Cannabis News Protecting Patients Access to Medical Marijuana
  The Camera-Ready Police
Posted by FoM on February 17, 2002 at 21:59:31 PT
By Jacob Sullum  
Source: New York Post 

justice Soon tourists who visit Washington, D.C., won't have to worry about bringing cameras. The police will be taking their pictures. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Washington Metropolitan Police Department plans to monitor people through hundreds of cameras on streets, in subway stations, and possibly in shopping malls and other businesses.

"In the context of Sept. 11," said Stephen Gaffigan, the official in charge of the surveillance network, "we have no choice but to accept greater use of this technology."

Fighting terrorism may have replaced protecting children as an all-purpose excuse for expanded government, but there is still something undeniably creepy about ubiquitous, centralized surveillance of public spaces. Admittedly, this vague uneasiness is not enough to trump fears of terrorism. So what, exactly, is the problem with using cameras to enhance the police presence in our nation's capital (and soon, perhaps, in your town)?

In some respects, putting up a camera is like putting another cop on the street. "We don't have enough officers to watch everything," Gaffigan told The Washington Times. "This allows us to monitor more places and frees up officers to do their work in the neighborhoods."

But do we really want police to "watch everything"? When police are omnipresent, people are more careful about what they say and do, which has negative as well as positive implications. There may be less noise and less littering, but there is also less debate and less spontaneity.

Even in a country with a tradition of limited government, knowing that you are being watched by armed government agents tends to put a damper on things. You don't want to offend them or otherwise call attention to yourself, so you are not quite as free as you would otherwise be.

Nervous-looking swarthy guys aren't the only potential targets. How will police react to a young man reading the Koran or "The Anarchist Cookbook" while sitting on a park bench?

After a while, people may learn to be careful about the books and periodicals they read in public, avoiding titles that might alarm unseen observers. They may also put more thought into how they dress, lest they look like terrorists, gang members, druggies or hookers.

Widespread surveillance can be expected to deter a wide range of potentially embarrassing or provocative activities. Perhaps you'd just as soon see less kissing, nose picking and pot smoking on the street, but you may feel different about parents who are newly reluctant to discipline their kids in public.

Because they observe people unobtrusively, surveillance systems give police access to sensitive information they could not otherwise obtain. A camera in an officially public but out-of-the-way spot could reveal someone's sexual preference or extramarital affair, putting him at the mercy of police discretion.

Expecting officers to resist their voyeuristic impulses is probably unrealistic. In a New York Times Magazine article about the British surveillance system, often held up as a model by U.S. law enforcement, Jeffrey Rosen reports that officers use police cameras to ogle women and spy on fornicating couples.

Surveillance advocates insist they'll restrain themselves. According to the Journal, "The police say they are aware of privacy concerns and plan to stop far short of the level of constant surveillance the technology allows." In other words, they promise to be willfully blind. That doesn't mean we should be.

Source: New York Post (NY)
Author: Jacob Sullum
Published: February 17, 2002
Copyright: 2002 N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.
Contact: letters@nypost.com
Website: http://nypostonline.com/

Related Articles:

D.C. Forms Network of Surveillance
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12035.shtml

Tech Companies See Market for Detection
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10999.shtml

New Powers Sought for Surveillance
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10923.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #12 posted by b4daylight on February 20, 2002 at 17:17:03 PT:

BOO!
THIS IS A BAD IDEA!!! America needs backbone. Life has danger! No amount of spending will elude you from life. America gives up all its freedom for security.

They have votes for all types of ploiticians, but no votes for stupid bills I do not support. Why do they not have exparation dates on bills and programs like (idea) (S.O.L.A.) and this D.C. camera America just keeps adding and amending never gettting rid of rubbish. Heres an idea get rid of my universal five dollar phone tax.!

They funny thing is that terrisiom has always been here. We have spent Trillions of dallors on this very subject. Nothing has stopped the flow of violence. Adding 100 billion today will only make the dollar amount larger next year. The goverment spends to much and provides to little. We have the worlds biggest prison population per capita in the world. We also have one of the highest crime rates. It would be sad day not to visit my national city in privacy. With all D.C. repersents Why turn it into a GULAG. Yes come to our great nation . It has cameras to watch you. It has cammandoes in the shadows It has anti-aircraft and patriot missles It has satolites to track you It has listening devices throughout the town It has bio-sensors for the air It has tight security in buildings, metal dectors, pat downs, baggage screening, welcome to paronoia!

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #11 posted by Mr X on February 19, 2002 at 01:01:51 PT
Welcome to Oceania.
Lets look at Britian as an example, CCTV cameras are EVERYWHERE in Britian, is there still crime in Britian? Of course there is.

And heres another interesting point, Timothy McVeigh was captured on camera several times driving the Ryder truck full of explosives, he was also seen on the Murrah Federal building's CCTV system driving up to it, parking the truck, and then leaving without entering the building.

The disaster still happened.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by Nuevo Mexican on February 18, 2002 at 14:06:07 PT
Here's the thread...
http://vote.sparklit.com/comments.spark?action=viewTopic&commentID=27065988&pollID=553297

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #9 posted by FoM on February 18, 2002 at 13:53:52 PT
Thanks MikeEEEEE and Nuevo Mexican
This whole war thing is way out of hand. Where's bin Laden? If he's dead do and they know will they tell us? I think they might not. That might make people say we'll we got him and let's stop and they are gung ho to keep this going.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #8 posted by MikeEEEEE on February 18, 2002 at 13:03:10 PT
FoM, the news doesn't have substance
Most of are lives do not have volience or the terrible events you see on the news. People go to the TV to see what's happening in the real world. If the real world is one terrible story after another than the perception of the world becomes that of a terrible place, and how should people react? People will distrust and be paranoid about the world around them, thereby a divided society, because after watching the news, who could anybody trust? That has policial implications -- how can people fight oppression if they're untrusting = divided.

