[SteelTown]

More cameras coming to city streets
Ken Mann
9/15/2008

Hamilton's Police Services Board is being asked to approve an expanded use of closed circuit surveillance cameras.

The recommendation, which goes before the board this afternoon, calls for them to be placed on James Street North, Concession Street, Ottawa Street and Hess Street.

Police Services Board Chair Bernie Morelli says they could be in place by late winter or early spring.

Morelli adds that it's about using technology to find better and more efficient ways to ensure safe communities.

Closed circuit surveillance was first launched downtown in the summer of 2004.

[FairHamilton]

Infringing on civil liberties creates a steep, slippery slope.

I find it interesting this is in the news today, since this mornings Spec had an article outlining the decline in crime in Hamilton without CCTV being in these areas.

[flar]

As far as I know, there is no evidence that these even work.

My own observations tell me the drug trade continues to flourish in Gore Park and along King St. downtown despite the cameras.

[DC83]

I don't have a problem with them in particular, but is there any evidence that the cameras they have already set up are working?

[SteelTown]

I don't have a problem with this. As long the BIA or a group approves it first than go ahead.

This was Mayor Fred's election promise, add more cameras. Bratina also promised for cameras along James St North.

[FairHamilton]

I've seen no info they reduce crime (usually it moves around the corner), or improves arrest/conviction rates.

Last October in Toronto there was a 5 handgun, 40 shot shootout on Adelaide Street, less than 1/2 block from the Toronto Police camera at Peter and Adelaide. Number of arrests so far, zero.

I have no problem with the cameras. What I have a problem with what they could mean for future civil liberties. We'll all get used to this minor encroachment on our civil liberites, and then they'll introduce something a little more, and so on, and so on.

Just like when the price of gas goes up and everyone gets used to paying $.75/L, and then gets used to paying $1.00/L and then gets used to paying $1.25/L, and then $1.35/L, and so on........

[adam]

^^ completely agree

[SteelTown]

Four new areas of Hamilton to get surveillance cameras

September 15, 2008
By Jackson Hayes

Hamilton police plan to put closed circuit television cameras in four new areas of the city.

The program, which already has five cameras in the downtown core, will now include cameras on James Street North, Ottawa Street, Concession Street and in Hess Village, all capable of beaming live video to nearby police divisions.

Police Chief Brian Mullan today called the cameras “extremely advantageous” and said they will offer police another set of eyes to serve the community.
“We hope it will bring good things to the areas they’re being installed in,” he told the board of police commissioners.

According to Deputy Chief Ken Leendertse, who heads the project, 10 to 12 new cameras will monitor the areas 24 hours a day and keep recorded material for 72 hours.

The $100,000 tab for equipment and monitoring systems has already been approved by the board.

Board member Mark Nimigan said though he had no objection to the cameras, he did wonder how far expansion would go before “Big Brother is watching all over the city.”

Mullan said the plan will happen in small steps and only build if it is successful. He insisted cameras are “just one small piece of a total crime-fighting recipe.”

Dean Collett, who owns Sizzle Steakhouse, Koi Restaurant, Diavolo and the Funky Munky, all in Hess Village, welcomes the new cameras as long as they are used in the right spirit.

“I’m for it. It’s another layer of security on top of all the other security we have down there,” he said.

Hess Village is slated for three cameras and Collett, who has had 15 break-ins in the last two years, said he will support them as long as they’re “used to curb major crime and as an investigators’ tool.”

The cameras were proposed in 1998 and this expansion builds on the city’s pilot project from June 2004.

Unlike the five current cameras, which are hardwired to the viewing facilities, the new “eyes in the sky” will use Internet Protocol (IP) technology, which sends the images to receivers via the Internet using a secure network.

Leendertse said the new camera locations were chosen by police with the help of the community.

“Deterrence is the first thing,” he said.

“The second thing is that we’re actually apprehending offenders on camera … it’s a good crime-fighting tool.”

[the dude]

i can only assume that the reporter didn't press leendertse to qualify his statement that cameras are 'a good crime-fighting tool.' i'd like some proof that we're actually safer by being under constant observation before i give up my civil liberties.

[Millstone]

i can only assume that the reporter didn't press leendertse to qualify his statement that cameras are 'a good crime-fighting tool.' i'd like some proof that we're actually safer by being under constant observation before i give up my civil liberties.

You're in a public place. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a place.

There seems to be a new camera hanging from the light standard at James and Cannon, unless that's been there forever and I haven't seen it.

[FairHamilton]

You're in a public place. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a place.

But, I also have the expectation that my actions will not be constantly monitored and recorded by authorities.

