home

Big Brother Comes to Watts

Richard Martin predicts that the erosion of privacy won't concern the residents of the crime-ridden Jordan Downs housing project in Watts. He may be right: many are willing to trade their civil liberties for a sense of security. And the limited intrusiveness of "seven cameras strategically mounted around the project and linked to a multi-screen command center inside the LAPD's Southeast Substation" promotes less anguish than sneak-and-peek searches or national security letters, which (unlike a camera) can't be avoided by retreating to a private place.

It should nonetheless make us uncomfortable to know that the government is recording our public movements. This is particularly true when the surveillance cameras target areas in which poor and nonwhite individuals are concentrated. The proliferation of video surveillance threatens to erode civil liberties while making a dubious contribution to public safety -- even if the cameras make Jordan Downs' residents feel better.

< Neb. Considers Constitutionality of Electrocution | Edwards Supports Reid-Feingold >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    next thing you know (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jen M on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:48:27 AM EST
    the cameras will yell at you too.

    Perhaps the (none / 0) (#2)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:11:21 AM EST
    city should encourage those concerned about their personal security to legally purchase a firearm with which to protect themselves, exercising their consitituionally protected rights.  I realize it may take gov't out of the picture and allow people to make indivudial decisions about their lives....  No, nevermind, it'll never fly.  

    To Shoot the Cameras? (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    yup (none / 0) (#5)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:38:06 PM EST
    and also to protect themselves so the gov't does not have to feel it has to install cameras to watch people.  But I guess the best solution is to deny individual rights and then gripe when the gov't steps in.  

    Parent
    Wile (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    one thing about people when they're desperatly poor is that that "legally purchased firearm" becomes a very expendable commodity when times get really tough, and then, before you know it, it's in the hands of the highest bidder.

    And, your soloution to that problem is even more legally-purchased-firearms, I suppose?

    Sorry for the o.t.

    you (none / 0) (#6)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:38:32 PM EST
    are right, leave it to the gov't cameras.  Much easier.  

    Parent
    As if.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:49:03 PM EST
    the cameras are about protecting the residents of Watts...thats a laugher.  The cameras are about arresting the residents of Watts.  A camera can't stop a violent crime from happening, only record it.

    If anything, the cameras only make the cops safer...instead of actually having to mingle with the community they are assigned to police, they can do it while sitting safely in front of a pc in a bunker.  A cop walking the beat at least has a chance of preventing a violent crime, though it puts the cop at risk.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for more cops on the street, there are already too many where I live.  But I'd rather deal with a cop on the beat watching my movements than an unblinking camera.