Public Opinion

In September 1999, without the Surveillance Camera Players (SCP) knowing anything about it, a Web site called The Third Age caught wind of the group's existence, and created a discussion board for people to give their opinions. The discussion was premised on this introduction:

Speak Out: Do You Like Big Brother Watching?

Is Big Brother really watching? A group of New York City activists thinks so and is challenging the use of surveillance cameras. They say the peeping machines are an attempt at social control, but police say it's just a way to fight crime.

Members of the Surveillance Camera Players, formed three years ago to bring attention to the proliferation of surveillance cameras watching public spaces in the Big Apple, travel around subway platforms, parks and street corners with signs warning people they're being watched by the more than 2,300 surveillance cameras strategically placed around the City.

The police contend the cameras are necessary to help fight crime, corruption and drug-trafficking and have focused their lenses in airports, bus terminals, housing projects and other public gathering spots. Authorities claim people have no right to privacy in a public place.

But the anti-surveillance group says tracking of your every move makes you a captive in an open-air prison and violates your right to anonymity.

What's your opinion?

Are surveillance cameras needed as a crime-fighting tool -- or is law enforcement violating privacy rights by watching your every move?

Speak Out and voice your opinion in the box below.

Of course, it isn't true that "Authorities claim people have no right to privacy in a public place." As we mentioned in our Statement to the Lawyers, several courts -- including the United States Supreme Court -- have affirmed that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, even in public places. Nevertheless, this was a good enough introduction to get a very lively discussion going.

On 29 September 1999, nearly a 100 people posted comments. A very broad range of opinions were expressed. Below we present our favorite comments, divided into three categories. Typos, spelling mistakes, etc. have not been corrected. Though we have inserted [?!] and other editorial remarks, we have tried to be sparing with them.

PaPenguin on 9/29/99: I don't mind the camera so much, but this bar code on the back of my neck is starting to bother me.

Larry Friend on 9/29/99: Too much Big Brother, ban the cameras.

SUSAN on 9/30/99: I THINK THEY ARE GETTING CARRIED AWAY WITH THESE CAMERS, THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME LAWS TO CONTROL THIS PROBLEM''''''

Sentry on 9/30/99: Those of you who say "If I / you have nothing to hide,then you have nothing to fear" concerning the increased use of surveilance cameras in public places show a pathetic and frightening ignorance. The issue is not about having something to hide. It is about having something to protect and defend! After our nation has spent untold fortunes and the blood of millions in the name of freedom, it is shallow sheep like yourselves that are allowing much of that freedom to be continually eroded. I don't care if the courts and legislatures say that it is technically legal to have this sort of thing, or if 99.99% of the sheep say it is okay with them. This is a mockery of the progressive view of civil liberty and is a terrible and dangerous public policy. While embracing this sort of nonsense to supposedly control crime, you stand by in ignorance while the soul of liberty is being stripped of its vitality. Since you dimwits are all so fond of pithy one-liners, here is another. At least this one is more on point:"Those who would sacrifice Liberty for the sake of Order will eventually have neither." You have nothing to fear, nothing to hide? Fine, sheepbrain. Give up your freedom. But please be courteous enough not to give up mine as well. Those of us who resent and resist this slow-motion encroachment are not criminals. We are patriots who recognize the wolf in shepherd's clothing.

juniornet@home.net on 9/30/99: I think the use of cameras in public is wrong for the reason of search and seizure laws. It is no different then having big bother use the cameras on private property! This is the reason the search and seizure laws were made. I however think that if the police force use the spy cameras for fighting crime, they need to show proper reason in court for the intent! Just like in a search warrant! However no matter what laws are made to protect public right to privacy, there are allways those that are willing to defy those laws, remember Watergate!

Leslee Morabito on 9/30/99: I agree with the anti-surveillance group and feel there is far too much legal spying going on .. and that is what all the surveillance cameras amount to; spying. All citizens are being unduly restricted (by loss of their privacy and individual rights) because of the fear of a crime being committed. I have not yet heard that crime has been eliminated on the streets of NYC - or anywhere else in the world with or without cameras. In my opinion, they (cameras) are not justified. All police states begin with 'protection'. A lesson hard learned in many places in this world. Balance between law enforcement and illegal (and immoral) 'protection' must be maintained. Cameras throw this delicate balance off.

Peter Goldstein on 9/29/99: The proliferation of these cameras has become scary. I think they should be limited to areas of proven need and only used with judicial permission like a search warrant, or wire-tap.

