Question of the Day
Tuesday, Mar 13, 2007 - Posted by Paul Richardson
It appears that the security camera requirement for Chicago businesses is running into opposition:
Chicago aldermen gave a cold reception Monday to a long-stalled proposal that would require all businesses in the city open late to install security cameras.
Ald. Ray Suarez had tinkered with the ordinance, which he first proposed more than a year ago, in hopes of gaining more support.
“We tried to amend certain parts where people had concerns,” said Suarez (31st). “This is not about punishing people or putting a burden on anybody. This is about safety.”
Opponents of the ordinance conceed the protection benefits from the cameras, but they are worried by the ever-growing reach of the government:
“I’m very concerned about the slippery slope we tread on when we talk about foregoing liberties for the sake of safety,” said Ald. Freddrenna Lyle (6th). “I think it is absolutely the wrong decision.” …
Ald. Tom Tunney (44th), owner of the popular Ann Sathers restaurants, said he thought the proposal was “overreaching.” …
Police and other city emergency departments said they favor the bill because it would help fight crime and response to disasters, while business groups testified in opposition.
This debate between “public security” and “freedom” seems to bear its head quite often with issues like this: seat belt laws, cell phone bans, smoking, HPV vaccine, on and on…
Question(s): On what side of these issues do you usually fall, security or liberty? Somewhere in the middle? What general principles should guide these government decisions?
- Wumpus - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 7:45 am:
Liberty, but more towards the middle. I try to take these things on a case by case basis.
I fall on the side of the police doing their own jobs. If a company wants to do this, fine. But all it will do is increase liability on the company if they can’t or don’t do anything if a crime is being committed in view of camera.
- I couldn't think of a sweet name - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 8:15 am:
Short answer security. But in this case I would say that this is yet again violating the rights of buisness owners to run their establishments as they see fit. (see smoking ban) If a buisness owner doesn’t want to properly defend his establishment, then he should be liable for the consequences. If the city is requiring cameras, then they should be held responsible if an offender is not caught.
- Amy - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 8:34 am:
i usually fall on the side of security. i don’t know the details of the ordinance on type of business for
which the camera would be required. this is
difficult for small businesses to put in place.
if you have a strip of small businesses, perhaps
a chamber of commerce could work with the
city to install cameras on the street. if you
own a small business it gets difficult to operate
with each government mandate.
- Sound Reasoning - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 8:44 am:
Liberty in almost all cases.
Where does one draw the line if one believes that it is ok for government to take away more and more liberties in the name of security or safety? At the present rate of encroachment where will we stand in 20 or 30 years? Will we all be safe and secure wrapped in the arms of an omnipotent government protector but without any personal freedoms?
- Ali Bin Haddin - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 8:49 am:
Liberty. Time to re-read Orwell’s 1984. On the other hand, the Stasi did keep unempoyment at record lows.
- Pat Hickey - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 8:58 am:
“A man that would expect to train lobsters to fly in a year is called a lunatic; but a man that thinks men can be turned into angels by an election is a reformer & remains at large.” Finley Peter Dunne
Fois Gras, Smoking, Transfatty acids are ingested, as are drugs and alcohol, by people who choose to do so; Hey, if a woman can choose to kill her unborn child, why can a free-born American decide to commit suicide on the intallment plan with eats and smokes?
Now cameras that catch bad guys? I’m all over it.
I have been ticketed and fined for blowing the nano-second light at the merge of Vincennces & Halsted at 85th street - paid up like a good ne’er-do-well!
- M.V. - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 9:43 am:
Give me liberty. I do not see a way Liberty can coexist with a network of govenment nanny cams. Liberty can, however, coexist with a govenment that makes it a priority to prevent crime by addressing the factors that we know to cause crime, such as poverty and poor education. But then again, it is much easier to string up security cameras than it is to teach a kid to read and do math, so that is the way the political winds will blow.
- cermak_rd - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 9:47 am:
Pat,
Oh, I like that, committing suicide on the installment plan. Great quote!
As for where I fall, it depends. It depends on how much of an inconvenience it is for the people the law is affecting. In the case of video cameras, it doesn’t seem like that big of a burden. And because businesses must be licensed to operate, it seems the city council can make reasonable safety requirements. Besides, don’t businesses get a break on their insurance rates if they have a functioning video surveillance system?
