TexasCHLforum.com

Chief Hurtt said, "Wherever you go in a city this size you're going to be on video camera or tape at least 12 times a day.

Pulled that number right out of . . . the air.

Chief Hurtt said, "if you just think about it, you go to a convenience store, you get gas, you go to the bank, you drive down the street in front of people's houses where motion sets off the cameras, you're already on camera.

First and foremost, this is private property and the cameras are not monitored by the police. Secondly, most are not monitored at all, but are stop action or time lapse "video" of very poor quality and the tapes are routinely recycled unless there has been a robbery or burglary. (BTW, motion activated cameras on private homes aimed at the street? )

I know a lot of people are concerned about big brother. My response to that is, if you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

My guess is he doesn't like the Fourth or Fifth Amendments either. (King George didn’t think too much of the concept.) Well, he works for a public agency, in a building owned by the public, driving a car owned by the public. So, if he's doing nothing wrong, he won't mind having audio/video bugs in his office and car, and one in his shirt pocket when he's on the clock, and on a light poll in front of his house so he can be seen every time he steps out of his door. This is an absurd suggestion and Hurtt would readily agree, but he scoffs at people who legitimately don't want London-style video surveillance which approaches city-wide coverage.

Hurtt's intellectual dishonesty is obvious when he equates unmonitored, time-lapse, poor video quality security cameras on private property with high quality real time, normal speed police cameras that are monitored every minute of the day. No one sees video camera footage from a private security camera, unless a crime has been committed. Hurtt's cameras will be watching people's every move waiting for one of them to commit a crime Big Brother? You bet it is!

Don't forget, he's also suggesting cameras be required on private property; i.e. apartment complexes. Why stop there? Why doesn't he ask for cameras in other private property that is open to the public like restaurants and bars and night vision cameras in movie theaters. Again, these are intended to be absurd examples today, but will they be in the future? If we accept the insulting justifications that "if you aren't doing anything wrong, they why worry about it" and "it's for crime control," then these suggestions aren't so absurd after all. But of course honest law-abiding people don't have to accept further intrusion into their lives by constant video surveillance when they walk out their front door, unless they sit back and do nothing when Hurtt-style suggestions are publicized to measure the public's reaction.

A revealing litmus test for overly intrusive or restrictive efforts of elected (or appointed) officials is to subject them to the same procedures they would impose on us, then watch their indignant "you don't trust me?" reaction. Double standards abound; we need not encourage them further.

Regards,
Chas.

He needs to be fired and stripped of his TCLOSE credentials! Anyone sworn to defend the constitution who would even suggest such a thing has proven himself unfit for the job. What scares me is some people will probably support this in the name of safety.

I want the first audio/video bugs placed in his office, home, car and shirt pocket so we can keep an eye on him. People like this are far more dangerous to the freedoms we enjoy than most of the people behind bars. To make matters worse, Mayor White tries to downplay the matter by saying it was just brainstorming. Would racial cleansing have been more palatable if it were merely mentioned during a brainstorming session with the mayor? A port commissioner privately describes her dislike of a certain genre of music using an ill-advised racial slur and the entire City of Houston government wants her head on a platter. But the Chief of the Houston Police Dept. suggests an absurd and constitutionally repugnant policy of mass video surveillance and no one in City Government bats an eye!! I cannot adequately convey how much I detest what the City of Houston has become. Now I have a suggestion: a State law making it illegal for anyone not born in Texas to hold an elected or appointed office in Texas or to be head of any law enforcement agency. If we’re going to ignore the constitution, let’s go all the way.

I'll be back; I have to run around the block in the cold rain to cool off at bit!

Chas.