~Clint~ on 9/29/99: Even in public, an individual has a right to a certain amount of privacy. What would you think if you're having a conversation while walking in a public area and somebody shoved a microphone in your face? I would think it a gross violation of privacy. I think the cameras are intolerable.

DrLeePC on 9/29/99: Big Brother is watching... They don't need to and their doing so will not improve any of our lives, BUT it will allow them to increase the governments positive cash flow. Even though that is not their explained usage for the cameras when they install them, but it's only a very short time before they begin to use them to determine that some poor soul has violated on of their intrusive rules and issue the violator a citation... And it also makes it so the lazy government doesn't actually have to have a face off with us when they cite us. I might add that it doesn't matter if we don't approve of them, they will still be involved because the government doesn't cara a whit about what we the citizen/taxpayers want.

Barbara on 9/29/99: Get rid of the cameras. This is not the way to prosicute the criminals by invading the privacy of honest people.

Don Gardner on 9/29/99: This is only the first step, all freedoms are lost in small incremental steps. The Democrats [note: The Mayor of New York City is a Republican] are good at this, they will pick and pick at our nation until it's the same as a banana republic! The freedom of our forefathers is so open as to be on the edge of anarchy, the controlling factor is the restrictions that the person places on his own behavior and that is as it should be if we are to be free. When you have people with no principles and low morals that don't restrict their behavior, their neighbors should intervene, they should be ostrasized for the overall good. Currently their neighbors are so often cut from the same cloth and so you get government voyeur cameras everywhere! The next step is cameras in your homes! Wake up America!

Erich VanSpanje on 9/29/99: I am in doubt about the practice of surveillance cameras. Although Europe (UK in particular) has been doing it to prevent crime, I am worried that it will be abused in the US, especially in NYC. The antics of the NYPD do not instill confidence, even if it is only a small group in the NYPD that can't be trusted. As a matter of fact even the FBI is now questionable (remember the Waco incident?)Because of my scepticism of the judicial institution I will be harassed by the NSA, an agency that is intercepting almost every message. But, *!@?$^%

jamie ferguson on 9/29/99: The only person I want to watch over me is Jesus I can handle the rest of it I don't need a protection racket to keep me and my family safe.

A . Dependent Liberal on 9/29/99: I appreciate that "Big Brother" has the compassion to watch over me, nourish me (both physically and spiritually), and catch me doing wrong so that I can remake myself in Big Brother's image. But I especially want Big Brother to watch YOU.

Patrick Henry on 9/29/99: Faces on snooping cameras are converted into digital code and processed by computer. All such technology is justified as "good gov't reasons" to catch criminals. Guess who's the criminal? Politicians and statist police love to criminalize what was once considered ordinary behavior. It gives them the right to go after anyone they choose. It comes in handy TO CONTROL DISSENT. Get it? Get it?

Thinking Clearly on 9/29/99: Wildflower - I and my father have both been mugged and would not wish it on anybody, but I do not want it to be the government next time. If it were just your freedom that you are giving away, it would be your right, but it is not. It is my freedom, my privacy and my rights that you are giving away with yours. How dare you make that decission for me! More over, your position reminds me of the most useful advice ever given to me - "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." While that seems trite, Red China, Soviet Russia, and Nazi Germany were all founded with the good of their citizens in mind. And before you say "But we're different we want to help people", understand they said the same thing. At no time in history has destroying the freedom of the people ever served them well for any length of time. Burgess and Orwell both warned us to watch for the thin end of the wedge, but many of us seem to be embracing it, and in some cases asking for more.

Highrocky on 9/29/99: It never ceases to amaze me how normally intellengent people have bought into this folk story about how society has gone to hell over the past few years. Obliviously, they were not paying attention in history class. There never was a wonderful place way back in the misty past. I do not want the government watching and monitoring every thing I do or say. If this is the society you want, then go find someone who has lived in Eastern Germany or Poland or one of the Baltic Countries before you say we need more surveilance in this country. Until you have seen it or lived it be careful of what you wish for. I believe in what the New Hampshire license plate says: Live Free Or Die.

Penelope on 9/29/99: Surveillance cameras are ok for crime fighting, but the problem is that peeping toms also use these techniques to spy on innocent citizens who have no criminal history. Incidents of cameras installed to spy on women in their bedrooms or baths are not uncommon. And in many states there are no laws against cameras, only voice recording devices. Employees are routinely watched by employers through voice mail and e-mail monitoring. So anti-surveillance groups are actually somewhat behind the curve in terms of who's spying on whom. I agree with their premise that everyone is entitled to anonymity, but we have already lost it to a significant degree.

