ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:56 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Right to privacy, public cameras, and homeless people
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:44 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
I recently came across a hitch in my internal logic concerning support of cameras in public places. I was checking my Nation-States account and I had the issue of using cameras deter crime in public places, and I naturally supported the issue. My opinion of the issue at the time was set; I had heard no argument I considered valid enough to challenge it. Now I've come up with one, and it's irritatingly small. The Right to Privacy ala the American constitution (I'm an American, to put it in context for the Aussies etc), goes to all of the country's citizens, not just those who have homes in which to be private. That guy who lives in the park? Big Brother is always watching him. The one who hangs out by the highway and sleeps under a rock somewhere? Him too, I'm afraid. So basically for my previous position to hold it seems only natural that the government, which obviously tries but cannot succeed, should either grant all of these people homes in which to be private or should stop using cameras to monitor public places. There are several arguments running through my head right now about various parts of the issue, but I can't seem to sort them out. None of them are really realistic, and it all boils down to a compromise between reducing or increasing safety for the general population and maintaining the basic rights assigned by our constitution for every single citizen. Discuss.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:26 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 555
Location: Ziapangu
Technically there is no right to privacy in public places in the U.S. Constitution. (Hence the distinction between "public" and "private") The closest thing would be the 4th Amendment which reads:

U.S. Constitution wrote:
Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


However, note that "person" here means the actual physical searching of a person, and not simply observation or monitoring. As far as I can judge, the issue of public security cameras is up to the people of that community, and while truly invasive monitoring of every nook and cranny would likely be a problem, it is also a problem that would probably be best dealt with by local discussion and referendum.

Now the issue of security devices in airports and other public facilities (or facilities which serve a public purpose) that provide a (nearly) naked representation of the subject is another matter altogether.

Also, regarding the "granting homes in which to be private" idea, twisted liberal interpretations of the "General Welfare" phrase in the preamble aside, neither is there an enshrined right to receive largesse out of the public treasury (= entitlements).

_________________
Democracy is not liberty. It is majority rule, which is mob rule. We live in a Mobocracy.

"Political power is the game of playing God. It changes a person and makes him different from the rest of us. He begins to believe he has some kind of right to interfere in the lives of others. He may even believe he has the right to choose who lives and who dies."
— Richard Maybury


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:07 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:21 pm
Posts: 45
It seems to me that cameras in public places would do more good than harm for the homeless. If something happens to a homeless person (i.e. attacked, sudden medical issue, ect.) and cameras are present, they have more of a chance of surviving because someone actually knows.

_________________
Rings of cloud and arms aflame,
Wings rise up to call your name.
Sun rolls high, Lord, it burns the ground
Just to tell about the first good man I found.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:41 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
If you live your life in the public area or commons you forfeit your right to privacy, it's as simple as that.

I do however disagree with cameras in public places for a slightly different reason - as they become more and more purvasive it's becoming easier for unethical persons to track your movements at minimal expense both in terms of money and time. It's not difficult to imagine an Orwellian world where Big Brother really does track you 24/7 looking for any signs of unorthodoxy.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group