king_nacho: Sure, you could, but if you use the word "training" with Faculty they won't show up, you have disguise it as faculty development, but you still won't get them there in most cases

Oh, I don't doubt it. It's what should happen, though. And if the administration is serious, they can require it. This camera get-up? It's for prosecuting criminals (who desire to live more than perpetrating their crimes), not preventing the kind of senseless killing which inspired it.

What better way to be immortalized as a martyr for going on a murderous rampage than for someone to make a movie of it for you.

dennerman: As a parent who will be sending a daughter off to college in the next couple years, I'm OK with this. No, I don't like the idea of a constantly monitored police state, but this isn't a public sidewalk in the city, this is at a college campus that has to be able to ensure safety for thousands of young adults. Cameras are a great deterrent to crime, abduction, etc.. As long as they're used in the public spaces, I don't really see an issue here.

As a parent who is sending a child off to college this August, I'm not OK with this. I don't like the idea of a constantly monitored police state. Colleges cannot ensure safety, they can only take reasonable and effective steps to decrease risk. Cameras are a great deterrent to crime, abduction, etc., as long as you assume that the perpetrators are rational actors. Which most of them aren't. The use of camera in public spaces is an issue because it trains us to accept infringements upon our liberty as long as they are accompanied by the magic words, "for your safety."

insano: ...without intruding on the privacy of thousands of others.

Cameras in public places do not intrude on the privacy of anyone.

Wellon Dowd: As a parent who is sending a child off to college this August, I'm not OK with this. I don't like the idea of a constantly monitored police state. Colleges cannot ensure safety, they can only take reasonable and effective steps to decrease risk. Cameras are a great deterrent to crime, abduction, etc., as long as you assume that the perpetrators are rational actors. Which most of them aren't. The use of camera in public spaces is an issue because it trains us to accept infringements upon our liberty as long as they are accompanied by the magic words, "for your safety."

If your child was the victim of a tragic murderous rampage on campus, would you sue the school for damages?

Because that's why VT installed all of these cameras, not to prevent crime, but to protect themselves from lawsuits if anything happens in the future.

because cameras work so well as a deterrent

dennerman: As a parent who will be sending a daughter off to college in the next couple years, I'm OK with this. No, I don't like the idea of a constantly monitored police state, but this isn't a public sidewalk in the city, this is at a college campus that has to be able to ensure safety for thousands of young adults. Cameras are a great deterrent to crime, abduction, etc.. As long as they're used in the public spaces, I don't really see an issue here.

Thanks Maude.

dennerman: As a parent who will be sending a daughter off to college in the next couple years, I'm OK with this. No, I don't like the idea of a constantly monitored police state, but this isn't a public sidewalk in the city, this is at a college campus that has to be able to ensure safety for thousands of young adults. Cameras are a great deterrent to crime, abduction, etc.. As long as they're used in the public spaces, I don't really see an issue here.

This IS a constantly monitored police state. Holy shiat.

This reminds me of the reaction one elementary school had to a school shooting: they set up a large slatted woods fence all around the outer edges of the grounds. As was quickly noted, however, the shooting was done using rifles from a distance and the shooters would have had more cover had the fence been there. On the other hand I understand the fence was quiet effective at keeping out the press.

In any case we shouldn't embrace totalitarian methods just because they make us feel better in the short term.

ltdanman44: because cameras work so well as a deterrent

[iconoclastradio.com image 400x334]

I don't see any claims that the camera's are a deterrent.

NightOwl2255: insano: ...without intruding on the privacy of thousands of others.

Cameras in public places do not intrude on the privacy of anyone.

But they do border on the crossing the border into violation of personal privacy. You know one of them there constitutional rights.

monoski: NightOwl2255: insano: ...without intruding on the privacy of thousands of others.

Cameras in public places do not intrude on the privacy of anyone.

But they do border on the crossing the border into violation of personal privacy. You know one of them there constitutional rights.

Virginia Tech. Hell of a school!

The Many Deaths of Virginia Tech

Love the reviews.

We have always been at war with UVA

Wellon Dowd: As a parent who is sending a child off to college this August, I'm not OK with this. I don't like the idea of a constantly monitored police state. Colleges cannot ensure safety, they can only take reasonable and effective steps to decrease risk. Cameras are a great deterrent to crime, abduction, etc., as long as you assume that the perpetrators are rational actors. Which most of them aren't. The use of camera in public spaces is an issue because it trains us to accept infringements upon our liberty as long as they are accompanied by the magic words, "for your safety."

