CCTV expansion?

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by RePinion

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]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Millstone

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]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

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]

Originally Posted by RePinion

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]

Originally Posted by Millstone

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]

Originally Posted by RePinion

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]

Originally Posted by 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.



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]

Originally Posted by highwater

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]

Originally Posted by RePinion

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]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

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.