Seems that it is probably less to shame and more to threaten the suspects with surveillance of their criminal activities. I don't have any particular issue with it, but I suspect civil libertarians might. (In particular, "We pretend to watch them, to scare them into thinking we really are watching them, and thus to control them without exerting effort" is called the "panopticon" in academic literature, and is widely despised by anybody who has ever said the word "panopticon".)
I consider myself a "civil libertarian," in the sense of caring about the preservation of liberty -- but I don't have a problem with this.
Well-placed targeted enforcement and surveillance are good things; without them, as people start to feel more and more threatened by crime, you start to get more demands for everpresent surveillance and UK-style CCTV. Using targeted surveillance on a case-by-case basis seems like an excellent way to head that off.
Also, I think it's good that having cameras pointed at your house still carries a strongly negative connotation. When people stop caring that they're being watched all the time, that's when you know you're heading down the road to a surveillance society.
While I don't necessarily condone it, I don't see how parking in a public place taking camera pictures of things in plain public view would actually be harassment.
Google street view mapping of public roads and views accessible from same is perfectly legal, right? (and perfectly reasonable, right?) Why would this not be legal?
Taking pictures wouldn't be illegal from a public place, similar to google's street view. Taking multiple pictures over a prolonged time could likely fall under harassment laws, depending on your state or country.
Videoing someone else's property, if done on purpose, is illegal, unless you have a valid reason for doing so. If your neighbour has 'violated the peace', IE noise disturbance (that you called the cops for) or something else but has been warned but not charged, then you can video tape someone else's property. If they're on the sexual offenders list or have a suspended sentence, or have been convicted of any crime that hasn't expired from their record. For example, your neighbour could have shoplifted, which IIRC stays on their record for 5-10 years after their punishment is served, you can legally record them (if you suspect them of other illegal activity, not because you're a pervert) until this time is spent. If you're recording them after this has expired, you're likely breaking the law and you're 100% open to a civil suit. However, if you have a neighbour you feel is dodgy, simply place a CCTV on your property to monitor a part of your property so it accidentally catches the other persons property (this has been proven legal in the UK, USA, CA, NZ and Australia, AFAIK). If you think your neighbour is doing something illegal in their back yard, but can't prove it, well you can legally video tape your back yard with a wide angle lens.
Audio recording someone else's conversation is definitely illegal; conversations are considered private, unless you're included in them. Public property is a different matter, but anywhere on private property is a crime, even if it is your private property, if the conversation doesn't include you it's still a crime.
Basically, if what you're photographing, and to some extent video taping and even less audio taping, what you could see or hear from the road if you stood there for 8 hours then that's legal. If you're purposely pointing the camera through windows, or any audio recording of their property, then you're getting yourself in a dangerous position. If your neighbour shouts and screams and can be heard on your property, that's legal to record.
Laws vary between countries, but generally if there's laws to protect you from the police doing said action, you definitely shouldn't be doing it. Also be careful, it can be illegal to photograph someone without their express permission, even on public property. I know a photographer got fined $1,000 here in Canada for photographing a girl in a bikini without asking. She told him to delete the photograph, he didn't. He was fined $1,000 by the police, and I believe she dropped civil action against him due to the police record, I think he was liable up to $25,000 in the small claims court she was taking him through.
So, personally, I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns. There's no sense putting yourself at risk for cash.
In this case, if the cops are just sat there in a surveillance van, not surveillancing anyone then it's legal. If they put it on a street with a known high crime rate, it's okay. If they put it on your street because of you, that's harassment.
In the US at least, photography on public property does not require the permission of the subject, otherwise photography in crowded tourist spots would be well nigh impossible. There are of course exceptions, such as when the subject expects privacy (even in public, upskirts are no good), when you are making a profit from your photographs (which will then require model releases), or when "national security" is involved. (ref http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm )
I've found the relevant laws regarding photography in Canada (http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php), and it seems to follow the US and UK in general. Therefore I think there are unspecified extenuating circumstances in the case of the photographer that got fined $1000.