Doesn't that depend on who has access to the video feed of the cameras?

I mean, if your child can use a smartphone app to call up the feed from around the corner or down the alley as they are walking home late at night, doesn't that empower them to avoid a dangerous situation in the first place?

In addition, while it's true that the perpetrators are not necessarily rationale actors, don't the presence of cameras increase the likelihood that they will be caught and convicted -- thus reducing the number of irrational actors in that area?

monoski: But they do border on the crossing the border into violation of personal privacy. You know one of them there constitutional rights.

Expectation of privacy. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don't.

FTA: The cameras may be placed only in areas where the public has no reasonable expectation of privacy

So, everywhere but bathrooms.

monoski: NightOwl2255: insano: ...without intruding on the privacy of thousands of others.

Cameras in public places do not intrude on the privacy of anyone.

But they do border on the crossing the border into violation of personal privacy. You know one of them there constitutional rights.

Which one? You don't have a right to not be on camera when in public. They can't convict people for taking upskirt pictures of people exiting cars in public.

This will obviously deter shootings. After all, the last guy seemed really worried about getting caught.

It's a million bux flushed. Still, do this 500 times, and it is more jobs than Solyndra.
and in the end, we have 100,000 cameras, instead of a bowl of Chinese IOUs.

CHO LIKES IT! HE REALLY LIKES IT!!

Zasteva: I mean, if your child can use a smartphone app to call up the feed from around the corner or down the alley as they are walking home late at night, doesn't that empower them to avoid a dangerous situation in the first place?

So, your kid should take out their expensive smart phone and stare intently at it while trying to get the camera feed to load up, blissfully unaware of what's going on around him or her late at night? That seems like a good strategy to stay safe.

heinrich66: Virginia Tech. Hell of a school!

The Many Deaths of Virginia Tech

Love the reviews.

<whattheFARKamIreading.jpg>

Greater good

Better way to help protect the students... get rid of stupid no gun zone, only thing it does is make sure only criminals have guns on campus.

on the '+' side there might be a lot of good freshman ass trolling footage to enjoy

Dimensio: Mentalpatient87: Good, this way we'll have some decent footage of the next mass shooting.

/ not like it's going to prevent anything

The educational institute has already infallibly prevented any future "mass shooting" by prohibiting the possession of firearms by civilians on campus.

Because disarming the law-abiding always stops criminals.

Instead of wasting $1 million on surveillance, rescind the gun ban and have better security for free (from the university perspective).

lenfromak: Why don't they simply let the students carry their own firearms?

I'm sure that would have worked out great for the VT shooting, and there would not be any panic-riddled crossfire or mis-identified shooters as a slew of college students all start pulling their pieces.

This isn't a dude ranch duel. You can't solve gun violence with gun violence.

College students, the group of people that're synonymous with youth, inexperience, naivity, drunken parties and rapid hookups, would definitely be safer if every one of these paragons of self control were armed. I see no way this could backfire.

Wellon Dowd: The cameras may be placed only in areas where the public has no reasonable expectation of privacy, including parking garages and lots, sidewalks and other public areas.

This has the advantage of keeping anyone from protesting but still acclimatizing us to video surveillance. Once we accept this, they will claim we don't expect privacy anywhere as proven by the fact that we don't complain about being watched constantly outside.

i see you making your snappy tinfoil hat, just want to point out:

people can still protest, even if they are on cctv.

plenty of people seem to be complaining about being constantly watched outside on cctv.

but i see you working & don't completely disagree. the more cameras there are, chances are the more we will all get used to it.
people make that similar claim about young folks today already in terms of privacy and freedom. they are often thought of as crazy teabaggers here on fark.

i just don't think making the leap from cameras in public places to accepting them in our homes / offices / toilet etc. is realistic.

/still not a fan of lots of cameras
//am old
///why yes that is my lawn

So, are they going to hire 2500 people to watch the cameras? (each person can watch 3 cameras at once for 8 hour shifts around the clock). And if someone sees something, how will that help?

farkmedown: Instead of wasting $1 million on surveillance, rescind the gun ban and have better security for free (from the university perspective).

And watch your insurer(s) drop you in a minute.

king_nacho: monoski: NightOwl2255: insano: ...without intruding on the privacy of thousands of others.

