The city of Lexington has filed suit against a man who filed a request to find out what city installed security cameras were being used for.

 

City of Lexington sues activist to stop release of info about its video surveillance program | Lexington Herald Leader

Captain Obvious says, "They were installed to monitor the area surrounding the cameras."

 

Seriously what does he want to know? They evidently were put up in an area where there was a need for monitoring due to crime, accidents or activity of another manner. They may be there to record license plates going into and out of a high crime area. Not sure exactly what the issue with them would be unless they were intruding into private areas.

There’s always crazy people who believe in conspiracies.

Captain Obvious says, "They were installed to monitor the area surrounding the cameras."

 

Seriously what does he want to know? They evidently were put up in an area where there was a need for monitoring due to crime, accidents or activity of another manner. They may be there to record license plates going into and out of a high crime area. Not sure exactly what the issue with them would be unless they were intruding into private areas.

 

What if they were only installed in parts of town inhabited predominantly by minorities? would that be considered profiling?Or on the other hand, what if they are only installed in very affluent parts of town? Would that show favoritism? If the answer is as simple as what you said why not just release the information? The Attorney General told them to.

What if they were only installed in parts of town inhabited predominantly by minorities? would that be considered profiling?Or on the other hand, what if they are only installed in very affluent parts of town? Would that show favoritism? If the answer is as simple as what you said why not just release the information? The Attorney General told them to.

 

May be part of an ongoing investigation or something to do with Homeland Security as they stated was a possible reason not to reveal the nature of the camera.

 

I think this is much to do about nothing...put cameras everywhere!!! If that's not realistic put them where the crime is or at areas heavily traveled by criminals. Then if something happens go back to the video and see who was there then.

There’s always crazy people who believe in conspiracies.

 

Heres a good one for this.

 

[video=youtube;6YaxqD7E-HE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=6YaxqD7E-HE

May be part of an ongoing investigation or something to do with Homeland Security as they stated was a possible reason not to reveal the nature of the camera.

 

I think this is much to do about nothing...put cameras everywhere!!! If that's not realistic put them where the crime is or at areas heavily traveled by criminals. Then if something happens go back to the video and see who was there then.

 

Boy, do I have a book that you would absolutely love! That is a slippery slope right there.

Boy, do I have a book that you would absolutely love! That is a slippery slope right there.

 

I've already read it :lol2:

 

I'm not talking about evasive surveillance, I'm talking about cameras on the streets and in public areas that are crime ridden or where heavy numbers of people congragate.

 

In my career I know that once my company got serious about having cameras it was a great resource. Kidnappings, thefts, civil suits and even murders have been solved or settled due to having cameras in place and available for review.

I've already read it :lol2:

 

I'm not talking about evasive surveillance, I'm talking about cameras on the streets and in public areas that are crime ridden or where heavy numbers of people congragate.

 

In my career I know that once my company got serious about having cameras it was a great resource. Kidnappings, thefts, civil suits and even murders have been solved or settled due to having cameras in place and available for review.

 

I understand your point, and I don't disagree on the facts necessarily. More surveillance would almost certainly decrease crime in that area, but I stand by my belief that it is a slippery slope that makes me personally feel uneasy. I don't know what you do for a living, but I assume it's a privately owned company and not a government agency and if that's the case I absolutely support the use of cameras by private businesses. Once the government gets involved though it's a whole new beast. To paraphrase and use for my own personal agenda an already frequently bastardized Ben Franklin quote, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".

I understand your point, and I don't disagree on the facts necessarily. More surveillance would almost certainly decrease crime in that area, but I stand by my belief that it is a slippery slope that makes me personally feel uneasy. I don't know what you do for a living, but I assume it's a privately owned company and not a government agency and if that's the case I absolutely support the use of cameras by private businesses. Once the government gets involved though it's a whole new beast. To paraphrase and use for my own personal agenda an already frequently bastardized Ben Franklin quote, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".

 

I understand your thinking, but what if instead of a camera on every corner they placed a human monitor or police officer? No one would really have an issue with that would they?

 

I'm not sure what liberty or freedom is lost if public places are monitored by cameras.

I understand your thinking, but what if instead of a camera on every corner they placed a human monitor or police officer? No one would really have an issue with that would they?

 

I'm not sure what liberty or freedom is lost if public places are monitored by cameras.

 

Hmm that is an interesting point, and one that I would have to think on for a little bit before forming an opinion. My initial gut response is that there is a difference, but I can't immediately formulate why.

One of the places the cameras are located per the article is the Berry Hill Skatepark. I can think of plenty of good reasons to have cameras somewhere like that, but can't think of a single negative reason. Visible cameras (as well as the signs) would deter would be kidnappers, sexual predators, as well as drug users who like to throw their syringes on the ground in public parks after they shoot up.

 

Here in Ashland I really wish I wish they would install cameras in Central Park, which is a large park in the downtown area of Ashland. Due to it's center city location there are a lot of undesirables that pass through the park daily, some to use it as a place to shoot up leaving their needles behind, some are sexual predators, etc. There have been people raped in the park in recent years, stabbed, robbed, not to mention I can't remember the last time I was there and didn't have to dispose of someone's used syringe at the bathrooms near the kids playgrounds. Camera's in public parks are a great idea, IMO.

From the Article:

 

“One of the fundamental principles of our government is transparency. The public has a right to know the actions of government officials and disseminate that information to others,” said Heather Gatnarek, an attorney for the ACLU of Kentucky.” City officials appear to be shirking their responsibility to provide records they are obligated to provide by law, simply because they don’t want the public to have access to them.”

This is an interesting element to 'bounds test' - using a mathematical term.

 

Now I do not think these cameras were installed for any purpose than help solve potential crimes that are in public view.

 

But when some say 'cameras everywhere' by our supposedly benefactor government - is there a limit? Where is that limit? Who decides where that limit is? What if they put a camera pointed at your front door on the telephone pole outside your house - just your front door? What they put a camera on a pole and point it at the window of your daughter's bedroom?

 

Wouldn't you want to know the justification for such camera's? Maybe there is. Maybe they think your daughter is a king pin drug dealer and this is all justified. Or maybe the guy who controls where cameras go is a creep. Sunshine on the rationalization of the government action would answer that.

 

This guy seems to be asking simply for the rationalization of the monitoring. It seems it should be as simple as - to assist with crimes committed in the covered areas or nearby areas. But instead, the city has 'lawyered up' and sued on its response to what seems to be a simple request.

I don't know if the government can do it or not, but I know of several businesses who have cameras mounted around the store/facility...but they don't work! Sure maybe one or two of them do, but not all of them. They are operating under the assumption that if you believe there's a likelihood of being caught on camera, you're not going to do anything. So, they put up dummy cameras, and post signs saying that this area is monitored by surveillance...and nobody knows the difference.

 

Could it be that the government has put up dummy cameras strictly as a deterrent? And by divulging this fact, loses that element?