Supergrandma on 9/29/99: Orwell's "1984" is alive and thriving in 1999 USA. So many immigrants came to this country to escape just this type of surveillance in their own countries. Ah, yes, we need the cameras to "fight crime". What's next, cameras in our privately owned vehicles and in our homes? Surely, we citizens must be committing some sort of crime in the privacy of our cars and in our homes. I wonder how much further we must slide down "the slippery slope of communism/socialism" [?!] before this country wakes and realizes how many of our precious freedoms we have lost.

Pissed in FLA on 9/29/99: I believe it is an invasion of your privacy, whether you are in a public area or not. They want to act as if that is the only place they will snoop. Well, not exactly true... There is a case here in Fla where the court allowed the police to bug someone's "BEDROOM"... I do not care what the case, that is not right!!! Let alone, HOW DID THEY GET IT THERE? The public camera's are only one part of our imprisonment. They already can scan your phone calls, everything you do on the net, buying habits from credit cards, and whatever else they decide. Nothing is protected or private these days. They call this the "Information Age", well they can have all the info on you they want and there is nothing you can do as long as we stay under the governmental system we are under. . . .

Rosanne M. Newark, NJ on 9/29/99: . . . . The surveillance mania going on now makes me believe that we are only seconds away from becoming a police state. I don't like it one bit and in fact, I'm ready to participate in any legal movement against surveillance or other issues involving violations of my liberty, should those opportunties miraculously arrive. I expect more and more crime and other violent outbursts by the general population as many will begin to react and/or rebel when the reality reaches home to them. This type of omnipresence and the stress it causes, to feel and/or know one is "being watched" all the time, I pity us all. Lately, I've found that I cannot rid myself of thinking of that I am being watched at all times once I leave my own home -- how far is my imagination from the truth? Electronic answers to human dilemmas i.e. crime, do not compute; a shere waste of money and avoidance of real issues, as usual; but what did I expect from this country whose schools raised me to believe we enjoyed democracy, when in fact, it is a Republic. Shame on America.

Susan at stroilo@webtv.net on 9/29/99: I believe its wrong. It is a predatory practice. By justifying this as a means of preventing crime they are presuming that all are guilty until proven innocent. I would like to know the cost effectiveness of this program. How much crime is prevented? What are the crimes? Can this be done in a less intrusive manner? I would think the First Amendment could cover the rights of the people in arguing for the abolishment of this. The potential for abuse is enormous and the government does not have a very good record regarding prevention of abuse.

THOMAS WAYNE BELL on 9/29/99: AS SNOOPEY AS THE US GOVERNMENT IS THEY WILL EVENTUALLY CAUSE A WAR BETWEEN CITIZENS AND THE FEDERAL GOV. THEY CAN GET BY AND DO ANYTHING THEY WANT TO, BUT THE CITIZEN WILL GO TO JAIL, THE PRESIDENT IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF I CAN DO WHAT I WANT TO BECAUSE I AM IN THE GOVERNMENT. THEIR ARE PEOPLE OUT HERE THAT WILL ELIMINATE OFFICIALS OR ANYONE THAT SCREWS THE CITIZENS. THOMAS WAYNE BELL 09/29/1999 10:19 AM EDT

dave A. Erie,PA on 9/29/99: I welcome cameras in any public place to fight crime so long as non criminals do not have files started on them. I once worked in a large produce market here in Erie, PA where the not too well adjusted owner also had speakers hooked up in order to hear everything employees said and was in the habit of yelling four letter words over it if she heard or saw something she didn't like...the cameras clearly were for spying on employee not to prevent shoplifting. The thoughts that police are watching some of these wacked out individuals would be reassuring to me.

Javelina 1 on 9/29/99: Don't go out in public if you don't want ot be on Candid Camera.

Mrs. K on 9/29/99: I have a client like that, he is this unimportant, poor "hic" type person who thinks the gov't is watching him. I know, "delusional". I wish I could tell him, "Look. You are nobody just like hundreds of millions of us. Out of over 300 million people, are you really so delusional to think that you are so interesting and so important that the gov. or anyone else would be interested in what you are doing?!?!" Stay one of many and you HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. Tell the anti-surveillance group to just not scratch their private parts in public and their worries are over.

