Pulled that number right out of . . . the air.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.
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?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.
)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.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?"
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.
I think nice sayings on the back of T-shirts could prove a nice point. If you guys are going to the council meeting, please let me know. Take care.