- Pat Hickey - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 10:27 am:
Cermak,
I must footnote Chicagoan Kurt Vonnegut for that one! I forgot which book though Slughterhouse Five Mayhaps. ‘Tis a great one though!
Cameras might catchg me doing something - but I am such a lazy bastard the most they’d catch me doing is napping.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 11:29 am:
The battle line isn’t between liberty and security, it’s over the definition of public interest, and ultimately about how we prioritize those public interests.
Might Burt Natarus’s cell phone ban prevent 1-2 car accidents per year? Maybe. Is there a public interest there? Sure.
But the bottom line is that in a city with 17,000 violent crimes a year, we shouldn’t be browbeating the police department about not enforcing a cell phone ban on 140,000 cell phone users.
On the security camera issue, what about the middle ground? I’d argue that the public safety gains are minimal, and the main folks who would benefit are the business owners themselves (that makes it a private interest). But how about talking to the insurance companies about giving them a big discount on their insurance rates for installing cameras, or, if the City thinks it’s so gosh darn important and a clear public interest, they should include a line-item in their budget to pay for them.
Let common sense prevail.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 11:31 am:
And not to be a cynic, but has someone reviewed Ald. Suarez’s campaign filings and business connections to see what his relationship is with the security companies that would reap the windfall? I’m not accusing anyone, but this is Chicago.
- Pat Hickey - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 11:33 am:
YDD,
‘I’m not accusing anyone, but this is Chicago. ‘
Hey, who needs cammeras?
- Bubs - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 11:43 am:
Still true:
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin
These cameras will be permanent, and will be just the beginning.
- Pat Hickey - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 12:10 pm:
Bubs,
Remember the first time cable ( pay-per-view) was mentioned? Cameras are not necessarily Orwellian - only the tube-steaks that get hinder-binders puckering their cheeks over what other people had for lunch.
It is always a scream that the same folks who worry about everyone else’s health and dietetic intake squeal like Mother McAuley girls at the thought of a camera that just might catch a bad guy.
It is chore not to giggle.
- BBpolNut - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 12:17 pm:
I echo Bubs. When will it stop.
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”
Benjamin Franklin
Enough said.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 12:40 pm:
What general principles should guide these government decisions?
Security cameras are a good business investment for those businesses that need it. If it is in the public interest to install them in places where crimes are prevalent, then it should be a service provided by the local police and paid for by those owning the property. Passing a law requiring a security camera that does not recognize the differences in security needs is inherently wasteful.
I guess the goal is to consider how the public good is impacted by the “problem” to be solved. Tobacco smoke is unhealthy, and for pollution purposes should be banned from indoors, cars and even outdoors if non smokers are forced to inhale it. Not all women get HPV, but all women can catch malaria, so preventative measures are needed for malaria, while it should be a personal decision for Merck’s HPV cure.
Everyone likes freedom. But with freedom comes responsibilities. I enjoy my cell phone, but I shouldn’t endanger others when I use it at inappropriate times. If you want to drive, you don’t have the freedom to drive anywhere you want, in any manner you wish.
If you are a purist, you could claim your freedom was violated when your parents made you learn to use the potty chair. We have a lot of instances where people blather and shout about their loss of freedom whenever they are made to do something they don’t like. Kinda like children, right?
- Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 1:16 pm:
With regard to all this talk of smoking:
If somebody is aware of any smoking restrictions that would prevent smokers from puffing away when nobody else is going to inhale their trash, let me know. Otherwise, the smoking analogy is complete nonsense and is borderline paranoia.
- ZC - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 1:46 pm:
Requiring all private homes to install cameras would also clearly help reduce crime and aid police, but hopefully we’re not going there anytime soon.
I raise that to indicate, clearly part of the argument would rest on a public / private distinction. A privately-owned business seems much more akin to a home than to a street corner.
- Mooike - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 1:55 pm:
Vanilla Man: 1 hour of car exhaust = approximately 50 cigarettes, shouldn’t we ban cars for “pollution purposes” as well, because they are bad for us, aren’t they? The whole cell phone/driving debate is a waste of time.
Good drivers know better than to distract themselves and bad drivers will always be bad drivers, cell phones, cigarettes, fast food, makeup, newspapers, etc., or not.
Wumpus - I agree 100% about the CPD doing the job they get paid for. I know many fine officers who really go above and beyond the call of duty, usually to make up for the equal amount of officers who do absolutely nothing.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 2:03 pm:
VanillaMan — yes, you should not be allowed to drive recklessly will talking on your cell phone, but reckless driving was already a crime long before Burt Natarus built Michigan Ave.