If they want to monitor an area hire a body and put them there to patrol.

[SteelTown]

If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't have a problem with the cameras. After 70 hrs the tapes are destroyed.

We can put up 20 cameras and patrol 20 spots with a staff of perhaps two. That's a lot cheaper than paying 20 cops with a salary of over $80,000 a year plus 15% for benefits, $92,000.

[flar]

If you have nothing to hide

..you have everything to fear.

[the dude]

If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't have a problem with the cameras.

ugh, i'm so tired of that constant refrain. and by the way, these cameras aren't being set-up in your neighbourhood, are they? didn't think so. furthermore, who gives a damn about the police budget? i'm more than happy to pay them to do their job...cameras and segways aside.

[SteelTown]

I don't live in a BIA, do you?

[the dude]

i live downtown...close enough. the bottom line is that the best deterent to crime is having cops walk the beat. forget cameras, criminal activity decreases when cops are present! i don't know why they're so reluctant and i won't bother speculating.

hell, i'm a high school teacher...i walk the friggin' beat! where do you think all the criminals are between the hours of eight and three o'clock? anyway, we don't do it 'cause we like it, we do it to keep our students safe. nothing else can accomplish that goal. we know it and the coppers know it too.

[LikeHamilton]

There seems to be a new camera hanging from the light standard at James and Cannon, unless that's been there forever and I haven't seen it.

James Street North Is First To Get New Police Cameras
Ken Mann
9/15/2008


Hamilton Police are expanding the use of closed circuit surveillance cameras.

They've been in use since the summer of 2004 within the city's downtown core.

The police services board now giving the O-K for them to be expanded into another four strategically chosen areas, Hess Village, Concession Street, Ottawa Street and Jamesville.

Police have about 100 thousand dollars in the budget to pay for the new cameras.

They expect to be able to install 10-to-12 of them in total. The first of them should appear within the next few weeks on James Street North
I think they knew they had the votes at the meeting and had already started the installation!

[SteelTown]

We are still waiting for Harper to deliever one of his election promise to fund more cops. An election has been called again so that's a broken promise. He'll probably recycle that promise.

The city can't afford to hire more cops, police service takes up the biggest chunk of Hamilton's budget, more cops will take a bigger chunk of the pie.

[FairHamilton]

If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't have a problem with the cameras. After 70 hrs the tapes are destroyed.

Really, it's the 'creep' that worries me. Once this becomes the norm, someone will come up with one more way to keep us 'safe' and ratchet up the invasion of our privacy one more notch.

If 'good things' happen in the areas will they take the cameras down, or will they shift their statements to the effect that their continued presence are necessary to keep the 'good things'? People they are good and you really, really need them........

If crime moves around the corner will they remove them because all it's done is shift crime, not stop/prevent it. Or, will they continue to expand until they are on every street corner?

Man, did you see gas this morning at $1.29/L isn't it a real deal, and if it hits $1.20/L it will be like they are giving it away. Oh yeah, it was less than $1.00/L a year ago, but I quickly got used to paying $1.36/L.........

[SteelTown]

I think the one at James and Cannon is a wifi thingy.

[raisethehammer]

I get a kick out of how business towers/ banks/ oil company head offices etc.... all have cameras pointing every which way outside of their buildings, but if you dare walk up to the front of the building (on the PUBLIC sidewalk) and point a camera at their building security comes out of the woodwork like crazed animals.
Double standard anyone???

[FairHamilton]

I get a kick out of how business towers/ banks/ oil company head offices etc.... all have cameras pointing every which way outside of their buildings, but if you dare walk up to the front of the building (on the PUBLIC sidewalk) and point a camera at their building security comes out of the woodwork like crazed animals.
Double standard anyone???

Anyone can ask you to stop doing what you are doing, it's a free country. But, that certainly doesn't mean they can make you stop, after all it's a free country.

[ryan_mcgreal]

If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't have a problem with the cameras.

Nope, you've got it exactly backwards. As Bruce Schneier points out, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me."

Everyone has something to hide, and most people, most of the time, have legitimate reasons to want to hide aspects of their lives. Do you write all your correspondence on postcards? Do you walk around naked? Of course not.

I have a public life and a private life. Even when I go out in public, I take my private life with me. When I walk in public, where I go, who I meet, and so on are simply none of the government's business, but CCTV makes that information available to the government if they decide they want it.

I don't care how quickly they claim to destroy the tapes. I don't care even if they're telling the truth. I don't care if they're so understaffed or incompetent that they never actually look at the tapes. They have no cause and no right to collect that information in the first place.

