That first paragraph is stupid. Legally, there is no expectation of privacy in a public setting, so how could cameras infringe on it? I personally have no qualms about cameras in a public setting, an opinion that I had prior to the marathon incident. Don't do illegal shit in public - end of story.

This is a bit more nuanced. Except for the brief period between the end of WWII and a few years ago I'm not sure privacy ever really existed.

Something gets used for something good? Support ensues.

Something gets used for something bad? Support dwindles.

Shocking. Surprising.

It's almost as if people don't think through complexities, and just think of things in the now.

I didn't want the cameras removed from Cal Anderson Park. As soon as they were removed, somebody was stabbed. I have a camera pointing at the street from my window and have caught attempted arson twice. My evidence was used in court. That says it all.

I support a tool to fight lawless acts. I actually tried to get these for my neighborhood when we were getting a break-in somewhere every few days while folks are off at work. We were at our wit's end. But given the misplaced priorities of the FBI, concentrating on Occupy and PETA instead of actual culprits, I have little trust that they would be used properly.

If you're doing things in public that you wouldn't want anyone getting on video, you're part of the problem.

I'm with @ 1 - if you're in public, you're not in a private place.

The debate needs to be about the laws governing surveillance cameras (where they will be placed [because they certainly don't need to be on every corner and block], who has access to it, how long will footage be stored, will old video be deleted forever or not, etc) because we do have a reasonable expectation that it will be deleted if no crimes are being recorded. The debate about whether we'll have it or not is already settled.

I love Big Brother.

I'd rather see a robust national discussion about what the cameras are for, who gets access to the video, and what would constitute a criminal misuse of the footage.

As things get cheaper, more pervasive, and the tools to use things get more sophisticated, we need to be having the discussion and making laws to cover potential misuse.

I have absolutely no issue with the footage being available to law enforcement for the valid pursuit of crime or national security.

I remember a couple of decades ago when "concerned citizens" shut down a perfectly legal adult bookstore by staking the place out and taking pictures (using film cameras - these were dedicated wingnuts) of every patron and their license plate.

I can see similar misuse of public cameras, especially for situation like divorce, child custody, or these sorts of "morals enforcement."

Yes, we don't have an expectation of privacy when we are in public. But we also don't have an expectation that perfectly legal behavior will end up on some website or facebook or Twitter for public shaming or stalking, either.

In short order, if we don't already have it, it will be possible to find any vehicle anywhere on a public street or highway using digital recognition of the license plate. And we have to broaden our definition beyond mere cameras as we all walk around and drive around with portable GPS units in our phones and cars.

I'd be happy with pervasive public surveillance and heavy penalties for private misuse of it - including private misuse by people who have access to it for the legal parts of their jobs.

I'd rather have cameras recording reality, than gossipy neighbors and random inattentive eyewitnesses misidentifying people and actions. This is entirely selfish, though.

I'm one of those non-distinctive people who seems to remind everyone of someone else they know, so in the back of my mind, I worry about stuff like this. Since I was 12 or so, somebody is always walking up to me, quite convinced they know me. It's never the same name, either, so it's not like I'm a double for one particular person. It's happening less the last decade or so, but it still happens.

If I am in a PUBLIC PLACE, what I do there isn't private. Anyone can see it, record it, remember it and talk about it. Your privacy isn't being invaded because you are not in a private place. Why can't people see the difference?

@13- I think you miss an important point which is called out in the middle of @11. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't really mean we want a ton of people watching us do it. I am pro-camera in general, but the concept of putting them everywhere and not having some strong protocols about protecting people's ability to go about their business without being scrutinized/shamed/outed/embarrassed needlessly seems like a bad idea.

So when the public coffers go bare (again), will it be acceptable to sell the information gleaned from these cameras to marketing groups? You know how you already get flooded with emails from an online retailer whose site you visited? Will you start getting ads from local businesses who now know you were walking down their street last week?
The USPS already sells lists of people who have recently filed a change of address, is this much different?

