There is a distinction. BTW, have they even worked?

Post #5,126 by wharris2 8/14/01 3:41:40 PM Reply	There is a distinction. BTW, have they even worked? If we're going to talk abstractions for a second, there is a difference in that we generally limit the government to those actions that we permit them, not to what they can get away with. We permit police certain exceptions not available to the normal citizen, such as (generally) protection from false arrest lawsuits and permission to deadly force in some circumstances. We permit the government to levy taxes but not unequivocably (and if you live in Tennessee, you protest if the government tries to give itself too much power). I think the Tampa cameras are a police "oh gee isn't technology wonderful" power grab. Now that may not mean they can't get away with it, but I would hope there would be more public pressure against it. Speaking of the Tampa cameras, have they even worked? The only time I've heard of someone even being questioned was the mis-identification of the construction worker, and that wasn't even the Faceit process. If the process is as they are claiming (identiification of criminals), they should at least trot out a few successful arrests. If they can't point to any, then arguably either the software doesn't work (and they should stop wasting their time), or they aren't using the cameras as they are supposed to be used (going back to the "get to play with computers and technology" argument as being the primary purpose of the system, not arresting criminals.) French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #5,139 by addison 8/14/01 3:57:36 PM Reply	Not in this context, and I don't know. Right now, what you can see, you can record. Restricting what you can record in public view) is, with few exceptions, both at the same time. If something is Top Secret, you don't let people see it. Not just try and keep them from photographing it. Same as walking down the street. Nothing legally stops anyone from taking your picture, other than polite convention (and some laws that are somewhat specific in their implementation). So for the police to video what is in public isn't unprecedended, nor, in my opinion, is it a grave injustice, or illegal. Saving said tapes and data isn't either. And if you want to prevent either of the above, you'll need new laws to change either or both of those equvilances. (But thanks for coming around to my way of thinking after a couple weeks, Brandioch, I was starting to give up). I don't know if the Tampa police were doing anything as motivated as a tech grab - more likely, they HAD the cameras, why not see how they work? But when a system is being put together, I don't object to some time to get things sorted out (when death isn't on the line). You're right about the limits to government. But capturing images in public is rather well-established and has been for some time. Building a database of said images, well, the implications of that worry me. But the way to solve that isn't to insist that they "can't do it", but to see how we can prevent them from doing it. Addison
Post #5,166 by wharris2 8/14/01 4:57:37 PM Reply	That only has one solution Building a database of said images, well, the implications of that worry me. But the way to solve that isn't to insist that they "can't do it", but to see how we can prevent them from doing it. And how would you suggest doing that, short of just not going to Tampa? (Or other cities with databases of images.) French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!

Welcome to IWETHEY!