Do you think cameras in public parks are an invasion of privacy?
23 Comments
Julia LaFontaine said:
No. If you're in public, you basically have no expectation of privacy anyway. Anyone in public spaces can be seen or heard (and perhaps photographed) by others in the vicinity, whether the 'do-er' is engaged in innocuous conversation, embarrassing activities like bumping into lampposts, window-shopping, street-performing, survey-taking, or criminal acts. If you're not engaged in illegal activities, why would the fact of cameras bother you? Installing cameras that might help protect victims of crime, or result in the capture and prosecution of the criminals, is okay by me, even desirable. I'd feel better walking around Seattle knowing there's SOME form of monitoring going on.
josh said:
No, they call it a "public" park not a private park so a camera is basically an electric cop, its no different then a police presence.
Brian said:
To expect "privacy" in a "public" place is ludicrous! Enough said.
Randy B said:
NO! My question for those that are against the camers is.
What do they have to hide?
I think that camers in a public place is for our safty and not to spie on us. It scares me when I here people and organistions say that it is a violation or invation of our privacy. Why are they trying to protect someone that wants to comitte a crime? Why dont they spend there time protecting the rights of peple to fill safe and be safe in public places.
Willie Gee said:
How can anyone go to a public place and expect privacy. If people want privacy, go home or to some private place. Parks are public places esblished for the enjoyment of everybody (the public). When there are activities which made the parks unsafe, then everyone cannot enjoy them. I think the cameras are a good thing in an effort to keep the parks available to the public.
Brian said:
Isn't "privacy" in a public area kind of an oxymoron?
I think there should be a study to find out how had they use of using cameras city-wide, as they do in London, has done for the deterrence of crime. How effective are these cameras when it comes to identifying perpetrators that commit crimes and are there enough police resources to respond to a crime when someone views it from the central monitoring station.
BW
Vancouver, Wa
K said:
Yes. The city council said "No" to these cameras and they were put up anyway. That's ridiculous. Having these cameras up is like "Big Brother". They can see for a mile or more- that means they can see far outside parks. Did no one read "1984"?
I am not doing anything wrong but I am still being watched? There is way too much opportunity for abuse of power when we allow these kind of things to happen.
T D Gates said:
It's only an invasion of privacy if you're a criminal!
If you're not committing an illegal act, you have nothing to worry about.
Cameras are not permitted in areas where there is an expectation of privacy; restrooms, hotel rooms, locker rooms etc.
A camera may even provide an alibi for an innocent party by providing photographic evidence that they were somewhere other than "the crime scene".
T D Gates
Art said:
This is the 1st time I concur with Nickels fascist-like move to protect the public parks from those with criminal intent. As for ACLU and the council, stop sitting on your brains!!! They must be pro-criminals. Its a PUBLIC PARK. Don't expect privacy. Want privacy go to a private park or stay home.
Saera said:
The definition of PUBLIC is pretty blatant, and somehow I dont think 'privacy' is a part of it :P Public parks are for everyone, no one can expect privacy in a public park (save perhaps the restroom stall). I hope the cameras help lower criminal activity and make these parks safer. An extra bonus would be if folks would feel guilty about littering on camera and actually use the trash bins as well.
Saera said:
The definition of PUBLIC is pretty blatant, and somehow I dont think 'privacy' is a part of it :P Public parks are for everyone, no one can expect privacy in a public park (save perhaps the restroom stall). I hope the cameras help lower criminal activity and make these parks safer. An extra bonus would be if folks would feel guilty about littering on camera and actually use the trash bins as well.
Lyonell said:
I thought I was going to view this blog and see numerous comments about anit-cameras in public places. Happily, I was wrong! I'm with the majority...if you want privacy, STAY HOME! How can safety and security take a back seat to privacy? Let Big Brother do what he does best - WATCHING OUT! I say put it in! And when you're done, come over to Spokane/CDA area and put some in here too!
Linda said:
If you don't want to pay for more policemen then we need the cameras. the same people who cry "invasion of privacy" are the ones that will sue the city when something bad happens to them.
Bruce Proctor said:
Just like the red-light runners, they don't want
to be caught doing wrong. The parks and highway
system are PUBLIC. If they aren't breaking any
laws and are minding their manners they have
nothing to worry about.
Chris said:
As a former Security Officer for Pike Place Market, I can tell you some stories that you would never believe. You name it folks, it happens in that area. The drug problems at the park across the street from the Market are beyond an epidemic, and the police have their hands beyond full.
Until you have seen a stabbing first hand, witnessed a shooting first hand, watched people stick needles in their arms first hand, witnessed attempted rapes first hand, witnessed fist fights first hand, and witnessed death first hand, you have no room to talk about invasion of privacy. The only options left are cameras, or the tear down of this area.
