Seems that it is probably less to shame and more to threaten the suspects with surveillance of their criminal activities. I don't have any particular issue with it, but I suspect civil libertarians might. (In particular, "We pretend to watch them, to scare them into thinking we really are watching them, and thus to control them without exerting effort" is called the "panopticon" in academic literature, and is widely despised by anybody who has ever said the word "panopticon".)
I consider myself a "civil libertarian," in the sense of caring about the preservation of liberty -- but I don't have a problem with this.
Well-placed targeted enforcement and surveillance are good things; without them, as people start to feel more and more threatened by crime, you start to get more demands for everpresent surveillance and UK-style CCTV. Using targeted surveillance on a case-by-case basis seems like an excellent way to head that off.
Also, I think it's good that having cameras pointed at your house still carries a strongly negative connotation. When people stop caring that they're being watched all the time, that's when you know you're heading down the road to a surveillance society.
While I don't necessarily condone it, I don't see how parking in a public place taking camera pictures of things in plain public view would actually be harassment.
Google street view mapping of public roads and views accessible from same is perfectly legal, right? (and perfectly reasonable, right?) Why would this not be legal?
Taking pictures wouldn't be illegal from a public place, similar to google's street view. Taking multiple pictures over a prolonged time could likely fall under harassment laws, depending on your state or country.
Videoing someone else's property, if done on purpose, is illegal, unless you have a valid reason for doing so. If your neighbour has 'violated the peace', IE noise disturbance (that you called the cops for) or something else but has been warned but not charged, then you can video tape someone else's property. If they're on the sexual offenders list or have a suspended sentence, or have been convicted of any crime that hasn't expired from their record. For example, your neighbour could have shoplifted, which IIRC stays on their record for 5-10 years after their punishment is served, you can legally record them (if you suspect them of other illegal activity, not because you're a pervert) until this time is spent. If you're recording them after this has expired, you're likely breaking the law and you're 100% open to a civil suit. However, if you have a neighbour you feel is dodgy, simply place a CCTV on your property to monitor a part of your property so it accidentally catches the other persons property (this has been proven legal in the UK, USA, CA, NZ and Australia, AFAIK). If you think your neighbour is doing something illegal in their back yard, but can't prove it, well you can legally video tape your back yard with a wide angle lens.
Audio recording someone else's conversation is definitely illegal; conversations are considered private, unless you're included in them. Public property is a different matter, but anywhere on private property is a crime, even if it is your private property, if the conversation doesn't include you it's still a crime.
Basically, if what you're photographing, and to some extent video taping and even less audio taping, what you could see or hear from the road if you stood there for 8 hours then that's legal. If you're purposely pointing the camera through windows, or any audio recording of their property, then you're getting yourself in a dangerous position. If your neighbour shouts and screams and can be heard on your property, that's legal to record.
Laws vary between countries, but generally if there's laws to protect you from the police doing said action, you definitely shouldn't be doing it. Also be careful, it can be illegal to photograph someone without their express permission, even on public property. I know a photographer got fined $1,000 here in Canada for photographing a girl in a bikini without asking. She told him to delete the photograph, he didn't. He was fined $1,000 by the police, and I believe she dropped civil action against him due to the police record, I think he was liable up to $25,000 in the small claims court she was taking him through.
So, personally, I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns. There's no sense putting yourself at risk for cash.
In this case, if the cops are just sat there in a surveillance van, not surveillancing anyone then it's legal. If they put it on a street with a known high crime rate, it's okay. If they put it on your street because of you, that's harassment.
In the US at least, photography on public property does not require the permission of the subject, otherwise photography in crowded tourist spots would be well nigh impossible. There are of course exceptions, such as when the subject expects privacy (even in public, upskirts are no good), when you are making a profit from your photographs (which will then require model releases), or when "national security" is involved. (ref http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm )
I've found the relevant laws regarding photography in Canada (http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php), and it seems to follow the US and UK in general. Therefore I think there are unspecified extenuating circumstances in the case of the photographer that got fined $1000.
Ever since 9/11 there has been increasing scaremongering regarding people using "professional" looking cameras, which is an erosion of rights with no real benefits.
I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns
This would restrict you to photography only within your house, with all the shades drawn. Maybe even with the TV off.
"I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns This would restrict you to photography only within your house, with all the shades drawn. Maybe even with the TV off."
I actually mistyped that sentence, sorry. What I meant was: I would only photograph something I own, or that no one owns.
I don't know how I messed that sentence up, I guess my brain flat-lined for a minute.
That doesn't make it much better. You still can't take photos in public where there are strangers, cars, or non-governmental buildings present. So pretty much it's photos inside your house, landscapes, and clouds.
That depends a lot on local laws an mores; reaction to Google Street View photos has been been far more negative in some jurisdictions than the US.
