Mayor Daley Caught The Fascism Virus

Daley Wants Security Cameras At Bars

A few days ago President Bush was at some function praising Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago. During that short time in the same room Daley must have caught the virus that causes political leaders to spy on the general public. Now Daely wants to place security cameras at all bars that are open past 4:00AM or operating for more than 12 hours per day, with plans to extend this requirement to any business (convenience stores, gas stations, etc.) that is open more than 12 hours per day.

I know safety is an important issue. In my day as a martial arts instructor I have taught personal safety. I have conducted site security reviews and developed plans for closed circuit surveillance cameras, as well as physical security layouts. But these things were done by private citizens for private citizens or private businesses. While I would support the placement of good security systems in private places by the owners and operators or those places, I cannot see any justification for a law that would require government security systems in place on or near private premises for the purposes of monitoring private activities.

I can support police cameras in public places when, and only when, there is specific justification for doing so, but only in a temporary manner. Fixed and permanent cameras are nothing more than an invitation for the government to become the Big Brother for which George Orwell is famous. For instance, I can support police cameras set up for a sting operation. Or perhaps cameras set up to record drug trafficking in a known drug area--but for a limited period of time becase a permanent camera would be self-defeating once the drug pushers figured out where the cameras were located. I would support placing cameras where there exists good intelligence that a crime might be planned, providing those cameras are actually manned by police and a warrant exists for any private areas under covert surveillance. But there can be no support for turning private citizens or private businesses into agents of the government.

The bottom line is that good security is flexible, layered and focused on where it needs to be focused, not broad, indiscriminate and in violation of the rights to privacy. We have allowed the fear of terrorist attacks to become the ruling factor and abandoned basic civil rights. Read on...

CHICAGO — Surveillance cameras — aimed at government buildings, train platforms and intersections here — might soon be required at corner taverns and swanky nightclubs. Mayor Richard Daley wants to require bars open until 4 a.m. to install security cameras that can identify people entering and leaving the building. Other businesses open longer than 12 hours a day, including convenience stores, eventually would have to do the same.

Daley's proposed city ordinance adds a dimension to security measures installed after the Sept. 11 attacks. The proliferation of security cameras — especially if the government requires them in private businesses — troubles some civil liberties advocates.

There is a right and expectation of some degree of privacy when entering a night club, restaurant or even a convenience store. The owners of these establishments recognize this by providing decorum and service that doesn't interfere with our dinner, our drinking or our purchases. The government has no inherent right to identify what clubs we frequent. Nor does the government have the right to monitor what stores we buy our convenience groceries at during any given week. Neither does the government--at any level--have the right to monitor what restaurants we choose for lunch or dinner... no matter what time of day or night we choose to do so.

'There is no reason to mandate all of those cameras unless you one day see them being linked up to the city's 911 system," says Ed Yohnka of the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union. "We have perhaps reached that moment of critical mass when people ... want to have a dialogue about how much of this is appropriate.'

This is the underlying plan. The premise is safety and crime prevention, but what happens when someone more egregious, less honest, and more fascist takes advantage of the use of those networked cameras and sound systems... that is correct these cameras will also have sound detection and microphones... just like the 9-11 cameras being installed at this moment. (see the picture)

Milwaukee is considering requiring cameras at stores that have called police three or more times in a year. The Baltimore County Council in Maryland ordered large malls to put cameras in parking areas after a murder in one garage last year. The measure passed despite objections from business groups.

The city leaders in Milwaukee must have rubbed elbows with Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Chertoff or someone else in the Bush adminstration... the virus is spreading.

Some cities aren't going along. Schenectady, N.Y., shelved a proposal that would have required cameras in convenience stores.

Thank God that there are some people with some sense left.

"We require shopping centers to put railings on stairs and install sprinkler systems for public safety. This is a proper next step," says Baltimore County Councilman Kevin Kamenetz, who sponsored the ordinance.

But railings and sprinklers do not record private activities, send images our our behavior across networks, invade our privacy, extend the power of the government in violation of the very principles embodied by the Fourth Amendment. However, if the local, county or state governments want to require businesses to install video surveillance cameras then make it a part of the zoning and building codes, providing specifications for the design and equipment being used, and face down the wrath of all the business owner that will oppose such a plan as an imposition on their rights to run their businesses as they see fit. Also, be prepared for all existing businesses to claim a grandfather status under the principle of ex post facto.

'The safer we make the city, the better it is for everyone,' says Chicago Alderman Ray Suarez, who first proposed mandatory cameras in some businesses. 'If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?'

Cameras do not make us safer unless they are properly moniroed 24 hours a day. That means that each camera must be moniroed at all times. If each camera is not fully monitored, then it only serves to help track down the culprits that may have committed a crime. Cameras are only useful as part of a security plan and are only useful in certain applications. We would do better by implementing more community policing, better building and zoning codes, increased enforcement of existing laws (i.e. nuisance codes, lighting requirements, capacity restrictions, providing paid police security, etc.), and increasing the number of officers in high crime and highly trafficked areas.

But throwing away the Constitution and our fundamental INHERENT rights is not the way to go.