I avoid this area now, and I would feel much better knowing that there are cameras watching my family and I. I also like the thugs in this neighborhood to know that they need to smile more, as they are on camera.
When you are the victim of a crime, you will be glad to know that the incident was captured on camera. Not only that, but the chances of catching the person dramatically increase with the camera. I say yes to the camera, and yes to my privacy being invaded. I should have nothing to worry about in the first place, if I am abiding by the law.
chris said:
As a former Security Officer for Pike Place Market, I can tell you some stories that you would never believe. You name it folks, it happens in that area. The drug problems at the park across the street from the Market are beyond an epidemic, and the police have their hands beyond full.
Until you have seen a stabbing first hand, witnessed a shooting first hand, watched people stick needles in their arms first hand, witnessed attempted rapes first hand, witnessed fist fights first hand, and witnessed death first hand, you have no room to talk about invasion of privacy. The only options left are cameras, or the tear down of this area.
I avoid this area now, and I would feel much better knowing that there are cameras watching my family and I. I also like the thugs in this neighborhood to know that they need to smile more, as they are on camera.
When you are the victim of a crime, you will be glad to know that the incident was captured on camera. Not only that, but the chances of catching the person dramatically increase with the camera. I say yes to the camera, and yes to my privacy being invaded. I should have nothing to worry about in the first place, if I am abiding by the law.
Hannah said:
Finally, someone who is not afraid to do the right thing. Any law abiding citizen, especially those with families should apreciate the gift of safety that has been given. Knowing that you are safe when you go somewhere, gives you more "freedom" than not knowing at all.
Lorraine B. Zabel said:
What would be the difference if the police replaced the cameras. If the cameras were placed by the govnerment ( mayor, etc.), would that still be considered 'invasion of privacy' if it were an employer - would that be considered 'invasion of privacy. Business, and government entities use cameras and/or police/guards etc in all facets of our government, and businesses.
I do not consider any of this 'an invasion of privacy'. If it were my home, etc. - yes, that would be an invasion of privacy.
When I go out in the public - I go out with the expectation that someone is watching me.
mitchell s. martin said:
MY GIRLFRIENDS ANTE LIVES UP IN SEATTLE WA. I THINK THEY COULD USE CAMRAS ON OTHER HIGH CRIME PLACES. LIKE PARKS. PUBS,INTERSECTIONS. OUT SIDE IS OUT SIDE IF YOU ARNT DOING ANAYTHING WRONG WHAT DO YOU HALF TO WORIE ABOUT!!!! THINK ABOUT IT, IT PROTECTS YOU ALSO.
Andrew said:
I don't think it's wrong to install cameras in a public park, it helps cut down on crime and such (like someone that was interviewed on the streets said). If you're not doing anything that the police wouldn't like, then they shouldn't be a nuisance to people that aren't breaking the law.
However, the cameras are sort of an invasion of privacy because there was no warning that they were going to be installed there. A disclaimer posted somewhere at the entrance of the place would make this controversy go away.
Saera said:
It is true parks wont be as private, but i dont really think we need a disclaimer since parks were never supposed to be private anyway. i just hope the resolution on those camera's is better than a lot of security cam footage we see on the news where you can barely make out the race and gender of a person for all the pixelization. Just get good clear footage so any arrests or convictions can be iron clad.
Thirteenburn said:
In answer to the question at hand, of course not. IT'S A PUBLIC PARK, therefore, the cameras should be allowed at the solitary discrecion of the Mayor and not the whiny, mamby-pamby city council.
But the adverse reaction to them is so typical of not only the American Criminal Liberties Union, but the Democrat Party controlled Seattle city council, not to mention the Washington State Legislature.
Always quick to defend the "rights" of the minority criminal element as well as the homosexual acts that also happen with alarming frequency ALL TO THE DETRIMENT OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO WANT TO USE THE PARK FOR WHAT IT'S FOR; TO RELAX AND ENJOY THEMSELVES WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING ROBBED OR SOLICITED FOR GAY SEX!!!
(spare me the pathetic "homophobic" AND "racist" rants, as your political correctness is nothing more than empty words ringing hollow in my ears, nothing more than symbolism over substance, as is always the case with the Democrat Party)
But as usual, this latest "outcry" is just another glaring example of how the collective stupidity of the liberal, whiny, knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, Anti-American/Anti-America Democrat Party is surpassed ONLY by their mind numbing intellectual dishonesty and proving without a modicum of doubt that the Jackass is the PERFECT mascot for said Democrat Party.