Ever since 9/11 there has been increasing scaremongering regarding people using "professional" looking cameras, which is an erosion of rights with no real benefits.
I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns
This would restrict you to photography only within your house, with all the shades drawn. Maybe even with the TV off.
"I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns This would restrict you to photography only within your house, with all the shades drawn. Maybe even with the TV off."
I actually mistyped that sentence, sorry. What I meant was: I would only photograph something I own, or that no one owns.
I don't know how I messed that sentence up, I guess my brain flat-lined for a minute.
That doesn't make it much better. You still can't take photos in public where there are strangers, cars, or non-governmental buildings present. So pretty much it's photos inside your house, landscapes, and clouds.
That depends a lot on local laws an mores; reaction to Google Street View photos has been been far more negative in some jurisdictions than the US.
Also, to the extent focused surveillance reveals anything of interest -- times of comings and goings; activity behind windows; children's play activities -- I suspect most US jurisdictions would have a problem with 24-hour video surveillance of property you don't own.
Yea but the people were being harassed by the illegal activity first. Also the truck was an eyesore for criminals. normal people would actually like it if cops were nearby preventin' crime.
Normal people always imagine that there is no way they would ever be considered criminal enough to themselves warrant such treatment... It sounds like this is your view.
If the police considered me criminal (by mistake, vindictive, whatever) enough to park the naughty van in front of my house for a little while, and then drove it off, I think I'd recover.
The van is not a permanent fixture. It's not a scarlet letter burned into your front yard. It goes away.
you seem to think that pre-emptive "scarlet letters" are a good method of discouraging criminality..
Why not simply erect use data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior (based on age, sex, employment status, national origin, etc.) and send out the vans before the crimes can be committed!
Because "data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior ..." and a van with scary cameras meant to help an innocent person live in peace are different things.
You should really stop seeing things as black and white. It's not one or the other. We're not all with the terrorists or with Bush. You're falling prey to a common logical fallacy: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope. You base all your arguments on hypothetical what ifs.
My point is that harassment is harassment so why are you not willing to make a bold statement advocating it across the board if you think it's harmless?
Look we all have to sacrifice some liberty for security. For example, we sacrifice our right to kill others so that we cannot be killed ourselves right? It's not pure liberty, or pure security.
When a police officer points a gun at someone that is harassment right? So we have to allow the police some degree of ability to harass people and to do it with a reasonable amount of suspicion right? And there's a line determining what acceptable harassment is. Well I believe that line wasn't crossed because that lady called the police in and they acted.
And I won't advocate it across the board, because there is a point where it crosses the line and while the last example of the cop with the van in the article would probably cross the line, I think the other reasons for its use didn't.
My point is that nothing is all-or-nothing. There is a gray area and you can't make a snap decision that they were wrong simply by reading that article. You'd really have to understand their situation. But given the details in the article most of the reasoning behind its use was okay.
Is free speech a gray area to you also? What about search and seizure?
You happen to consider this one example harmless... what if they started sending out a pink police van in states where "sodomy" is illegal when someone called in a complaint?
It in fact is a gray area. We all sacrifice our right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater don't we? See, nothing is black and white. So if they did start sending out "a pink police van in states where 'sodomy' is illegal when someone called in a complaint" then that is a whole other issue. But that's not the issue of contention here.
There is a gray area and cases like the ones in the article are not the same as the case you describe above.
I don't think so. If you voluntarily choose not to yell out a false fire alarm in a crowded theater, you are not sacrificing your free speech rights any more than when you choose not to yell "boo" in the same theater. You wish to avoid the negative social consequences of the action. You still have a right to do it, though doing either one may get you kicked out of the theater.