Jim B. on 9/29/99: They [the SCP] need to be reminded that we do not live in a penal colony! Perhaps that is what they are adjusted to, but the rest of us are still freethinking and moving individuals. Theyre self imposed slavery is to be pitied, and reprimanded.

frednginger on 9/29/99: If you are not doing anything wrong why are you so concerned about a camera. I am sure that if you were being mugged or raped, you would be very happy that someone saw it, and perhaps could help you immediately, rather then wait until they found your body. There are to sides to every story.I do believe that all of these activists have nothing better to do with their lifes except look for causes to raise a red flag at.

Sisgloria on 9/29/99: What privacy? How can there be privacy while we are walking down the street? There can never be enough foot patrols to accomplish the same coverage. Where they have been mounted outside housing projects the residents have reported a drastic reduction in crime of every kind, especially drug deals and muggings. These cameras also result in faster responses to accidents. If packages, purses, wallets and LIVES are saved by this PUBLIC surveillance, isn't that a benefit to honest citizens? I do agree there IS a Big Brother government mentality, and they are turning our Constitution, especially the First Amendment, in to toilet paper in the name of their idiotic "political correctness." Since I'm not some dirt bag looking for someone to prey on I don't have any problem with cameras mounted on street lights and the exterior of buildings. I DO have a big problem with them sticking their noses, eyes and ears where they DON'T belong; ie; our FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, and our right to teach and discipline (not abuse) our children to be decent productive adults.

SAD TIMES on 9/29/99: . . . . Today crime is running rampant. Raw statistics don't lie. We now speak of the percentages of people who have been convicted of a felony. Over 80% of crime is commited by 15% of the people. The minorities. Over 65% of black males have a felony record. Shameful for America. Especially shameful for honest black Americans. Like it or not, cameras in public and in and around our homes are necessary. The crime statistics won't change until the liberal, socialist [?!] judges put these vermin away for a long time. The trillions of dollars we have spent on different forms of welfare should have been spent on our prison systems. Until that happens, "Smile, your on Candid Camera".

Lawrence V. Barry on 9/29/99: The people who are objecting to the cameras are probably the criminals who don't want to get caught.

Your Brother on 9/29/99: The way this article is drafted, we are sure to see righteous indignation against the use of surveillance cameras. When I first began noticing cameras here and there (probably 25 years ago), I had exactly the response of "Oh, there's Big Brother! I don't like it." Think about it people, IS "BIG BROTHER" REALLY WATCHING YOU? If he is, what do you have to hide? If you feel this way, maybe you have something to hide. "Big Brother" has had no negative impact on my life. Has he had one on yours? Have you ever changed your behavior because there was a surveillance camera? VIOLATING YOUR RIGHT TO ANONYMITY? We are guaranteed no such rights, and why should a person need to be anonymous anyway? Get real!

Doug on 9/29/99: I would rather have big brother watching me than Jack the Ripper watching my daughter. Usually when a policeman is standing on the corner, very few criminal types are stupid enough to pull off a crime. I feel the surveillance camera has a similar effect. I don't mind a camera watching me. Go to Wal-Mart, Vegas, or the bank. Those surveillance cameras are there for the mutual benefit of the proprietor and the customer.

Kathy on 9/29/99: If I'm out enjoying my "private" and "anonymous" walk in a public area and I get mugged, I want those camera-cops to get there lickety-split. I'm tired of the yammer about privacy rights that always includes the criminals' rights to avoid detection.

DMT@DALLAS on 9/29/99: 2,300 cameras later, New York City is a safer place, and it needed to be. I have no problem being under surveillance, but then, I'm not doing anything wrong. My employer has cameras hidden throughout the building. Plano, Texas has cameras on traffic lights to ticket offenders. ATM's have cameras to record who is transacting business. Toll booths have cameras to record toll-runners. Personally, I'm relieved to know that surveillance cameras may prevent crime against me, or at least help identify the culprit. As a country, we have degenerated into a cess-pool of humanity. Any and all means of enforcing civility is OK by me.

glide625 on 9/29/99: Of course surveilance cameras reduce crime! And helping to reduce crime can't be bad. Think about how much safer it makes things for children. Only those with something to hide would be against it and pose it as "government intrusion!" Besides that,isn't it obvious that it's the government's job to protect public places? Anti-government types who constantly scream that law enforcement is violating privacy rights do so because they have done something wrong and SHOULD be watched! And that's just what YOUR FRIEND the Government is doing.

bcp on 9/29/99: Folks, its a crying shame that our society is in this mess where criminal activity is generally accepted as a way of life for so many people. For one, I don't have the solution (or a solution that most folks would accept) but I wish one of the liberals [?!] who want privacy so bad would try to tell some of the victoms of violent crimes to just accept their situation in lite of freedom. Bet the attitude would change. Don't misunderstand, I like privacy as much as the next reasonably honest person, but some means of semi-control over crooks is necessary and ALL of us must PAY.