Tami said:
The only concern I have is notification to the public regarding who is watching and why. There is a possibility of people thinking that they are safe because of the cameras when in reality, no one is even watching. The government should let people know what they are doing and why. There will still be those that oppose cameras, but if there wouldn't be this creepy "big brother" feeling when you are being recorded secretly.
No. If you're in public, you basically have no expectation of privacy anyway. Anyone in public spaces can be seen or heard (and perhaps photographed) by others in the vicinity, whether the 'do-er' is engaged in innocuous conversation, embarrassing activities like bumping into lampposts, window-shopping, street-performing, survey-taking, or criminal acts. If you're not engaged in illegal activities, why would the fact of cameras bother you? Installing cameras that might help protect victims of crime, or result in the capture and prosecution of the criminals, is okay by me, even desirable. I'd feel better walking around Seattle knowing there's SOME form of monitoring going on.
No, they call it a "public" park not a private park so a camera is basically an electric cop, its no different then a police presence.
To expect "privacy" in a "public" place is ludicrous! Enough said.
NO! My question for those that are against the camers is.
What do they have to hide?
I think that camers in a public place is for our safty and not to spie on us. It scares me when I here people and organistions say that it is a violation or invation of our privacy. Why are they trying to protect someone that wants to comitte a crime? Why dont they spend there time protecting the rights of peple to fill safe and be safe in public places.
How can anyone go to a public place and expect privacy. If people want privacy, go home or to some private place. Parks are public places esblished for the enjoyment of everybody (the public). When there are activities which made the parks unsafe, then everyone cannot enjoy them. I think the cameras are a good thing in an effort to keep the parks available to the public.
Isn't "privacy" in a public area kind of an oxymoron?
I think there should be a study to find out how had they use of using cameras city-wide, as they do in London, has done for the deterrence of crime. How effective are these cameras when it comes to identifying perpetrators that commit crimes and are there enough police resources to respond to a crime when someone views it from the central monitoring station.
BW
Vancouver, Wa
Yes. The city council said "No" to these cameras and they were put up anyway. That's ridiculous. Having these cameras up is like "Big Brother". They can see for a mile or more- that means they can see far outside parks. Did no one read "1984"?
I am not doing anything wrong but I am still being watched? There is way too much opportunity for abuse of power when we allow these kind of things to happen.
It's only an invasion of privacy if you're a criminal!
If you're not committing an illegal act, you have nothing to worry about.
Cameras are not permitted in areas where there is an expectation of privacy; restrooms, hotel rooms, locker rooms etc.
A camera may even provide an alibi for an innocent party by providing photographic evidence that they were somewhere other than "the crime scene".
T D Gates
This is the 1st time I concur with Nickels fascist-like move to protect the public parks from those with criminal intent. As for ACLU and the council, stop sitting on your brains!!! They must be pro-criminals. Its a PUBLIC PARK. Don't expect privacy. Want privacy go to a private park or stay home.
The definition of PUBLIC is pretty blatant, and somehow I dont think 'privacy' is a part of it :P Public parks are for everyone, no one can expect privacy in a public park (save perhaps the restroom stall). I hope the cameras help lower criminal activity and make these parks safer. An extra bonus would be if folks would feel guilty about littering on camera and actually use the trash bins as well.
The definition of PUBLIC is pretty blatant, and somehow I dont think 'privacy' is a part of it :P Public parks are for everyone, no one can expect privacy in a public park (save perhaps the restroom stall). I hope the cameras help lower criminal activity and make these parks safer. An extra bonus would be if folks would feel guilty about littering on camera and actually use the trash bins as well.
I thought I was going to view this blog and see numerous comments about anit-cameras in public places. Happily, I was wrong! I'm with the majority...if you want privacy, STAY HOME! How can safety and security take a back seat to privacy? Let Big Brother do what he does best - WATCHING OUT! I say put it in! And when you're done, come over to Spokane/CDA area and put some in here too!
If you don't want to pay for more policemen then we need the cameras. the same people who cry "invasion of privacy" are the ones that will sue the city when something bad happens to them.
Just like the red-light runners, they don't want
to be caught doing wrong. The parks and highway
system are PUBLIC. If they aren't breaking any
laws and are minding their manners they have
nothing to worry about.
As a former Security Officer for Pike Place Market, I can tell you some stories that you would never believe. You name it folks, it happens in that area. The drug problems at the park across the street from the Market are beyond an epidemic, and the police have their hands beyond full.
Until you have seen a stabbing first hand, witnessed a shooting first hand, watched people stick needles in their arms first hand, witnessed attempted rapes first hand, witnessed fist fights first hand, and witnessed death first hand, you have no room to talk about invasion of privacy. The only options left are cameras, or the tear down of this area.