No you sacrifice your right to yell fire. Yea you probably have no reason to, but if you did choose to yell fire, you couldn't (legally at least). As a tradeoff you expect no one else to yell fire (unless there was actually a fire). Same thing for our right to kill people. We sacrifice that too. There's also a lot of rights we sacrifice. The right to run a red light, the right to molest little children, etc. That's what laws are. They define the gray area. They define the boundary as to what's acceptable and what's not. Anarchy is absolute freedom. Wiretapping: legal or not? Well we have courts to rule that and determine if it's too much of a violation of our rights and freedoms.
Actually, after rereading the article, many of the use cases do seem like harassment. And the fact that anyone can request it does make it more like a tool for harassing.
But not all harassment is wrong. I'm just saying many of them do seem to cross the line now that I reread that, some of them may have been warranted though. I also think in those cases the cops all had good intentions. Though I've always acknowledged the potential for it to be misused (you'll see an earlier comment about that somewhere above).
Yes and we, as the people, should keep an eye out and keep a check on the government, authority. We should examine these situations and determine what crosses the line and what doesn't. But under no circumstances should anything be absolute yes or no. What you are suggesting is that those police were not smart enough? How do you know? What I'm saying is you can't really be certain that what they were doing was wrong unless you understand their position completely. You're making your decision, which is predicated on the fact that things are absolute right or wrong, based on limited information from an article.
I'm assuming all you did was read the article. Well if the world was really black and white, you could easily determine the righteousness of their actions, but the world isn't black and white. You can't assume their actions were unjustified simply because it leans a little towards that side. Just as sacrificing our right to yell fire in a crowded theater, while it means a restriction on our liberty, doesn't mean it's absolutely wrong. And like I said, i agree some of their use cases actually do seem like harassment.
What treatment? It's a scarecrow, not a killer scarecrow.
Yes it's my view in that I am not a drug dealer, it is preferable for me to have this in front of my house (granted there is a drug dealing/violent illegal activity in my neighborhood) to warrant it.
If you trust law enforcement officials to do this, then why not require far more detailed surveillance as a matter of course, in the name of preventing criminality?
Why would I want far more surveillance? I want what's enough to get those damn drug dealers out of my yard! Is that too much to ask without slipping off your slope!?!
First of all that truck was not meant as surveillance. You'll have read in the article that they used the cameras mainly as a deterrent. These cops are just trying to help. Why make it seem like they're trying to start the next totalitarian regime?
So I ask you, is there anything explicitly wrong about their limited use of cameras and a police van, without going into what it could lead to?
Yes, it's harassment. Have you ever been harassed by police? I have, and it is not fun.
I'm a typical HN reader who does not engage in any criminal behavior... yet on a few occasions I've been the victim of cops who are on a power trip. These experiences taught me that the less power police have the better.
If the cops can't do real police work and solve a crime and arrest someone, they have no business messing with anyone...
Not sure what your point is. There will always be people who want police to come in and mistreat their neighbors... and sometimes that desire may be justifiable, but that doesn't mean that the mistreatment is appropriate.
It's selective. What I meant was what kind of negative treatment to me? It's like the mosquito. That high frequency sound is annoying to teenagers. A police van is annoying to drug dealers? You think people like you smashed that cop car up? No, people that were annoyed by cop presence did that.
Nice dodging of the question! I'll ask again: if it's not some sort of "treatment", then why are the cops bragging about the effect it has?
"You think people like you smashed that cop car up?"
Do you think everyone whose home this has been parked in front of smashed that car up?
Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with? After all, they weren't "people like you".
Of course it's nothing to you - you'll never have one of those parked in front of your house. One of those won't ever go in your neighborhood, because people would lawyer up. It's all very selective, as you put it.
No, they'll stay in poor/minority neighborhoods, where people will have the choices of taking it or moving.
> Do you think everyone whose home this has been parked in front of smashed that car up?
How many people's home was this parked in front of? Do you think cops went around parking cars in front of people's homes to intimidate random people?
> Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with?
Did I say that? Did I even imply that?
You think I am one of those "sacrifice liberty for a little security people"? Don't assume that's what I'm arguing for. As far as the cases in the article mentioned, yes. It's a controversial topic and I understand a lot of people have strong emotions over it. And the action these cops took might seem like it's leaning towards the wiretapping camp but it's not. I do think they were all guilty. There was a complaint and someone called the cops to help. They did. As for their specific usage as described in the article (mostly) I think it's perfectly fine.