Let's ban all cameras everywhere. Having a picnic in a public park? Remember it in your head. If you take pictures, you might catch someone in the background who doesn't want to be photographed! What if that guy wants to masturbate on a park bench? How dare you invade his privacy by taking pictures of your kids!?!

@15,
That's exactly what'll happen. Shoot, I doubt they'd even wait until they needed the cash - this country is all about profit, profit, profit!

I work at a marketing database that sells prospect names to businesses and trust me, if businesses could figure out a way to beam advertisements directly into your brain against your will, they'd do so in a heartbeat.

It's a ruthless, cutthroat industry. I could see them trying to set up cameras like this for the sole purpose of tracking prospective customers, and do so under the façade that it's for safety or security.

Chiming in the majority here -- I like the idea of surveillance cameras in public places. Always have. IT'S A PUBLIC PLACE.

Folks afraid of the footage being used in other ways is exactly the same paranoia of the gun-huggers who resist every attempt to bring commonsense to gun control through registration and limitation -- fear that someday, somehow, that information will be used to gather up their guns or that the limitations are just the first step on the slippery slope of no guns at all.

Commonsense. Rule of law. Let's rely on them, okay?

Between cameras and DNA, our crime rates are getting very low.

I'm cool with cams, bro.

@7 seems to have flagged the issue as the question of access at this point, although rules on drone use need to be in place before they convince local police to use them.
Rulemaking can't trail widespread use of drones.

If you can't, in five minutes of lazy cogitation, think of several possible terrorist stratagies that would make a complete mockery of billions of dollars worth of urban streetcorner cameras and terawatts of server farms to archive all the images, you might want to surrender your Wild-Eyed Berserker card.

If you can, rest assured actual terrorists have too. But they'd rather you spend all that money first.

@ 22, the value in surveillance isn't just in prevention and deterrence (because some people aren't deterred by anything), it's also in investigation. Without the images at the Boston Marathon, where would the investigation be right now?

People do have to accept that we can't make the world, or any of our cities, 100% safe, so 100% safety in neither a goal, nor is the fact that it can't be achieved a reasonable argument against it.

19, Back in '07 my house was burglarized, and just this morning the police contacted me saying they got a match from the FBI DNA database. Crazy.

To people against cameras in public places: How does knowing you're on camera in a public place change your behavior, versus what you would do in public without cameras?

Not saying don't do it, Matt @23. The problem is the huge gulf between 0% coverage and the mythical 100%. No one will ever be able to discern a rational stopping point (23%? 36.47%?). With every new unsolved assault or act of vandalism will come renewed cries from citizens to their local governments for more cameras. That train has left the station.

But far more criminal investigations will be facilitated by cell-phone tracking, increased silent data recording and transmission in automobiles, and DNA matching, as @24 mentions.

False sense of security. Cameras weren't even used to that degree to find them. They actually used SWAT teams to break into random people's homes to try and find him. This is a pipe dream and people really shouldn't support it. It's not going to be used to fight bad guys. Primarily it will be used to spy without warrants.

Thank you, @27. It's good to know who the kooks are around here. Have you picked up your tinfoil hat yet?

27, Police have never needed a warrant to spy on someone in a public setting using cameras, listening devices or any other means. If you're in a public place, there's no expectation of privacy.

@ 26, there are always going to people who argue for extremes in any argument. Some seem truly incapable of distinguishing the gray areas from the black and white, while others deliberately exaggerate in order to accomplish their aims. Reasonable people shouldn't listen to those arguments.

I like the way cameras in public places can be used to hold police accountable. The Critical Mass rider in New York who was attacked by the subsequently fired policeman jumps to mind.

People who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Like most knee jerk liberal nanny state schemes this one has been tried and failed already in the UK.

The surveillance state has been criticized at length by every side of the political spectrum.

but lets spend a ton of money and weaken civil liberties so we can feel safer! The TSA totally worked, so this should be great as well.

What civil liberties ate violated by cameras in public places?

@ 32, it's extremely difficult to find any conclusive information about Britain's surveillance system. Hell, there isn't even an agreed-upon number of cameras to discuss. So pardon me if I don't buy your flat statement that it "failed," given the lack of consensus on the matter.