Even if CCTV deterred crime - which it incontravertibly doesn't - I still don't agree to trade a little privacy for a little security. If the streets are dangerous, identify the source of the danger and address it. That's how the government should work. Installing security cameras is nothing more than an admission that they don't have any ideas.

[raisethehammer]

Anyone can ask you to stop doing what you are doing, it's a free country. But, that certainly doesn't mean they can make you stop, after all it's a free country.

so then why do publicly funded police respond so readily and remove people who refuse to put their cameras away??

[RePinion]

But, I also have the expectation that my actions will not be constantly monitored and recorded by authorities.

If they want to monitor an area hire a body and put them there to patrol.

You may have that expectation, but as Millstone correctly notes, it is not a "reasonable" (or, as Americans would say, "legitimate") one as recognized by the law. The state is fully entitled to observe (and if need be, record) your actions in the public realm.

And while a "body" would probably have more of a deterrent factor than a CCTV camera (although I'm sure there are some CCTV advocates would would confute this), that body would cost considerably more to maintain.

[raisethehammer]

Nope, you've got it exactly backwards. As Bruce Schneier points out, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me."

Everyone has something to hide, and most people, most of the time, have legitimate reasons to want to hide aspects of their lives. Do you write all your correspondence on postcards? Do you walk around naked? Of course not.

I have a public life and a private life. Even when I go out in public, I take my private life with me. When I walk in public, where I go, who I meet, and so on are simply none of the government's business, but CCTV makes that information available to the government if they decide they want it.

I don't care how quickly they claim to destroy the tapes. I don't care even if they're telling the truth. I don't care if they're so understaffed or incompetent that they never actually look at the tapes. They have no cause and no right to collect that information in the first place.

Even if CCTV deterred crime - which it incontravertibly doesn't - I still don't agree to trade a little privacy for a little security. If the streets are dangerous, identify the source of the danger and address it. That's how the government should work. Installing security cameras is nothing more than an admission that they don't have any ideas.

absolutely! Well said.

[FairHamilton]

The state is fully entitled to observe (and if need be, record) your actions in the public realm.

It's statements like that which scare the bejeebers out of me. Makes my skin crawl.

Please show me where in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states the government has that entitlement. They don't, period.

But for some unknown reason we let them encroach on our freedoms, with nary a whimper. There's reasons why we all know statements like, 'Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile'.

CCTV cameras are a bad idea. They are step one, mark my words.

[FairHamilton]

so then why do publicly funded police respond so readily and remove people who refuse to put their cameras away??

Because they aren't lawyers, are unsure of the law when it's not black and white (i.e. you were driving 80kmh in 60kmh zone - black and white, filming on public sidewalk a shade of grey to them) and are mis-informed.

I'd resist politely at first, but if they continued to press. Offer to put it away, but only after gathering their badge numbers and commanding officers name. Then follow-up with the the commanding officer.

But that's just me.

[RePinion]

Nope, you've got it exactly backwards. As Bruce Schneier points out, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me."

Everyone has something to hide, and most people, most of the time, have legitimate reasons to want to hide aspects of their lives. Do you write all your correspondence on postcards? Do you walk around naked? Of course not.

I have a public life and a private life. Even when I go out in public, I take my private life with me. When I walk in public, where I go, who I meet, and so on are simply none of the government's business, but CCTV makes that information available to the government if they decide they want it.

I don't care how quickly they claim to destroy the tapes. I don't care even if they're telling the truth. I don't care if they're so understaffed or incompetent that they never actually look at the tapes. They have no cause and no right to collect that information in the first place.

Even if CCTV deterred crime - which it incontravertibly doesn't - I still don't agree to trade a little privacy for a little security. If the streets are dangerous, identify the source of the danger and address it. That's how the government should work. Installing security cameras is nothing more than an admission that they don't have any ideas.

When you refer to government having "no right to collect that information in the first place" you are squarely in the wrong. The government certainly does have a common law right to monitor public spaces. You may suggest that it has no moral right to do so, but that is merely a statement of ideology.

While I am certainly skeptical myself as to the efficacy of CCTV in deterring crime, I would submit that it is misleading to say that it "incontravertibly doesn't". The evidence is inconclusive and ambivalent, but certainly not "incontravertible" either one way or the other. Reports in the UK by NACRO and other institutions consistently show that crime rates decline in just over half of communities in which CCTV cameras are installed. There are those who suggest that these declines, modest and isolated as they are, are wholly attributable to other factors. Perhaps they're correct. The point to be made is that is that it isn't clear either way. In addition, police forces consistently advocate for CCTV, if not as a deterrent device, then at least as a valuable investigative tool. A number have cases have turned on evidence obtained via CCTV cameras and that is enough to lend validity to the argument that they do indeed (or at least can) serve some meaningful function, no matter how nominal.