Cameras in public places do not intrude on the privacy of anyone.

But they do border on the crossing the border into violation of personal privacy. You know one of them there constitutional rights.

Which one? You don't have a right to not be on camera when in public. They can't convict people for taking upskirt pictures of people exiting cars in public.

Really??? http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla- upskirt-pictures-costa-mesa,0,50 0697.story

That Jar of Flies is open and not much they can do. Two shootings starts up a legacy that takes a life of its own and will needle on any of unwell student prone to shooting up mates.
In the end the Camera's will be a drain of resources, and will pressure the shooter to "Make it quick". 119 into the crowd and one self inflicted shot to the head. The camera's will remove any feeling of leisure the shooter may have.

Kyro: lenfromak: Why don't they simply let the students carry their own firearms?

I'm sure that would have worked out great for the VT shooting, and there would not be any panic-riddled crossfire or mis-identified shooters as a slew of college students all start pulling their pieces.

This isn't a dude ranch duel. You can't solve gun violence with gun violence.

In places where there are citizens walking about freely with firearms, where
are all the panic-riddled crossfires or mis-identified shooters as a slew of citizens all start pulling their pieces

Kyro: lenfromak: Why don't they simply let the students carry their own firearms?

I'm sure that would have worked out great for the VT shooting, and there would not be any panic-riddled crossfire or mis-identified shooters as a slew of college students all start pulling their pieces.

This isn't a dude ranch duel. You can't solve gun violence with gun violence.

This scenario always comes up, but no one has ever been able to explain to me how a crossfire of inaccurately fired rounds is *WORSE* than a gunman methodically executing unarmed victims who are simply cowering against a wall at point-blank range.

No one has ever made a cogent explanation for why a crossfire would result in a higher number of casualties.

Skr: ' '

Gah, need sleep and far fewer apostrophes.

Joe Blowme: So, how is this going to stop a gunman again?

Obviously video cameras can't stop bullets.

Sure, one could make the argument that it more quickly directs law enforcement to the area where a dangerous individual is located, but as far more often the case, the cameras are used to abuse the rights of citizens.

dittybopper: No one has ever made a cogent explanation for why a crossfire would result in a higher number of casualtie

No one has ever made a cogent explanation for why they think more people with guns would prevent mass murders, or, more importantly, why they think the mere possibility of stopping a once in a lifetime crime such as the VTech massacre outweighs the number of minor disputes which would escalate to violence and death because people are carrying deadly weapons with them.

Kyro: College students, the group of people that're synonymous with youth, inexperience, naivity, drunken parties and rapid hookups, would definitely be safer if every one of these paragons of self control were armed. I see no way this could backfire.

So, what other constitutional rights are you wanting to take away from them because of "youth, inexperience, naivity, drunken parties and rapid hookups" ?

Joe Blowme: So, what other constitutional rights are you wanting to take away from them because of "youth, inexperience, naivity, drunken parties and rapid hookups" ?

You have the constitution right to own a firearm. Not take it everywhere with you because you're afraid of boogiemen.

insano: dittybopper: No one has ever made a cogent explanation for why a crossfire would result in a higher number of casualtie

No one has ever made a cogent explanation for why they think more people with guns would prevent mass murders, or, more importantly, why they think the mere possibility of stopping a once in a lifetime crime such as the VTech massacre outweighs the number of minor disputes which would escalate to violence and death because people are carrying deadly weapons with them.

Ah, the old "blood will run in the streets" scenario that was trotted out before every single state that enacted "Shall Issue" CCW permits passed those laws, that hasn't come to pass.

I mean, since the late 1980's 40-odd states went "Shall Issue", and *THAT* scenario hasn't come to pass either: Homicides have gone *DOWN* to about half what they were in the early 1990's.

Try again.

I like how the Internet Tough Guy response to "a crazy person got a gun and shot people" is to arm the entire populace, rather than dare to limit the ways an insane person can get his hands on a firearm.

/Cho bought his weapons legally through two vendors, both of whom relied on the good ol honor system to ask if he was ever diagnosed with mental illness

insano: dennerman: As a parent who will be sending a daughter off to college in the next couple years, I'm OK with this. No, I don't like the idea of a constantly monitored police state, but this isn't a public sidewalk in the city, this is at a college campus that has to be able to ensure safety for thousands of young adults. Cameras are a great deterrent to crime, abduction, etc.. As long as they're used in the public spaces, I don't really see an issue here.

