candance wrote:While government cameras in public are technically legal, it causes a gut reaction because of two factors:

1) What is the basis for strange behavior, and what is to stop them from moving the goal post? Will they start targeting certain demographics? Will they start supressing religious expression? Once those cameras are up and running, there will be no getting rid of them if Congress starts targeting people.

2) Just like Orwell predicted, when people get used to be watched in public, will the government start watching us in our cars, in private businesses, in classrooms?

So basically the problem is, once you ring a bell it can't be unrung.

Well, government has moved the goal posts continuously.  And frankly, I believe profiling is a legitimate law-enforcement technique so I don't care if they use cameras to profile.  And the feds can already arrest and convict anyone they want.  We are all breaking some federal law right now.  But there is a huge jump from these points to suppressing religious freedom.  

They are already watching us in our cars.   Is that public or private space?  If our car is in our driveway, I'd say private but once you move it on to the public street then is it public or private?  Frankly, I assume the feds already believe they have the right to monitor us in "private businesses" because of the commerce clauses and the way they have been misinterpreted over the years.  I suppose the same holds true for classrooms.  Classrooms are "public" space.  

Now, I do draw the line on my own property but they already have the ability to monitor us there.  Infrared cameras and laser microphones can be used anywhere with a warrant now.  

Adding a few video cameras now is not going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.  The back is already broken by bad constitutional law and politicians violating the letter and spirit of the constitution daily.  No, I don't have a problem with the cameras.  My problem is that the constitution has been shredded by government long ago.  If you listen, you can still hear the echo of your bell.

Well that's what we're all saying here. Something as harmless as cameras in public sounds okay, but in the hands of a government that ignores the constitution, it can quickly be used as a weapon.

candance wrote:Well that's what we're all saying here. Something as harmless as cameras in public sounds okay, but in the hands of a government that ignores the constitution, it can quickly be used as a weapon.

But they have really gone way past the point we should be concerned.  A few cameras won't make the difference.  We are already serfs to the state.  It is a little late to complain or get worried now.  Ironically, now the cameras may actually make us a little safer from street crime.  The net effect of "liberalism" up to this point has been to endanger us.

I'm going to have to go with Candance on this one.

I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of 4th Amendment law, its basis, or law (good & bad) derived from it.  We all agree that there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about these cameras.  And besides, I'm gonna have to start studying for the Bar Exam again soon, so right now I don't feel like discussing actual law (aside from exposing my own ignorance without a casebook in my hand).

We still do have "expectations of privacy" in many places, and I, for one, am thankful for it.  This is one of the few common law interpretations of the Constitution that I've always liked.  I think that it's an interpretation that the Founders would recognize and approve of as a necessary pre-requisite to 4th Amdt protections.

It's not legitimate use of these cameras that really puts me off, it's the inevitable misuse.  Jeez (a.k.a. 'geese'), for an optimist, your awfully ready to admit defeat and say that we're "serfs to the state".  Regulars here won't question that you're mostly right, but you can't suggest that just because things are already bad, that they can't get any worse.  They can.

I don't prowl the streets mugging folks, or running naked in public; but I don't particularly want to be sent a fine in the mail every time the camera sees me jaywalking -- and this WILL happen, it's a ready source of easy revenue for municipalities.  I don't even like red-light cameras.  In Washington D.C., revenue from red-light cameras have increased annually with no increase in traffic safety.  There's also rumor that intersections with red-light cameras have had the length of yellow-lights shortened to increase the number of red-light violations.  It's free money to municipalities with these cameras -- especially if you jack up the cost of a red-light ticket.

More to the point I'm trying to make is that if I'm in public, and I see there's no one around to see me, and I pick my nose or scratch my nuts, I would find it VERY intrusive to suddenly realize that I'm surreptitiously being filmed.

Finally, if I stand around outside a bank or liquor store, and it looks suspiciously like I'm planning to rob the joint, I don't want repercussions for "appearing" suspicious.  Even if I actually WERE planning on robbing the bank or store, I might decide at the last minute not to do it.  How long do you think it will be before there are laws on the books making it a crime to "appear suspicious".  I already have some problems with "attempt" crimes.  It would be easy enough to include "looking suspicious" on a camera as part of an argument for "attempt".

Again, you're mostly right that the govt can already arrest and convict anyone they want.  It's truer than anyone would like, but it's not absolutely true in every case.  Again, just because things are already bad, doesn't mean they can't get worse.

No one here is happy with the abuses of the Constitution that have already occurred; but we need to puch back -- we need to fight to overturn those abuses.  We also need to be wary of, and push back against new or proposed abuses.

I understand your basic point; and like I said above, I can't come up with any viable legal or constitutional argument against it.  But your last couple posts were very uncharacteristically pessimistic of you.

Sorry, sometimes realism forces its way into my normally rosey outlook.  I'll try to keep it under control.  

And you made some valid points in your post.  But, ironically, I am afraid that they may support my pessimistic point of view more than yours....

But, frankly, if the cameras keep you from scratching in public I am all for it!  I just don't want to see some things.  And this stuff will eventually make it onto a Fox reality show!