> No, they'll stay in poor/minority neighborhoods, where people will have the choices of taking it or moving.
Is that what happened? No. So I don't even know why you brought that up.
I know what you're talking about though. If cops decided to target minority neighborhoods simply because minorities have a higher chance of criminal activity it would be a point of contention for me too. But that's not what the cops did in the article. They answered a cry for help. They knew there was problem in the area. And yes the last thing the cop did where she parked that car in front of that house was a little iffy, assuming she wasn't sure if a drug dealer actually lived there.
"as people start to feel more and more threatened by crime"
Yes, despite crime rates in a long-term decline in the US, at least there are folks like you to push the idea that people should feel more and more "threatened" so as to accept measures like this.
Who are "civil libertarians"? People who value their civil liberties? People who are willing to do something to protect them? Whatever they are, you say you're not one. Interesting.
I think the label suggests that they self-identify about it in an obnoxious way. Kind of like how "card-carrying member of the ACLU" is sometimes used as an insult, even though everyone wants their own civil liberties defended.
Exactly. And I find it lazy to use such loaded terms to denigrate an argument one doesn't agree with instead of confronting its (lack of) merits. Obnoxious != wrong.
Actually, I find it strange that the initial commenter only suspects that "civil libertarians" might have a problem with the surveillance that s/he thinks is fine. The sentence seems to me a gratuitous pot shot at people who might think of themselves as "civil libertarians". Why?
Because parking an armored camera-truck in front of the place darker-skinned people not accused of any crime live doesn't involve the "civil liberties" a lot of HN commentors care about.
It's not about DRM, the GPL, when stuff goes out of copyright, or whether whitehouse.gov uses tracking cookies - the "big stuff". It's just some people, somewhere, seeing a big-ass police vehicle parked in front of their home with cameras pointed directly at them. To a lot of HN folks, that doesn't seem terribly important; after all, they're probably drug dealers - at least, the police say so!
While posting another reply, I just saw that the abortion-stance euphemisms make the same appropriate analogy here as the analogy you chose.
People who value life are pro-life in the same sense that people who value choice are pro-choice in the same sense that people who value civil liberties are civil libertarians in the same sense that people who value women are feminists.
There's no intention of answering it, just demonizing "civil libertarians" - i.e., anyone who disagrees with him and thinks this violates civil liberties - in order to pretend to have the high ground.
There's a difference between all-else-equal and uber-alles when it comes to a positive thing. This is why the abortion debate has cute euphemisms that are both pro-something-the-other-side-is-also-in-favor-of.
My college roommate's dad worked with microfinance companies in India. Every month, a representative from the company would go from town to town collecting monthly payments from the borrowers.
Sometimes the borrower would claim that they could not pay. In that case, the collector was instructed to just sit down and wait for them to pay. The shame of having the collector sitting in their village was overwhelming, and payments were usually made within the hour.
A lot of people try to get away with bad stuff because nobody they know is watching. I'm glad that there are no Anonymous Cowards on HN. It's always interesting to see how differently people behave when their peers' focus is turned on them.
That doesn't just work with debters, I've done it to electronics retailers who've jerked me around. I was told my phone had water damage when it was in fact over heating, and then they somehow managed to lose it when I asked for it to be returned. I sat in the phone store for about 3 hours watching the guy, and the store front was about 20sqft with a bench. I got a brand new replacement phone out of that one.
I've also sat on the line with my cell phone operator for near an hour because they wiped my credit early. I got a full refund and they extended my top-up time by two weeks.
People willingly stress themselves out, staying relaxed and using this to your advantage can help you anywhere.
A thoughtless person might think there's a difference between being harmlessly stubborn with someone who owes you money and the cops parking a brightly marked armored vehicle in front of someone's house because of supposed offenses.
