BlueFairlane

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:38:30 -0600

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.

Prescott Carlson

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:04:20 -0600

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.

whymustiregister

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:21:26 -0600

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.

JJHunsecker

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:54:15 -0600

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.

Prescott Carlson

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:37:30 -0600

I would have thought my assertion the cameras were creepy clearly indicated that my following comments were being sarcastic...

ReverendSlappy

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:37:07 -0600

The area directly around his house is not "public space". Which is where the cameras are pointed. 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.

ljpljpljp

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:34:00 -0600

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

whymustiregister

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:29:37 -0600

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!

Navin

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:25:10 -0600

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..

Stealth

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:20:04 -0600

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.

sfrazer_chicago

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:09:02 -0600

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.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:03:15 -0600

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.

Stealth

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:00:17 -0600

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.

sfrazer_chicago

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:52:03 -0600

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.

Navin

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:46:15 -0600

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...

sfrazer_chicago

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:37:27 -0600

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.

Stealth

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:28:49 -0600

Although I do supposed he could take down the cameras, get a gun and avoid the whole disintegration-of-privacy issue.

Bronto

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:22:09 -0600

[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.

Stealth

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:06:53 -0600

"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?