I avoid this area now, and I would feel much better knowing that there are cameras watching my family and I. I also like the thugs in this neighborhood to know that they need to smile more, as they are on camera.
When you are the victim of a crime, you will be glad to know that the incident was captured on camera. Not only that, but the chances of catching the person dramatically increase with the camera. I say yes to the camera, and yes to my privacy being invaded. I should have nothing to worry about in the first place, if I am abiding by the law.
As a former Security Officer for Pike Place Market, I can tell you some stories that you would never believe. You name it folks, it happens in that area. The drug problems at the park across the street from the Market are beyond an epidemic, and the police have their hands beyond full.
Until you have seen a stabbing first hand, witnessed a shooting first hand, watched people stick needles in their arms first hand, witnessed attempted rapes first hand, witnessed fist fights first hand, and witnessed death first hand, you have no room to talk about invasion of privacy. The only options left are cameras, or the tear down of this area.
I avoid this area now, and I would feel much better knowing that there are cameras watching my family and I. I also like the thugs in this neighborhood to know that they need to smile more, as they are on camera.
When you are the victim of a crime, you will be glad to know that the incident was captured on camera. Not only that, but the chances of catching the person dramatically increase with the camera. I say yes to the camera, and yes to my privacy being invaded. I should have nothing to worry about in the first place, if I am abiding by the law.
Finally, someone who is not afraid to do the right thing. Any law abiding citizen, especially those with families should apreciate the gift of safety that has been given. Knowing that you are safe when you go somewhere, gives you more "freedom" than not knowing at all.
What would be the difference if the police replaced the cameras. If the cameras were placed by the govnerment ( mayor, etc.), would that still be considered 'invasion of privacy' if it were an employer - would that be considered 'invasion of privacy. Business, and government entities use cameras and/or police/guards etc in all facets of our government, and businesses.
I do not consider any of this 'an invasion of privacy'. If it were my home, etc. - yes, that would be an invasion of privacy.
When I go out in the public - I go out with the expectation that someone is watching me.
MY GIRLFRIENDS ANTE LIVES UP IN SEATTLE WA. I THINK THEY COULD USE CAMRAS ON OTHER HIGH CRIME PLACES. LIKE PARKS. PUBS,INTERSECTIONS. OUT SIDE IS OUT SIDE IF YOU ARNT DOING ANAYTHING WRONG WHAT DO YOU HALF TO WORIE ABOUT!!!! THINK ABOUT IT, IT PROTECTS YOU ALSO.
I don't think it's wrong to install cameras in a public park, it helps cut down on crime and such (like someone that was interviewed on the streets said). If you're not doing anything that the police wouldn't like, then they shouldn't be a nuisance to people that aren't breaking the law.
However, the cameras are sort of an invasion of privacy because there was no warning that they were going to be installed there. A disclaimer posted somewhere at the entrance of the place would make this controversy go away.
It is true parks wont be as private, but i dont really think we need a disclaimer since parks were never supposed to be private anyway. i just hope the resolution on those camera's is better than a lot of security cam footage we see on the news where you can barely make out the race and gender of a person for all the pixelization. Just get good clear footage so any arrests or convictions can be iron clad.
In answer to the question at hand, of course not. IT'S A PUBLIC PARK, therefore, the cameras should be allowed at the solitary discrecion of the Mayor and not the whiny, mamby-pamby city council.
But the adverse reaction to them is so typical of not only the American Criminal Liberties Union, but the Democrat Party controlled Seattle city council, not to mention the Washington State Legislature.
Always quick to defend the "rights" of the minority criminal element as well as the homosexual acts that also happen with alarming frequency ALL TO THE DETRIMENT OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO WANT TO USE THE PARK FOR WHAT IT'S FOR; TO RELAX AND ENJOY THEMSELVES WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING ROBBED OR SOLICITED FOR GAY SEX!!!
(spare me the pathetic "homophobic" AND "racist" rants, as your political correctness is nothing more than empty words ringing hollow in my ears, nothing more than symbolism over substance, as is always the case with the Democrat Party)
But as usual, this latest "outcry" is just another glaring example of how the collective stupidity of the liberal, whiny, knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, Anti-American/Anti-America Democrat Party is surpassed ONLY by their mind numbing intellectual dishonesty and proving without a modicum of doubt that the Jackass is the PERFECT mascot for said Democrat Party.
The only concern I have is notification to the public regarding who is watching and why. There is a possibility of people thinking that they are safe because of the cameras when in reality, no one is even watching. The government should let people know what they are doing and why. There will still be those that oppose cameras, but if there wouldn't be this creepy "big brother" feeling when you are being recorded secretly.