[geoff's two cents]

I am on board with this assessment as well. To be honest, I have often fallen back on the maxim that if you have done nothing wrong, there is nothing to worry about.

It makes less sense in my opinion, however, when one considers that there is no (absolutely none) replacement for officers in the flesh patrolling on foot. As much disdain as I generally have for Westdale (no offense to Westdalians intended - It's just not my bag), I have to say that the presence of uniformed officers walking up and down Sterling St. for the first week of classes was a welcome sight. The advantages of video surveillance do not, I think, outweigh the disadvantages of losing one's ability to enjoy the public realm without being filed and ordered by authorities any more than is absolutely necessary.

Or, perhaps my change of heart is due equally to having just recently seen an excellent German film, "The Lives of Others," which concerns the tragic consequences of government surveillance in pre-1989 East Germany. Given the recent controversy over increasingly invasive techniques of government surveillance in western governments, post-9/11, I can't help but think this film to be a very topical one. Well worth seeing - Apparently it won an academy award.

[geoff's two cents]

When I say "this assessment", I am referring to that offered by Ryan and raisethehammer. Sorry.

[RePinion]

It's statements like that which scare the bejeebers out of me. Makes my skin crawl.

Please show me where in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states the government has that entitlement. They don't, period.

But for some unknown reason we let them encroach on our freedoms, with nary a whimper. There's reasons why we all know statements like, 'Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile'.

CCTV cameras are a bad idea. They are step one, mark my words.

I'm afraid your understanding of Canadian constitutional law is way, way off. The Charter does not purport to outline what the government is entitled or empowered to do (in a very general way, this is outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867, which merely divides responsibilities between the provincial and federal governments). The Charter simply lays out a limited set of fundamental rights and freedoms which everyone in Canada (or subject to Canadian state action) is entitled to. These rights and freedoms are not absolute but are rather subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (per s.1). Moreover, there is no constitutionally protected right to privacy in the public realm in Canada. Sorry. The issue has been adjudicated to the same end.

[Millstone]

But, I also have the expectation that my actions will not be constantly monitored and recorded by authorities.

If they want to monitor an area hire a body and put them there to patrol.

No, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. It's no different than if they were standing there with a video camera, just more efficient.

[Millstone]

ugh, i'm so tired of that constant refrain. and by the way, these cameras aren't being set-up in your neighbourhood, are they? didn't think so. furthermore, who gives a damn about the police budget? i'm more than happy to pay them to do their job...cameras and segways aside.

I live in the Downtown BIA and yes the cameras are in my neighbourhood. The 'constant refrain' has merit in public places, not in the home.

[Millstone]

I get a kick out of how business towers/ banks/ oil company head offices etc.... all have cameras pointing every which way outside of their buildings, but if you dare walk up to the front of the building (on the PUBLIC sidewalk) and point a camera at their building security comes out of the woodwork like crazed animals.
Double standard anyone???

So what? they can ask all the questions they want, you don't have to do anything.

[RePinion]

It's statements like that which scare the bejeebers out of me. Makes my skin crawl.

Please show me where in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states the government has that entitlement. They don't, period.

But for some unknown reason we let them encroach on our freedoms, with nary a whimper. There's reasons why we all know statements like, 'Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile'.

CCTV cameras are a bad idea. They are step one, mark my words.

So what? they can ask all the questions they want, you don't have to do anything.

This is absolutely true. Security will come out, but they have no legal right to prevent you from taking a photographic image of their building. If they touch you, confiscate or damage your camera in any way, they have committed a tort and you may sue them. You may perhaps also try to have criminal charges laid (good luck with that, though).

When I was still in lawschool in Toronto a group of tourists stopped to take pictures of the Chanel store on Bloor street. A shop clerk came out and demanded that they stop, as "we don't allow pictures". I had to stop and intervene. I asked her by what power she purported to prevent these nice people from taking a snapshot of the store from a public space. Her only response was that it was against the policy of the store and invaded the privacy of the customers. I responded that her company had no right to control the actions of individuals beyond the confines of its own property, and that the store was as much fair game for the tourists' cameras as it was for their eyes. She got puffy and said she would call police if they kept it up and I challenged her to do so. I encouraged the people to keep taking pictures but they were too embarrassed and moved on. Too bad. They had every right.

That being said, there are certain limitations on the common law right to take pictures of people and things (e.g. where a pictoral association might amount to defamation), but generally speaking you can photograph whatever you want.