Yeah, if there are reports of criminal activities the cops should stay away and not look at what's going on, dam those meddling cops stopping criminals from doing their deals. </sarcasm>
Presumably you'd like patroling officers to be fitted with blindfolds to avoid them surveilling people from the street?
The problem is that this is designed specifically for when police don't want to do their job. They believe the people are "bad" and engaged in undesirable activity, but they can't be bothered to investigate and gather evidence of criminal activity. Instead, they want to make their lives miserable, on the principle that the threat of surveillance bothers the guilty, but not the innocent. And any sweet old lady can tag someone as a "bad element" who needs to be driven out of town.
If that's what we want, then we don't need police in the first place. We just need close-knit communities where good old boys are eager to enforce the nervous prejudices of the community using violence and intimidation.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a quiet, boring person who detests littering. I wouldn't be a target for this kind of operation. But we already know the hazards of this kind of justice. We've been there, done that, and moved on.
I wouldn't say that it's designed for when police don't want to do their job. There are many communities where there aren't enough police to do a good job. Using techniques like this seems like it would allow them to use actual humans where they're more needed.
The cases cited in the article were of neighbors asking the police to somehow combat the unruly elements in their communities. It seems like you're under the impression that this is a matter of "nervous prejudices" running wild, like some Salem witch trials scenario. But what would you, personally, think would be the best course of action if one of your neighbors (not you yourself) was a drug dealer whose activities were a constant nuisance, if not a threat to your well being? What would have the police do if they had tried every other tactic at their disposal? I don't know if you have children, but if you did - would you just stoically endure, put them in danger, on the basis that a technique which works might one day be abused?
I know it's lame to say "think of the children!", but when you're talking about drug dealers and the kind of trouble they bring I think it's appropriate. In high school I worked with a lot of kids from bad neighborhoods and saw the effects of living in an unstable environment. If something like this helps out kids like them, I'm all for it.
As far as I'm concerned, nobody is a drug dealer until the police have caught them dealing drugs. Gossip is not a good way to determine who the good guys and bad guys are. In the cases described, what's freaking people out is their neighbors being noisy and dirty and keeping odd hours. These are class and cultural differences which, I will admit, are really annoying and (I assume) strongly associated with criminal activity, but people should be held responsible for behavior that is observed and documented, not serious criminal behavior that is statistically inferred from violations of decorum. You can easily make a neighborhood more pleasant and secure by running out all the poor people, or all the black people, or all the straight people. Or the Irish. That's stereotyping. (It works, bitches! But it's wrong.)
You want to raise the tenor of the neighborhood, broken-windows style? Then use existing laws or HOA rules about trash and noise. Pass new and draconian ones if necessary. Go wild! But the police shouldn't hold people responsible for their neighbors' assumptions about them. We're supposed to be a liberal society, in the classic sense of the word. If you want to treat someone as a drug dealer, catch them dealing drugs.
If a community is splitting into two factions, the ideal would be for them to geographically separate. If a few people look down on the whole rest of the group, the few should go find a like-minded group. Obviously, "just moving" isn't as easy as one would like, but the benefit is opting into the homogeneity that some want.
If you don't like the behavior of some others, you can tolerate it, leave, or attempt to make them choose to change or leave. Communities should be small and should be allowed to have stupid rules as long as they're all willing to follow and enforce them. There just needs to be a place to go for those who don't like the rules, and going to that place needs to not be too inconvenient.
We need close-knit communities where good old boys are eager to enforce the nervous prejudices of the community using violence and intimidation anyway. We just need lots of such communities, with very varied nervous prejudices, including the occasional such community with a nervous prejudice against the situation I'm describing (an escape hatch within the system)
I was saying that a small community whose favorite prejudice is that against prejudice would make a safe harbor in case one can't otherwise find a community of likeminded individuals.
In the article, the police claimed to have tried all other methods of 'traditional' policing before resorting to the truck:
"In the summer of 2006, police were brainstorming ways to rattle a suspected drug dealer. They had exhausted traditional strategies, including undercover operations, and were left empty-handed and frustrated. They decided to park a retired police car in front of the suspect's house."