My other point is that we’re now encouraging drivers to use hands-free devices instead, when all the research shows that hands-free devices are just as dangerous.
I remember when a particluar state rep. pushed to ban cell phones from schools awhile back. If memory serves, she pushed to repeal her own bill after Sept. 11th, when she found she couldn’t reach her own daughter at school.
Again, a little common sense, and let’s err on the side of too few laws instead of too many. The rule of thumb in Springfield is that for every new law, there are three clean-up bills.
- A Citizen - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 2:04 pm:
Liberty, 2nd Amendment, Concealed Carry. All good.
Tobacco - Leave it alone or outlaw its use totally.
Cameras - Use sparingly in high crime areas and for goodness sakes improve their quality!
- Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 2:09 pm:
Mookie:
I encourage you to sit in a closed room with car exhaust for an hour, just as you want kids to sit in an enclosed car with smoke.
If you do so, then you might realize that there is a difference between sitting in a car with smoke or sitting in a bar with smoke or being in fresh air where there is exhaust.
Maybe all that smoke has already done its damage on you.
- Pat Hickey - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 3:14 pm:
Skeeter,
In the War of Wits, you are always Liechtenstein; watch out! The Swiss are after you!
- Bridget Dooley - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 3:20 pm:
I am almost always on the side of liberty when it comes to adults. This is where my Libertarian side comes out. If people want to hurt themselves by smoking, so be it. If they want to risk their lives by refusing to wear a seatbelt, fine. It’s where children are involved that I get a little more “nanny state” and favor stronger restrictions.
- Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 3:22 pm:
Very intelligent comment, Pat.
Have you thought about therapy? You seem to have some real issues with anger.
What’s the problem, Pat? Not held enough as a child? Let it all out. Tell us what is wrong Pat. Help us work with you on this.
- Pat Hickey - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 3:24 pm:
What’s with ‘us’ you witless drone? can’t do anything on your own, Skeeter?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 5:11 pm:
Hey, guys, can I suggest brick bats at 20 paces, or everybody count to ten?
Bridget raises a good point. I recommend Dewey’s “The Public and It’s Problems” to everybody.
It lays out the case for the difference between public and private interests, but makes it clear that just because there is a public interest at stake doesn’t mean that government is obligated to get involved.
One area which is definitely not a private interest is when you are talking about those who can’t protect themselves, like children and the mentally ill.
I always found it very interesting that the Illinois Criminal Code is very neatly divided: Offenses Against Persons, Offenses Against Property, Offenses Against the Public. Everyone should peruse it occasionally, if for no other reason than to remind ourselves that Illinois has entire criminal acts regarding grain coloring, derogatory statements against banks and peephole installation right along side drugs and abortion.
- Skeeter - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 6:38 pm:
For those who might wonder:
Pat Hickey despises me and writes rude comments about me because we differ on a major issues. I believe that if a Bishop permits priests to be pedophiles, that Bishop should be hung from a post and whipped for the good of all concerned. In contrast, Hickey believes that such a Bishop should be left alone if Hickey has met the Bishop and believes him to be a fine person.
So we differ on that issue.
Hickey always wants to tell us how well read he is. In fact, he would do better to read a certain deposition transcript parts of which have received wide publicity.
In short, drone on all you want Hickey. Just know that nothing you say will make your Bishop friend any less of a criminal. We both know it. Go after me all day. Just know that it reflects more on your character than on anything else.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 6:46 pm:
Individual freedom provides a critical check and balance to prevent government power from getting abused.
If a risk is significant, insurance companies and publicity would ensure people and business owners make wise financial decisions.
If the risk is overwhelming then government may have a role to play. However, current leading causes of death are overeating, unhealthy eating, lack of exercise, and driving. The most deadly jobs are ocean fishing, logging, and piloting.
Government should try education and incentives first before moving to licensing and fines, while carefully avoiding the very expensive use of mandates and force.
- Quinn - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 7:15 pm:
What about cameras in the Mayors office.
- Pat Hickey - Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 8:18 pm:
Despise:TRANSITIVE VERB
1. To regard with contempt or scorn
2. To regard as unworthy of one’s interest or concern
Skeeter, once again you prove that even a broken clock is right twice a day!
Ladies and Gentlemen, . . .Skeeter!
Never a disappointment. He’ll be back folks.