[FairHamilton]

I'm afraid your understanding of Canadian constitutional law is way, way off. The Charter does not purport to outline what the government is entitled or empowered to do (in a very general way, this is outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867, which merely divides responsibilities between the provincial and federal governments). The Charter simply lays out a limited set of fundamental rights and freedoms which everyone in Canada (or subject to Canadian state action) is entitled to. These rights and freedoms are not absolute but are rather subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (per s.1). Moreover, there is no constitutionally protected right to privacy in the public realm in Canada. Sorry. The issue has been adjudicated to the same end.

So then where does it say they are entitled to observe and 'record' my actions/activities at anytime, and in any public place?

[FairHamilton]

I live in the Downtown BIA and yes the cameras are in my neighbourhood. The 'constant refrain' has merit in public places, not in the home.

So, if you live in the area of one of these cameras you'll keep all your blinds pulled?

[RePinion]

So then where does it say they are entitled to observe and 'record' my actions/activities at anytime, and in any public place?

Generally speaking, and particularly in common law jurisdictions such as Canada, this is not how the law works. There is no overarching document which specifically lays out what particular acts a government may and may not do. There is a criminal law power, under s.91 (27), and a catch all power called the POGG (peace, order, and good governance) power which covers just about anything which doesn't fall under the specific "head of power" in the subsections of ss. 91 and 92. In crude terms, since we are a democracy, our government is entitled to do whatever it so pleases (to the extent that its actions do not conflict with the charter), because we elect it to so do. The government does not derive its power to act in particular ways exclusively from legislative documents (statutes) but also and perhaps more importantly from the common law. The common law functions in such a way that, so long as there is neither statute nor principle preventing the government from observing and recording the actions of individuals in public spaces (which there is not), the government is empowered to go on observing and recording those actions until such a statute or principle arises.

[markbarbera]

In our society, our rights and freedoms are assigned limitations for the greater good of society as a whole, and I guess you would include the right to privacy here. Bear in mind we are talking about a surveillance camera mounted to oversee a public space and not private area.

What we need to do is weigh the perceived infringement of our right to privacy against the benefits society gains from that infringement. Personally, I have no issue with trading my right to walk down public roads unnoticed if it contributes to a safer public environment.

As far as the 'slippery slope' theory goes, it is our individual responsibility to let lawmakers know when their policy-making goes too far. A relatively silent reaction to their first appearance here has obviously given the city the tacit approval to move ahead with expansion of the pilot. If you feel they have gone too far, I suggest you let the lawmakers know.

[FairHamilton]

Generally speaking, and particularly in common law jurisdictions such as Canada, this is not how the law works. There is no overarching document which specifically lays out what particular acts a government may and may not do. There is a criminal law power, under s.91 (27), and a catch all power called the POGG (peace, order, and good governance) power which covers just about anything which doesn't fall under the specific "head of power" in the subsections of ss. 91 and 92. In crude terms, since we are a democracy, our government is entitled to do whatever it so pleases (to the extent that its actions do not conflict with the charter), because we elect it to so do. The government does not derive its power to act in particular ways exclusively from legislative documents (statutes) but also and perhaps more importantly from the common law. The common law functions in such a way that, so long as there is neither statute nor principle preventing the government from observing and recording the actions of individuals in public spaces (which there is not), the government is empowered to go on observing and recording those actions until such a statute or principle arises.

So they don't really have an 'entitlement' because it doesn't say they can do it, but they can wrap it into POGG.

So, if I understand correctly if there was an 'organized' opposition to the plan they would consider backing down. They only do what they feel they can push into place and in a perfect world if they push the envelope too far then public opinion should bring it back into check, right.

Too bad this world is not perfect.

[FairHamilton]

As far as the 'slippery slope' theory goes, it is our individual responsibility to let lawmakers know when their policy-making goes too far. A relatively silent reaction to their first appearance here has obviously given the city the tacit approval to move ahead with expansion of the pilot. If you feel they have gone too far, I suggest you let the lawmakers know.

Sorry, I disagree because if I as an individual object they won't change their plan. So it's not an individual responsibility, it's a collective one.

Since there's not organized opposition, and starting an organized opposition is difficult because it involves time, money, creating websites, media releases, attending meetings (during the work day, because they are getting paid to push their agenda), doing interviews, etc. all with out renumeration.

Therefore they get to do whatever they want. Unfortunate.

[RePinion]

In our society, our rights and freedoms are assigned limitations for the greater good of society as a whole, and I guess you would include the right to privacy here. Bear in mind we are talking about a surveillance camera mounted to oversee a public space and not private area.