Our real world isn't one trajedy after another, for the most part 99.9% of it is boring and peaceful. The media wants a numb low IQ society to buy products, but policially it creates sheep.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #7 posted by Nuevo Mexican on February 18, 2002 at 12:38:42 PT
Read this thread....
As you will be able to sort through the opinions and find out where you stand in the debate! Yes, FOM, the anthrax was government inspired, and distributed!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #6 posted by FoM on February 18, 2002 at 12:35:11 PT
A Question
What I want to know is why is it taking them so long to find out where the Anthrax came from. They can find whatever they want with all these new laws so why not the Anthrax? Is it because it was from the USA? I think so and they want to keep blaming everything on the terrorists so they can get more liberties taken from us. They are talking about the woman who killed her children on every news channel today and I can't change the channel fast enough. She killed her kids what more is there to hear or say!!!! I want to know about news that has substance.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #5 posted by Nuevo Mexican on February 18, 2002 at 12:26:58 PT
Still think 'foreign' terrorists did 911?
c'mon folks, anybody here that still thing terrorists' from another country were behind 911, (yes, they may have been used for the job) ask yourself: Who benefits? George Bush is the biggest benefactor of 911 and the police state is bushdaddy, Cia, FBI, NSA, you know the rest. Read up folks! The terrorist' are your government. Who else would arrest and shut down Cannabis users and cannabis clubs while supposed terrorist attacks are being flaunted for the sake of diversion. Here's your reading material for the day, now educate yourselves and spead the word!

"The Pearl Harbor Lie and Sept. 11th" http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=136892&group=webcast

For a synopsis: http://www.attackonamerica.net/

"Italian interior minister issued order to fire on G-8 protesters"....this is pretzel boys newest friends on the block and a look at the future for our great leader! http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=136758&group=webcast

And would the U.S. kill women and children? "The Politics of Dead Children" http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=136936&group=webcast "Civilian toll in U.S. raids put at 1000" http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0217-03.htm

Immoral Tenet & His Blind-Eye Surveillance http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=136482&group=webcast

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=136694&group=webcast

And then there is this quote from shrubs mentor:

"Beware of the leader who bangs of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double edged sword. It emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

"When the drums of war have reached a fervor pitch, and the blood boils with hate and the mind is closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and do it gladly so.

"How do I know? I know, for this is what I have done."

Julius Caesar

'nuff said!

C'mon Joyce, I know you want a straigh-up debate, here's your invitation! Cannabis prohibition props up all ant-democratic institutions in the world, with the USA being the headquarters and jr. playing the fall guy for daddy's new world disorder. Your thoughts would be appreciated!



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by observer on February 18, 2002 at 11:09:50 PT
From 'We the People' to 'We Have No Choice'
"In the context of Sept. 11," said Stephen Gaffigan, the official in charge of the surveillance network, "we have no choice but to accept greater use of this technology."

What's this "we" stuff? Oh, I see: no discussion, no, vote, no democracy, no rights. The US government dictates, and "we have no choice but to accept." Sweet.

Who elected this tin-horn bureaucrat, anyway?

The repeated point those lip-smacking, goose-stepping authoritarians makes is that because of "Sept. 11," People are (surprise) ordered to give up more rights. Government gets what it always wanted, namely, unquestioned dictatorial powers, where people "have no choice." How convenient.

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
--1984, Orwell


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #3 posted by MikeEEEEE on February 18, 2002 at 07:56:46 PT
Disturbing Trends
Here's another disturding trend:

Street Hockey Banned By City Council (CNSNews.com) - Following a growing nationwide trend, the Virginia suburb of Fairfax City has banned all street sports and authorized the confiscation of any related equipment.

What about the children? It's a scam.

Surveillance advocates insist they'll restrain themselves.

Ha!



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by greenfox on February 18, 2002 at 06:45:04 PT
In the name of "freedom"
"In the context of Sept. 11," said Stephen Gaffigan, the official in charge of the surveillance network, "we have no choice but to accept greater use of this technology."

Translation: we must accept a police state given September 11th. We must also accept the fact that the terrorists won. Crazy, you say? Think about what they wanted to accomplish and what they actually DID accomplish. First off, the economy is down. Secondly, we have no rights. Thirdly, we live in a constant state of "alert" (ie "terror"). So basically, the "terrorists" managed to cause terror, break the economy, and give amerikkkans the same oppresion that they have felt for years. Yep, I'd say they won.

-gf

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by Jose Melendez on February 18, 2002 at 06:01:01 PT:

suppressed evidence - habit or skill?
from:
http://www.aclu.org/profiling/report/

On a hot summer afternoon in August 1998, 37-year-old U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Rossano V. Gerald and his young son Gregory drove across the Oklahoma border into a nightmare. A career soldier and a highly decorated veteran of Desert Storm and Operation United Shield in Somalia, SFC Gerald, a black man of Panamanian descent, found that he could not travel more than 30 minutes through the state without being stopped twice: first by the Roland City Police Department, and then by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

During the second stop, which lasted two-and-half hours, the troopers terrorized SFC Gerald's 12-year-old son with a police dog, placed both father and son in a closed car with the air conditioning off and fans blowing hot air, and warned that the dog would attack if they attempted to escape. Halfway through the episode – perhaps realizing the extent of their lawlessness – the troopers shut off the patrol car's video evidence camera.

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on February 17, 2002 at 21:59:31