Well apart from the obvious contradiction here, you are assuming that these cameras actually deter crime. Furthermore, these cameras are extremely costly (~1 million) with little proven benefit. Also let's not forget that one of the fundamental issues with the Vtech massacre was poor linkage with mental health systems and lack of mental health care. The gunman was clearly having problems long before the shootings. Might the 1 million be better spent on improving screening for mental health disorder and improving treatment for those who have mental disorder? That would help keep your snowflake safer without intruding on the privacy of thousands of others.

You're right, I contradicted myself there, my mistake. I suppose what I meant to say is that I see a difference between a campus' public area and just walking down the street somewhere. To me the campus is like a privately owned area that has a responsibility, legal and ethical, to provide for the safety of its students. If they feel cameras are the way to meet that obligation, I have no issue with them installing them as long as they are in their public areas.

By the way, as far as just walking down the street somewhere, I don't have a huge issue with that either. If I'm in a public space I don't care a lot if I'm on camera. Why I would argue against that as a normal practice is because once cameras are there, the "monitoring advocates" aren't likely to just stop and go, "that's enough", and you need to draw the line in the sand somewhere.

UDel_Kitty: Zasteva: I mean, if your child can use a smartphone app to call up the feed from around the corner or down the alley as they are walking home late at night, doesn't that empower them to avoid a dangerous situation in the first place?

So, your kid should take out their expensive smart phone and stare intently at it while trying to get the camera feed to load up, blissfully unaware of what's going on around him or her late at night? That seems like a good strategy to stay safe.

You seem to be assuming a level of technology and engineering competence that has long since been surpassed. Maybe you should take a look at some of the better modern smartphone apps?

Technical limitations like longer load times can be easily overcome with good design. Automatic image enhancement and movement detection can make it easier to see something on the screen than with the naked eye. Tie it to the GPS on on the phone and it could automatically preload the feeds for what is ahead of you. And that's assuming the cameras don't have any additional imaging capability, like infrared or low light capabilities.

Kyro: Joe Blowme: So, what other constitutional rights are you wanting to take away from them because of "youth, inexperience, naivity, drunken parties and rapid hookups" ?

You have the constitution right to own a firearm. Not take it everywhere with you because you're afraid of boogiemen.

You also have the constitutional right to bear such a firearm. It says "keep and bear", not just "keep".

Joe Blowme: So, what other constitutional rights are you wanting to take away from them because of "youth, inexperience, naivity, drunken parties and rapid hookups" ?

Those would be worth having on camera...

dittybopper: Ah, the old "blood will run in the streets" scenario that was trotted out before every single state that enacted "Shall Issue" CCW permits passed those laws, that hasn't come to pass.



/Despite those numbers, I think we have bigger problems than to worry about than CCW permits - like keeping f*cking crazy people from buying guns in the first place

dittybopper: You also have the constitutional right to bear such a firearm. It says "keep and bear", not just "keep".

Well then, Captain America, I encourage you to peacefully carry your weapon into the nearest federal building and see if they agree. I'm sure this case will go straight to the Supreme Court and they will agree with you whole heartedly.

stealthd: More likely than not a salesman visited and gave a hard sell. If you were VT's risk manager, you would be so vulnerable to 'if you care about safety, then you should buy this' that I can understand how a system like this gets purchased.

Nope, this is what happens when people scream "Do something!"

Zasteva: UDel_Kitty: Zasteva: I mean, if your child can use a smartphone app to call up the feed from around the corner or down the alley as they are walking home late at night, doesn't that empower them to avoid a dangerous situation in the first place?

So, your kid should take out their expensive smart phone and stare intently at it while trying to get the camera feed to load up, blissfully unaware of what's going on around him or her late at night? That seems like a good strategy to stay safe.

You seem to be assuming a level of technology and engineering competence that has long since been surpassed. Maybe you should take a look at some of the better modern smartphone apps?

Technical limitations like longer load times can be easily overcome with good design. Automatic image enhancement and movement detection can make it easier to see something on the screen than with the naked eye. Tie it to the GPS on on the phone and it could automatically preload the feeds for what is ahead of you. And that's assuming the cameras don't have any additional imaging capability, like infrared or low light capabilities.

What do kids who can't afford smartphones do?