Also, to the extent focused surveillance reveals anything of interest -- times of comings and goings; activity behind windows; children's play activities -- I suspect most US jurisdictions would have a problem with 24-hour video surveillance of property you don't own.
Yea but the people were being harassed by the illegal activity first. Also the truck was an eyesore for criminals. normal people would actually like it if cops were nearby preventin' crime.
Normal people always imagine that there is no way they would ever be considered criminal enough to themselves warrant such treatment... It sounds like this is your view.
If the police considered me criminal (by mistake, vindictive, whatever) enough to park the naughty van in front of my house for a little while, and then drove it off, I think I'd recover.
The van is not a permanent fixture. It's not a scarlet letter burned into your front yard. It goes away.
you seem to think that pre-emptive "scarlet letters" are a good method of discouraging criminality..
Why not simply erect use data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior (based on age, sex, employment status, national origin, etc.) and send out the vans before the crimes can be committed!
Because "data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior ..." and a van with scary cameras meant to help an innocent person live in peace are different things.
You should really stop seeing things as black and white. It's not one or the other. We're not all with the terrorists or with Bush. You're falling prey to a common logical fallacy: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope. You base all your arguments on hypothetical what ifs.
My point is that harassment is harassment so why are you not willing to make a bold statement advocating it across the board if you think it's harmless?
Look we all have to sacrifice some liberty for security. For example, we sacrifice our right to kill others so that we cannot be killed ourselves right? It's not pure liberty, or pure security.
When a police officer points a gun at someone that is harassment right? So we have to allow the police some degree of ability to harass people and to do it with a reasonable amount of suspicion right? And there's a line determining what acceptable harassment is. Well I believe that line wasn't crossed because that lady called the police in and they acted.
And I won't advocate it across the board, because there is a point where it crosses the line and while the last example of the cop with the van in the article would probably cross the line, I think the other reasons for its use didn't.
My point is that nothing is all-or-nothing. There is a gray area and you can't make a snap decision that they were wrong simply by reading that article. You'd really have to understand their situation. But given the details in the article most of the reasoning behind its use was okay.
Is free speech a gray area to you also? What about search and seizure?
You happen to consider this one example harmless... what if they started sending out a pink police van in states where "sodomy" is illegal when someone called in a complaint?
It in fact is a gray area. We all sacrifice our right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater don't we? See, nothing is black and white. So if they did start sending out "a pink police van in states where 'sodomy' is illegal when someone called in a complaint" then that is a whole other issue. But that's not the issue of contention here.
There is a gray area and cases like the ones in the article are not the same as the case you describe above.
I don't think so. If you voluntarily choose not to yell out a false fire alarm in a crowded theater, you are not sacrificing your free speech rights any more than when you choose not to yell "boo" in the same theater. You wish to avoid the negative social consequences of the action. You still have a right to do it, though doing either one may get you kicked out of the theater.
No you sacrifice your right to yell fire. Yea you probably have no reason to, but if you did choose to yell fire, you couldn't (legally at least). As a tradeoff you expect no one else to yell fire (unless there was actually a fire). Same thing for our right to kill people. We sacrifice that too. There's also a lot of rights we sacrifice. The right to run a red light, the right to molest little children, etc. That's what laws are. They define the gray area. They define the boundary as to what's acceptable and what's not. Anarchy is absolute freedom. Wiretapping: legal or not? Well we have courts to rule that and determine if it's too much of a violation of our rights and freedoms.
Actually, after rereading the article, many of the use cases do seem like harassment. And the fact that anyone can request it does make it more like a tool for harassing.
But not all harassment is wrong. I'm just saying many of them do seem to cross the line now that I reread that, some of them may have been warranted though. I also think in those cases the cops all had good intentions. Though I've always acknowledged the potential for it to be misused (you'll see an earlier comment about that somewhere above).
Yes and we, as the people, should keep an eye out and keep a check on the government, authority. We should examine these situations and determine what crosses the line and what doesn't. But under no circumstances should anything be absolute yes or no. What you are suggesting is that those police were not smart enough? How do you know? What I'm saying is you can't really be certain that what they were doing was wrong unless you understand their position completely. You're making your decision, which is predicated on the fact that things are absolute right or wrong, based on limited information from an article.
I'm assuming all you did was read the article. Well if the world was really black and white, you could easily determine the righteousness of their actions, but the world isn't black and white. You can't assume their actions were unjustified simply because it leans a little towards that side. Just as sacrificing our right to yell fire in a crowded theater, while it means a restriction on our liberty, doesn't mean it's absolutely wrong. And like I said, i agree some of their use cases actually do seem like harassment.
What treatment? It's a scarecrow, not a killer scarecrow.
Yes it's my view in that I am not a drug dealer, it is preferable for me to have this in front of my house (granted there is a drug dealing/violent illegal activity in my neighborhood) to warrant it.
If you trust law enforcement officials to do this, then why not require far more detailed surveillance as a matter of course, in the name of preventing criminality?