I don't see what's wrong with asking the police to help protect your house from vandalism, even if you are on vacation. The kind of behavior this old lady's kids were engaged in was illegal, and the police helped solve the problem in a cost-effective way. Where's the problem?
The problem is that it went from extreme no-other-solution necessity to a more mundane use. In other words we get too comfortable with it and pretty soon they could be monitoring everyone. It's not a slippery slope. It's just natural progression.
Because the police are going to find hours of footage of the front of a house exciting? Hey look in this one he comes out with the trash. Wow, here he's cleaning the front yard - bet we can sell this to Hollywood.
Technically speaking, the residence is being accused of an infraction, not a crime. It's akin to a parking ticket.
As I've noted in my earlier comment, the "jig" is up with this procedure the minute the infraction is fought in court and a single precedent is established in case law.
Which is why they'd never use it anywhere they'd expect the targets to have a reaction beyond helpless apprehension at the cops parking in front of their house - ie, no white suburbs.
Yes, I wouldn't want to live in a surveillance society either, however, that may be preferable to rampant crime -- especially if it's the crime where you fear for your safety. At that point, though, moving is probably the better alternative.
Perhaps public surveillance needs to be conducted like a search warrant and subject to public discussion. It should automatically expire after a certain amount of time.
Also, the evidence can only be used for intended purposes. Police should not be allowed to spy on people indiscriminately.
They can arrest you before you've even THOUGHT of committing a crime.
Not as a 'civil libitarian' but as an ordinary human I find this disturbing.
I don't know how you solve the problem of these mostly 'low level' criminal activities, but maybe they should park those trucks on the doorstep of some major international banks. Isn't this where the real harm to society is being done?
Judging by the comments here, a lot of HN commentors would welcome surveillance, especially if targeted at poor, minority neighborhoods.
The kindest thing I can think to say is that when the cops get the address wrong, they only intimidate the Hell out of the people inside and maybe scare them into moving, as opposed to the usual practice of smashing down their doors, assaulting them, and sometimes shooting them.
Considering the ridiculously flimsy pretenses narcotics officers can use to get warrants to raid homes, the fact that police would resort to something like this when they can't justify arresting someone should be a waving, neon-red flag.
"They can arrest you before you've even THOUGHT of committing a crime."
You arrest (halt people from continuing in their normal activity) in order to determine if a crime has been committed or to determine if the person halted is prima facie guilty and accessory or privy to information about a known crime.
It's almost a truism that the police should arrest those who are not able to be proven guilty or are not guilty of any crime.
When I've been stopped, yes it makes me nervous, but it also affirms to me that the police are actually taking part in tracing criminals and attempting to reduce crime.
Government CCTVs everywhere, now! Deterrence, hooray!
The Armadillo is somehow less offensive as its range is lower and it operates in a lower density area. On the flip side, the SkyTowers don't target anyone whereas the Armadillo is very targeted. Is it fair to publicly shame a person or group of people for a crime they are still presumed innocent of? What about mistakes? What about the police chief's daughter's boyfriend?
It's a nice niche solution for non-violent "nuisance" issues, but it will only scale to the point where the cost of temporary criminal activity shutdown and/or location movement is less than the risk/cost of dirt-cheap anti-materiel sabotage actions against the truck. A very, very low bar to hurtle.
Examples: Thermite + Firecracker Ignition against an axle, Short-range "spray painting" of camera portals w/ heat-set epoxy, Long-range shooting of camera portals with suppressed sub-sonic ammo or high-powered air rifles.
Additionally, the very minute a reasonably well-educated/funded home-owner brings a case against the "nuisance" claim to court, any further use of the truck would be limited to the local municipality's statutory limits on mere infractions (non-crimes)--typically no more than 24 hours.
To enable the truck to loiter any longer, the local prosecutor would have to file formal criminal charges and declare the particular residence a "crime zone".