Nija on 9/29/99: It constantly surprises me how egotistical people are. Just because someone has the *ability* to watch you does not mean they will be watching your every move. As many of you are probably aware, every email you send can be read by your system admin _at any time_. That's not all; your system admin can tell which sites you go to, how long you spend there, even what you click on. Most companies parctice "corporate monitering" from computer activity to cameras to phone taps. I am a former system admin and although I have had the time, ability, and knowledge to moniter all my users, I never have (aside from the occational look through the log files). Why? I have a job I need to get done and I really don't care about what your Aunt Joan did for Christmas. If you are selling pirated software, trying to crack into the system, or involved in other illegal activities that would necessitate communication with other parties, then I might consider monitering your email (where it was sent and how many bytes, not the actual message). Unless someone else has an accusation and hard evidence, system admins, as a rule, don't even consider looking through their users' email/accounts/activities. I belive the same is true for officers. They have a job to get done and have no time to waste tracking some person's activities when they could be doing their job.

Rosella on 9/29/99: I believe that most honest, law-abiding Americans have no problem with cameras catching those anti-social creeps, who perpetrate most of the crime we have to deal with. Public places are just that, public, and the public is entitled to safety. Privacy is still protected in your home, or should be, if the bedroom police (anti-birth control, anti-abortion kooks)learn to keep their noses out! The world is changing and not all to the good, so I am willing to be "seen" when out in public to be protected from those who seek to do harm.

Nancy Brown on 9/29/99: If crime was rappant in my back yard, I'd welcome camera's. Unless we are doing something wrong, why would we mind? Police need every device in their power to help. It's not against the law for sex perverts to take pictures of womens private parts' [?!] so why the outcry about the police using cameras to fight crime?

Guido L. on 9/29/99: Surveillance cameras in PUBLIC places is NOT a violation of any rights. PUBLIC means PUBLIC. If the police are using them to fight crime, I think this is a justifiable use of surveillance cameras. Why would someone expect privacy in a PUBLIC place?

Brent on 9/29/99: Any type of crime enforcement can be considered a violation of privacy rights. What makes our country so great is that no one person or group has absolute power, there are checks and balances in place. As long as there are laws in place [note: there are no laws regulating the use of surveillance cameras in public places] and the cameras are used within those laws, nobody's privacy will be in jeopardy except the criminals'.

Saracen on 9/29/99: When sci-fi movies were being made with the Big-Brother theme, people said it can't happen here.But with crime running as rampant as it is, something has to be done.Public places are just that,public,so there is no privacy anyway.The problem with the Surveillance Camera Players, is that they don't realize everyone is doing it today.Business,private citizens and the Federal Government.What we need is laws to establish when and where cameras can be used, just like wire-taps.Freedom like we knew it years ago, no longer exists.

John B. on 9/29/99: I don't have a problem with surveillance of any kind! I do my best to live within the framework of accepted behavor and the laws that apply to me. I have never had a problem with this way of conduct and don't anticipate any. I think this problem over "big brother" is rather paranoid!

PCL on 9/29/99: I don't recall anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights about "privacy" in a public place. It makes me sick that people who complain about being seen in a public place are generally the same ones who to try to ban handguns (which IS mentioned in the above mentioned [?!] documents).

D. Treadway on 10/1/99: The camera activist in NYC mention the right to anonymity. Excuse me! The right to what? I have been all over my copy of the constitution and I find no mention of that one. As far as a right to privacy in a public place, isn't that an oxymoron. I'm surprised that they haven't accussed the camera makers of being environmentally unfriendly.

TED on 9/29/99: I really do not like the idea of surveillance cameras in public places, but until we get discipline back in this country they seem to me to be the only hope we have to get our freedom back.

Dagda on 9/29/99: To "Your Brother:" Until and unless the information flows *both* ways there is potential for abuse of surveillance cameras. If the citizenry can monitor what the authorities are watching, if everyone can "watch the watchmen," then we would be much closer to an equitable society and have less to worry about. It's the *inequality* in information flow that is the problem. Again, read Brin's The Transparent Society.

Contact the Surveillance Camera Players

By e-mail SCP

By snail mail: SCP c/o NOT BORED! POB 1115, Stuyvesant Station, New York City 10009-9998