Why would I want far more surveillance? I want what's enough to get those damn drug dealers out of my yard! Is that too much to ask without slipping off your slope!?!
First of all that truck was not meant as surveillance. You'll have read in the article that they used the cameras mainly as a deterrent. These cops are just trying to help. Why make it seem like they're trying to start the next totalitarian regime?
So I ask you, is there anything explicitly wrong about their limited use of cameras and a police van, without going into what it could lead to?
Yes, it's harassment. Have you ever been harassed by police? I have, and it is not fun.
I'm a typical HN reader who does not engage in any criminal behavior... yet on a few occasions I've been the victim of cops who are on a power trip. These experiences taught me that the less power police have the better.
If the cops can't do real police work and solve a crime and arrest someone, they have no business messing with anyone...
Not sure what your point is. There will always be people who want police to come in and mistreat their neighbors... and sometimes that desire may be justifiable, but that doesn't mean that the mistreatment is appropriate.
It's selective. What I meant was what kind of negative treatment to me? It's like the mosquito. That high frequency sound is annoying to teenagers. A police van is annoying to drug dealers? You think people like you smashed that cop car up? No, people that were annoyed by cop presence did that.
Nice dodging of the question! I'll ask again: if it's not some sort of "treatment", then why are the cops bragging about the effect it has?
"You think people like you smashed that cop car up?"
Do you think everyone whose home this has been parked in front of smashed that car up?
Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with? After all, they weren't "people like you".
Of course it's nothing to you - you'll never have one of those parked in front of your house. One of those won't ever go in your neighborhood, because people would lawyer up. It's all very selective, as you put it.
No, they'll stay in poor/minority neighborhoods, where people will have the choices of taking it or moving.
> Do you think everyone whose home this has been parked in front of smashed that car up?
How many people's home was this parked in front of? Do you think cops went around parking cars in front of people's homes to intimidate random people?
> Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with?
Did I say that? Did I even imply that?
You think I am one of those "sacrifice liberty for a little security people"? Don't assume that's what I'm arguing for. As far as the cases in the article mentioned, yes. It's a controversial topic and I understand a lot of people have strong emotions over it. And the action these cops took might seem like it's leaning towards the wiretapping camp but it's not. I do think they were all guilty. There was a complaint and someone called the cops to help. They did. As for their specific usage as described in the article (mostly) I think it's perfectly fine.
> No, they'll stay in poor/minority neighborhoods, where people will have the choices of taking it or moving.
Is that what happened? No. So I don't even know why you brought that up.
I know what you're talking about though. If cops decided to target minority neighborhoods simply because minorities have a higher chance of criminal activity it would be a point of contention for me too. But that's not what the cops did in the article. They answered a cry for help. They knew there was problem in the area. And yes the last thing the cop did where she parked that car in front of that house was a little iffy, assuming she wasn't sure if a drug dealer actually lived there.
"as people start to feel more and more threatened by crime"
Yes, despite crime rates in a long-term decline in the US, at least there are folks like you to push the idea that people should feel more and more "threatened" so as to accept measures like this.
Who are "civil libertarians"? People who value their civil liberties? People who are willing to do something to protect them? Whatever they are, you say you're not one. Interesting.
I think the label suggests that they self-identify about it in an obnoxious way. Kind of like how "card-carrying member of the ACLU" is sometimes used as an insult, even though everyone wants their own civil liberties defended.
Exactly. And I find it lazy to use such loaded terms to denigrate an argument one doesn't agree with instead of confronting its (lack of) merits. Obnoxious != wrong.
Actually, I find it strange that the initial commenter only suspects that "civil libertarians" might have a problem with the surveillance that s/he thinks is fine. The sentence seems to me a gratuitous pot shot at people who might think of themselves as "civil libertarians". Why?
Because parking an armored camera-truck in front of the place darker-skinned people not accused of any crime live doesn't involve the "civil liberties" a lot of HN commentors care about.
It's not about DRM, the GPL, when stuff goes out of copyright, or whether whitehouse.gov uses tracking cookies - the "big stuff". It's just some people, somewhere, seeing a big-ass police vehicle parked in front of their home with cameras pointed directly at them. To a lot of HN folks, that doesn't seem terribly important; after all, they're probably drug dealers - at least, the police say so!
While posting another reply, I just saw that the abortion-stance euphemisms make the same appropriate analogy here as the analogy you chose.
People who value life are pro-life in the same sense that people who value choice are pro-choice in the same sense that people who value civil liberties are civil libertarians in the same sense that people who value women are feminists.
There's no intention of answering it, just demonizing "civil libertarians" - i.e., anyone who disagrees with him and thinks this violates civil liberties - in order to pretend to have the high ground.
There's a difference between all-else-equal and uber-alles when it comes to a positive thing. This is why the abortion debate has cute euphemisms that are both pro-something-the-other-side-is-also-in-favor-of.
