Eau Claire police considering surveillance cameras?

Paranoia = liberty.

Ronin, read this article, it accurately lists what's going on in the U.K. and why I'm so "paranoid".

Romin, Are we paranoid when we desire to live unfettered by governmental oversight?

My freedom is your paranoia. This is where we've allowed ourselves to be taken by the wide swinging pendulum of governmental "oversight".

Sorry, I think you are all paraniod. Oh, Pookums, I wasn't putting words in "your fingers", I was looking for where you draw the line on public and private, or acceptable and unacceptable. They were questions, henseforth the question marks at the end of them.....

Toddy said:
Pookums, we are amazingly simpatico here. You are sounding more libertarian all the time.

Well, I do lean towards the lower-Left of the Political Compass chart. ;-)

Pookums, we are amazingly simpatico here. You are sounding more libertarian all the time.

Ronin said:
So Pookums, how is it any more of a "violation" of our rights, if the same cops that would be(and already are) patroling the street are watching the monitors?

I'll try to put it simply. It's not really legal for the police to follow you around, watching everything you do, without probable cause. This is what I equate ubiquitous police surveillance to. If I private citizen were to do that, it would be cause for harassment charges and possibly, a burst lip.

Are you saying that store security cameras are a violation of rights?

Stop putting words into my fingers. (Get it? You're typing stuff I didn't type! Ha. ha. ha.)

Seriously though, uh, no, this isn't what I'm saying. Stores aren't considered "public space". Duh.

How about traffic cameras to catch people running red lights? You are in public, and anyone can see you, how can you call it an invasion of privacy???

I didn't say anything about traffic cameras as traffic cameras are only supposed to be triggered when a crime is committed, e.g., running a red light. Interestingly, more and more municipalities are getting rid of those things as well because, well, they suck and they don't work and again, there are privacy issues involved.

Here in these beautiful United State, we have what's called a reasonable expectation of privacy. This means, basically, that we co go about our business with the expectation that people will bugger off and not monitor our actions without a court order. The simple-mided belief that this sort of surveillance is justified and acceptable because it'll help stop vandalism and other sorts of petty crime is reprehensible at the very least.

I tell you what, let me know where you live so I can set up a camera across the street to monitor your comings and goings. I mean, if you're not doing anything illegal, what do you have to fear, right? It's a public space, right?

Twelve states have already outlawed these cash cows. Numerous studies have shown them to have no impact on crime prevention. The State of Texas law is considered the clearest and most readable. Another money grab by our ever-enlarging governmental bureaucracy.

SciFi ... We could deter crimes before they exist/// Whoa >> Someone has been watching Tom Cruise movies??? ............
If there was a real need, if we were a real crime area, if we could offset costs by eliminating some patrol, if we actually had crime to watch.... rather than a few adolescent drunks acting up.... Don't banks have those cameras??? They don't seem to be detering much there these days. .... Maybe we could put the videos on YouTube ... that would be a less expensive deterent.

So Pookums, how is it any more of a "violation" of our rights, if the same cops that would be(and already are) patroling the street are watching the monitors? Are you saying that store security cameras are a violation of rights? How about traffic cameras to catch people running red lights? You are in public, and anyone can see you, how can you call it an invasion of privacy???
To me, I think it will help with the vandalism and property damage, since they will have a face to put with the crime. It might even keep the court fees down, since the person will know they are on camera, and have no chance to fight it.

Pookums,

At first I thought your statement was kind of misleading. But, I did a quick google search and I think other people should check this page out:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/police-camera-crime.htm

So, would a camera prevent violent crime with drunks? These studies also said the cost was in the millions - would the $60,000 price tag for ECPD be worth it, since it's considerably lower?

And an even better question: how is this integrated in to the ECPD's on-the-ground patrols?

Funny story: When I was in high school, they installed cameras in the cafeteria that would beam images/video out to squad cars in the area. They actually would catch people stealing food this way. So that guy stealing the $3 french fries almost made up for the price of the cameras, I'm sure...

Yep. Too much Twilight fan fiction.

Yeah, great idea. It's a pretty well known fact that these sorts of cameras don't do shit to deter crime and only serve to violate the rights of everyone in public spaces. Why not have a couple of cops walk the beat like they used to? You know, those same fatasses that'll be monitoring the television screens?

Maybe it was harder to find because they did the story a couple weeks ago...

http://www.wqow.com/Global/story.asp?S=11459658

You asked where the coverage is: The Leader-Telegram was way over that story three weeks ago:
http://shar.es/azIug

Just put a camera outside the Pickle and Shenans. That's really all you need.

Also, keep in mind the potential that it may make court cases go a lot quicker, which has the potential to cut costs over time.

$60,000??? Why not just hire a cop and give him a horse to patrol up and down the street, it would cost less and look way cooler. Also, what will all the cops that just park their cars and sit on Water Street do?

If they go ahead with this, they should make it budget neutral (or better yet, positive) by laying off $60,000+ worth of policeman.

I feel over-policed already, but at least cameras aren't officious, self-righteous busybodies.

Assuming drunk people are causing all the crime on water street ... I really don't think a drunk person cares about cameras. So, as a deterrent, cameras won't be helping at all. Wow, $60,000?

Seriously, I don't know what people are whining about. They are already under surveillance pretty much wherever they go. We all sold our freedom and souls to Big Brother years ago. Our only advantage is that the government is usually too incompetent and bureaucratic to prosecute everyone.

Why not put up fake cameras with battery-operating blinking lights, and let the "criminals" wonder whether they're being monitored, at a cost of, oh, maybe $300?

Or permanent signs indicating monitoring?

Why not PATROL the area more if they're being called there so much? Would a regular weekend-night drive-by cost that much, since they're getting called to the area anyway? How 'bout a foot officer?

Ah! Thanks! I knew there had t be coverage somewhere. WEAU has much cooler tattoo artist quotations. And! They quote Matysik about cameras in downtown EC.

WEAU and WQOW ran stories. Here is a link to WEAU because it's easier to link to. Hear that WQOW, easier to link to....

http://www.weau.com/news/headlines/70338882.html