On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 05:25:55 -0500 Roberta Beach (RB) wrote: RB> As a civil libertarian, I firmly believe that public surveillance RB> has a detrimental effect on society.
I'm a civil libertarian (as evidenced by my card-carrying membership in the ACLU) and I agree-- to the extent that people are unable to separate Orwellian fantasies from reality it harms their perception of their well-being. These cameras will just be recording what they see. They will not be broadcasting propaganda. They will not be able to see inside your homes (unless you live downtown and your windows are open) or underneath your clothes or inside your bags. If you are in public, you are (by definition) not in private. In public you ougth to have a seriously diminished expectation of privacy. If you are out in the world, I have a right to look at you (and you at me). And so do the police (and you them). The problem here is not being observed. It's who is allowed to observe. The public has been denied the right to observe the police here in Minneapolis on numerous occasions. It wouldn't surprise me to find cases where we've been denied the right to look at each other as well. Tim Bonham (TB) says: TB> I wonder if there might be legal privacy implications -- TB> it's one thing to have security officers watching you on camera, TB> quite another when it is broadcast available to anyone. I doubt there are any legal issues to solve, Channel 5 TV has had a web cam pointed at Nicollet Ave for a few years now. I remember trying to use it to watch the BioWhateverItWas protest and police action. Also, there are already a large number of "traffic cams" pointed at the public roadways. Check the MNDoT web site for further info. Additionally, there are any number of privately owned cameras in use downtown. Why should a private firm be allowed to monitor a public street, but the public (through its police agency) can't? [back to Roberta's message] RB> surveillance makes us wary of each other. I don't see why it would. RB> The other problem factor with the RB> surveillance project is corporate sponsorship. Why is that a problem? In the U.S. corporations have almost as many rights as real humans do (and in some areas, seemingly more rights than individuals). If they are allowed to contribute taxes and campaign funds, why can't they also donate equipment in cases like this? Personally I'd prefer that we stop handing Target Minneapolis money in the first place. As it is, I'm guessing this system is something the police would like to have anyway. Thankfully no more cops or teachers will need to be laid off to pay for it. Also, corporate sponsorship only helps make it more clear who the police are really working for. I think it's nice that they would be so open about it. Personally I would like to see legislation and legal rulings that would diminish the rights of corporations substantially in favor of the rights of citizens, but I'm a bit of a dreamer, too. RB> Add a for-profit corporation, especially one with a recent RB> history of manipulating the city into funding its corporate center, RB> and the chances of _good faith_ are considerably diminished. "Manipulating"? That's loaded terminology at best. Recent city administrations seem to have been eager to offer these sorts of inducements to large corporations. It's a pity neither they, nor the new folks, seem as interested in putting this kind of effort into purely local businesses, especially co-ops and other "can't leave" types of businesses. Anyway... considering that the private corporations are already monitoring the heck out of downtown, all this really does is cut the police in on the action. RB> Before voting on the surveillance proposal, Mayor Rybak and the city RB> council should answer several questions. Were citywide media RB> informed of this issue? Was a public hearing held, and if not, why RB> not? Why would they want to do that? So a bunch of people who think they have a right to privacy even when they are in public can get all up in arms? RB> have constitutional law specialists been consulted? I've read the Constitution. There would seem to be no mention of any right to privacy in a public place. Why shouldn't the police have cameras? I like to take photographs and this might enhance my own right to make pictures in public places (a right which is being eroded rapidly through a set of copyright strictures and ever-growing "privacy-in-public" lawsuits and legislation). The problem is not the tools themselves. The problems arise when you limit access or use of tools in some artificial way. RB> For those who are not opposed to the Target surveillance project: RB> would you feel the same way if it were sponsored by Monsanto? Monsanto? Why would they care about downtown Minneapolis? And what makes them so much worse than Target? [back to Tim] TB> It's been suggested that the output from these cameras could be TB> made available on the internet... I think that maintaining the TB> web bandwidth to broadcast all these camera video streams could be TB> costly for the city. More costly than the FOIA requests I (or others) might make? If I am being photographed by my government when I am on Nicollet Mall (where I walk frequently), then I have as much right to review that information as I do to review my FBI file or any of a host of other government documents, no? The enemy of democracy is a government that operates behind closed doors. And from a practical standpoint, I doubt these cams would generate that much traffic. If the system is already going to be digital, the cost to host these kinds of images where the public can view them would not be prohibitive in the least. Perhaps we could go to Target with tin cup in hand for this aspect of the project as well? In spite of all this, I do think BigBrotherCam is of dubious value. I doubt it will have any real effect on crime and I do think at some point it will be abused (in much the same way "undercover" cops are reportedly infiltrating peace and justice organizations). However, any such abuse would just be part of a larger pattern of abuse, so it is not the cameras (in my mind) that are the issue, but the abuse. The police already seem to be abusing the real civil liberties of the people of Minneapolis, so why the outcry when they start abusing "rights" we don't actually have? -Michael Libby, Cleveland neighborhood/North Mpls. NOTE: In Minneapolis dancing on the streets is illegal. I quote from the City Code: "427.240. Dancing on streets. No person shall dance or engage or participate in any dancing upon any public street or highway in the city... except at a block party." In Minneapolis, you may bring your gun to church, but you may not dance on the streets. TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