What we need to do is weigh the perceived infringement of our right to privacy against the benefits society gains from that infringement. Personally, I have no issue with trading my right to walk down public roads unnoticed if it contributes to a safer public environment.

As far as the 'slippery slope' theory goes, it is our individual responsibility to let lawmakers know when their policy-making goes too far. A relatively silent reaction to their first appearance here has obviously given the city the tacit approval to move ahead with expansion of the pilot. If you feel they have gone too far, I suggest you let the lawmakers know.

Again, I would note that there is no expansive right to privacy recognized in Canadian law (which is not to say that privacy is wholly unrecognized in Canadian law, note the PIPEDA for instance). To the extent that we believe we have a right to privacy (in a "rights and freedoms" sense), this is essentially no more than moral conviction.

That being said, I would quite heartily agree with the proposition that "it is our individual responsibility to let lawmakers know when their policy-making goes too far." Claims that the actions of the city in implementing CCTV surveillance programs are illegal are simply without basis in fact. If you want to stop this, you need to show them that this practice is politically, not legally, untenable.

[Millstone]

So, if you live in the area of one of these cameras you'll keep all your blinds pulled?

What? They're not aimed at anybody's home.

[raisethehammer]

I am on board with this assessment as well. To be honest, I have often fallen back on the maxim that if you have done nothing wrong, there is nothing to worry about.

It makes less sense in my opinion, however, when one considers that there is no (absolutely none) replacement for officers in the flesh patrolling on foot. As much disdain as I generally have for Westdale (no offense to Westdalians intended - It's just not my bag), I have to say that the presence of uniformed officers walking up and down Sterling St. for the first week of classes was a welcome sight. The advantages of video surveillance do not, I think, outweigh the disadvantages of losing one's ability to enjoy the public realm without being filed and ordered by authorities any more than is absolutely necessary.

Or, perhaps my change of heart is due equally to having just recently seen an excellent German film, "The Lives of Others," which concerns the tragic consequences of government surveillance in pre-1989 East Germany. Given the recent controversy over increasingly invasive techniques of government surveillance in western governments, post-9/11, I can't help but think this film to be a very topical one. Well worth seeing - Apparently it won an academy award.


ah, you almost had me interested in the film until mentioning the academy award!
Lol....nah, it sounds good...I'll try to check it out.

I also used to think "i've done nothing wrong, so no worry" until I got nabbed in the US at an airport and fingerprinted, had my prints put into the computer, held up for a long time etc..... I've never done a thing in my life.
Since then, I've come to realize that most likely the US didn't like certain things I was writing online about their foreign policy and overall crappy state.
Their thugs thought they'd harass me for a while to make their point, but the only real point made is how invasive and undemocratic they are.
They LOVE stuff like CCTV.

[raisethehammer]

What? They're not aimed at anybody's home.

geez, where have you been?? of course they are. Believe it or not, human beings live in all the apartments on our streets.

[RePinion]

Since then, I've come to realize that most likely the US didn't like certain things I was writing online about their foreign policy and overall crappy state.
Their thugs thought they'd harass me for a while to make their point, but the only real point made is how invasive and undemocratic they are.
They LOVE stuff like CCTV.

Don't flatter yourself. Rest assured they haven't a clue as to who you are or what you may have written (aside from the information they gathered at the airport).

US security policies may be "invasive", but I question if they are really "undemocratic."

Democracy is not all about being pleasant and civil to everybody. Sometimes it means giving random people the shakedown.

[raisethehammer]

Don't flatter yourself. Rest assured they haven't a clue as to who you are or what you may have written (aside from the information they gathered at the airport).

US security policies may be "invasive", but I question if they are really "undemocratic."

Democracy is not all about being pleasant and civil to everybody. Sometimes it means giving random people the shakedown.

yea, in China.

[FairHamilton]

What? They're not aimed at anybody's home.

You mean you are confident (100% positive) there is no periphery which might give visibility into a private (residential or commercial) property, i.e. light, shadow, movement, etc. in a window.

I'm not saying these ones are, but I'm saying my concern is that 'creep happens'........

[SteelTown]

CH News did a show on the CCTV and it showed how it took the police literally weeks to set up the cameras so that it's only peeking at public areas and not at buildings. Apparently it's aganist the law to have CCTV facing at residental buildings.

[FairHamilton]

[QUOTE=SteelTown;3804362]CH News did a show on the CCTV and it showed how it took the police literally weeks to set up the cameras so that it's only peeking at public areas and not at buildings. Apparently it's aganist the law to have CCTV facing at residental buildings.[/QUOTE

So it only shows sidewalk and road. I can't believe you don't get some building in range/view. I'm not saying it's done on purpose, but as collateral.

[highwater]

Don't flatter yourself. Rest assured they haven't a clue as to who you are or what you may have written (aside from the information they gathered at the airport).

US security policies may be "invasive", but I question if they are really "undemocratic."

Democracy is not all about being pleasant and civil to everybody. Sometimes it means giving random people the shakedown.

I highly doubt this. The same thing happened to my brother-in-law. His crime? Being a member of the executive of his local chapter of the UAW. You better believe they keep tabs on people like him, especially frequent crossers. RTH used to live in the states, if I'm not mistaken. They probably have a dossier on him.

[flar]

Never underestimate the extent of law enforcement databases. U.S. Customs even knows about the skyscraperpage. I know this because they brought me in over the weekend and had me show them this page. They made a record of the url. Who knows, they probably looked at my tour of Marine City, MI this week.

The friendly border we used to leisurely cross on the ferry as kids is now under the protection of the Selfridge Air National Guard Base just across the border. It's a joint operation of every branch of the US military including the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines Corps, Air National Guard and Coast Guard. They just received a bunch of Apache helicopters. They also want to do military exercises in the Great Lakes with live ammo.

[raisethehammer]

Never underestimate the extent of law enforcement databases. U.S. Customs even knows about the skyscraperpage. I know this because they brought me in over the weekend and had me show them this page. They made a record of the url. Who knows, they probably looked at my tour of Marine City, MI this week.



Are you serious or is this a joke??



The friendly border we used to leisurely cross on the ferry as kids is now under the protection of the Selfridge Air National Guard Base just across the border. It's a joint operation of every branch of the US military including the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines Corps, Air National Guard and Coast Guard. They just received a bunch of Apache helicopters. They also want to do military exercises in the Great Lakes with live ammo.

no kidding. Anyone who doesn't believe this sort of thing has their head way in the sand.

[RePinion]

I highly doubt this. The same thing happened to my brother-in-law. His crime? Being a member of the executive of his local chapter of the UAW. You better believe they keep tabs on people like him, especially frequent crossers. RTH used to live in the states, if I'm not mistaken. They probably have a dossier on him.

I wouldn't say it's utterly inconceivable, just decidedly unrealistic.

No offence to RTH, but do you really think what he may have written on some blog would really be of that much concern to the US Department of Homeland Security? Do you know how many people maintain blogs, contribute to online journals, etc., critical of US policy? Christ, I've written letters to the editor which have been published in the Globe and Mail and Harpers criticizing US trade and security practices. Back in lawschool, I even wrote an article which was heavily supportive of people like Naomi Klein, Ron English, and adbusters. Perhaps they have a dossier on me somewhere. I couldn't care less. I have never had the slightest iota of trouble entering the US. If RTH registers as a potential threat at all, I can assure you it is only as a very, very low level one. I doubt if his writings are what caused him to be stopped and checked. It is possible, just not very likely.

As for union membership and taking pictures of port facilities, well, that's another story altogether ...

[raisethehammer]

I wouldn't say it's utterly inconceivable, just decidedly unrealistic.

No offence to RTH, but do you really think what he may have written on some blog would really be of that much concern to the US Department of Homeland Security? Do you know how many people maintain blogs, contribute to online journals, etc., critical of US policy? Christ, I've written letters to the editor which have been published in the Globe and Mail and Harpers criticizing US trade and security practices. Back in lawschool, I even wrote an article which was heavily supportive of people like Naomi Klein, Ron English, and adbusters. Perhaps they have a dossier on me somewhere. I couldn't care less. I have never had the slightest iota of trouble entering the US. If RTH registers as a potential threat at all, I can assure you it is only as a very, very low level one. I doubt if his writings are what caused him to be stopped and checked. It is possible, just not very likely.

As for union membership and taking pictures of port facilities, well, that's another story altogether ...

you're missing the point.
I know I'm not a threat, and they know I'm not a threat. They aren't interested in actual threats.
They're interested in creating a culture of fear where they can push the public to give up more of their privacy rights.
In the US it is now legal for the government to detain someone for no reason at all.
I too have had letters pubished, articles in RTH and other online journals. Very few relate to US politics, but don't kid yourself into thinking they don't monitor such stuff.
Look at what the US government did to Michael Ruppert and the folks at Beyond the Wilderness.

It's real-life stuff. They know so much more about us than any of us know.

[RePinion]

you're missing the point.
I know I'm not a threat, and they know I'm not a threat. They aren't interested in actual threats.
They're interested in creating a culture of fear where they can push the public to give up more of their privacy rights.
In the US it is now legal for the government to detain someone for no reason at all.
I too have had letters pubished, articles in RTH and other online journals. Very few relate to US politics, but don't kid yourself into thinking they don't monitor such stuff.
Look at what the US government did to Michael Ruppert and the folks at Beyond the Wilderness.

It's real-life stuff. They know so much more about us than any of us know.

I think you're actually missing the point I was attempting to make.

I don't deny that things are monitored. Of course they are -- print, web publications, videos posted online, everything. I readily acknowledge that. Media has always been scanned and document by security and intelligence services, perhaps more so now than ever.

My point was that, although the US may be aware of an article you wrote or a letter you had published (this is still not a sure thing; resources are not infinite), it is unlikely that you were detained, searched, whatever, on this basis.

It can legitimately be argued in the wake of 9/11 that the US is indeed playing fast and loose with a lot of traditional civil liberties. Indeed, there is even some validity to the argument that the US now constitutes something very much like a security state (although, rationally speaking, this may be pushing it). That being said, even a security state has very little to no interest in meddling with the lives of its ordinary, peaceful, law-abiding citizens (and visitors). It would be compromising its own existence if it did.

Michael Ruppert is a paranoid egomaniac. I doubt if he was ever really harrassed or threatened by the government. He may truly believe that he was, but I question how in touch with reality he still is. In reality, these claims were probably made for self-promotion reasons. The government almost assuredly didn't vandalize his office.

Oh, and it isn't quite true that someone can be detained in the US for no reason at all (certainly not citizens). You can be detained at the border without any sort of probable cause, but that's really nothing new.

[adam]

Contrary to popular belief, the US was never a democracy. It is and always was a republic. There are fundamental differences.

[raisethehammer]

so far every single prediction by Michael Ruppert has come true.
Who's the real paranoid egomaniacs?? Look no further than the White House.

[thistleclub]

If it's results we're after and beat cops aren't seen as an option by HPS and cameras are disdained for their ominous stare, BIAs should just hire some Pinkertons to rout the undesirables. Maybe the city would go halfsies. ;)

[DC83]

Never underestimate the extent of law enforcement databases. U.S. Customs even knows about the skyscraperpage. I know this because they brought me in over the weekend and had me show them this page. They made a record of the url. Who knows, they probably looked at my tour of Marine City, MI this week.


Wow that's paranoia to the max! They pulled you into Customs why? B/c you had a camera?

To be fair, if we're in an urban environment, chances are we're being watched anyway. Don't froget about all the businesses which have cams that face the streets near their entrances. Pizza Pizza has one. I'm sure there are dozens more 'private' security cams in our Downtown, and throughout the City.

We're always being watched whether it be police cams, business security cams, patrolling cops and even just by-standards (pedestrians, people in their homes/apartment bldgs, etc).
Just don't do anything in public you dont' want people knowing about and you're fine!

[RePinion]

Contrary to popular belief, the US was never a democracy. It is and always was a republic. There are fundamental differences.

In practice there is only a formalistic difference (the term "republic" nowadays is most significant as a term of art amongst political scientists). "Republic" is generally used to refer to a type of political organization in a formal sense -- i.e. a state which does not have a monarch at its head.

There can be different types of republics. Because (at least ostensibly) its government rules at the pleasure of the people, the US happens to be a democratic republic. In other words, its sovereignty inheres in its people as a whole, not in any particular potentate or class. Therefore it can legitimately be called both a republic and a democracy.

[SteelTown]

Technical glitches delay Concession Street cameras

By Mark Newman, News Staff
News
Oct 31, 2008

Two police surveillance cameras planned for Concession Street have been put on hold until police figure out exactly how they will be linked to the downtown central station.

"There's a lot of technical issues," said Hamilton deputy police chief Ken Leendertse, who noted wireless Internet service is not available in the locations police have scouted including Concession and East 19th, Concession and East 24th and Concession and 32nd.

DC Leendertse said police are considering a variety of alternatives including a radio wave system and hard wiring the cameras into the local cable system.

In addition, a couple of wireless Internet cameras that were installed on James North two months ago are not working as well as police would like with breaks in the transmission and the Concession Street project will not move forward until that's fixed.

"Until we get the glitches out, we can't put the cameras up there," DC Leendertse said. "We're still committed to doing Concession Street as quickly as we can."

The use of surveillance cameras by police dates back to a 2004 closed circuit television project where five cameras were installed along King Street in the downtown area in a bid to reduce crime.

About two years ago the Hamilton Police Services Board agreed to spend $10,000 on 10 new cameras to be installed at various locations in the city.

The Concession Street cameras were requested by local merchants and patrol officers as a crime prevention tool.