NYC extends surveilance network to Midtown

[Selene]

Folks:

Since this involves the "public" rather than private space, it raises liberty versus safety issues. In the current climate in the world and particularly NY City this is clearly a serious issue.

I pass buy a particular bench, at a particular express bus stop here in New Jersey, three or four times a week. The fellow citizens of this citizen erected the bench. There is a small brass plaque that is in memory of a worker who boarded the bus that penetratingly beautiful morning, with all the collective joys and worries of a regular day. A man who had no hatred of any Muslim. He was an American, therefore he had no motivation to hate a Muslim.

He might have been thinking of how he was going to create a new learning program that would help a child understand. He might have been thinking of a new idea for a product that would create a pile of money for his effort. Or he might have been thinking of how great it is to be a Yankee fan.

He felt that same way when he entered his office building whistling.

And was slaughtered.

So where is the balance between security and freedom in terms of now. The mayor explains that:

“We live in a world where we have to have a balance. We can’t just say everybody can go everyplace and do anything they want.”

This choice by the mayor is, of course, a fallacious one, but it is a political statement. His hidden question is, as it is in many "social" public square issues, where do you draw the line on security and liberty in the public square?

I would be interested in your input.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Philosophy of Law Issues

> "NYC extends surveilance network to Midtown" ... where do you draw the line on security and liberty in the public square? I would be interested in your input.

There are a number of things which, in a laissez-faire society, private owners (individual or corporate like proprietary communities) would not let people do for safety or esthetic or nuisance or other customer care or retention reasons.

These include not letting people drive 100 miles per hour, especially on small roads or past schools, not letting people bring chainsaws and automatic weapons into certain commercial establishments, not letting people allow piles of rotten and stinking meat to accumulate in their backyard, not letting people who have neighbors turn their speakers up full volume and play loud music at 3 AM.

There are also positive things they -would- do: increase surveillance in areas of high potential crime and terrorism might be one example, but only in cases where that would be necessary or effective. [Adam, what is the specific example in NYC that you are questioning or referencing?]

In the absence of LFC, public institutions must be expected to do the same things and it is proper for them to do things which there are objective reasons for....as in the cases I listed.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Philip Coates

[jeffrey smith]

More years ago than I care to say, I went to college in suburban Atlanta, and often enough went by bus to downtown Atlanta for concerts, etc. So at 11 PM or so I'd be waiting on Peachtree Street for the last bus back to campus. Invariably I chose one bus stop to wait at. It was reasonably well lit, but more important to me was the presence of some whores and their pimp(s) not very far from the bus stop, and the "massage parlor" just steps away. I figured that these people had a direct interest in keeping their "premises" free of muggers and other possible threats of violence, and that therefore I was safer there than at the alternative bus stops, which were not so attractive to those types of professionals. And, while I never used their services, I never was mugged.

On the more general question that Adam raised: those in authority seem to invariably overemphasize security concerns and possible threats in order to justify claims to greater power. Therefore, while it may be hard to draw the line where security and freedom balance correctly, you can always be sure that the balance point is always much nearer the freedom side of the equation than authority says it is. (This of course applies to all types of nanny-statism.)

[Philip Coates]

> those in authority seem to invariably overemphasize security concerns and possible threats in order to justify claims to greater power.

Sometimes they fail to exercise power, as in unpoliced streets.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Interesting statement by Mayor Bloomberg.

I wonder if Mayor Bloomberg thinks the mayor himself "can go everyplace and do anything he wants."

(We all know he does... )

Michael

[anthony]

Jeffrey writes "while it may be hard to draw the line where security and freedom balance correctly..."

I don't know if a balance can ever be sustained, or even how desirable it is.

I do know that my secondary horror following 9/11 was the reaction to it by the U.S. :- the stripping away of several freedoms.

All life is risk in my estimation, so I lean heavily on the side of being left alone; with the given that the police, Intelligence agencies, etc., are doing their work effectively.

Ben Franklin got it so right : "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither, and lose both."

Or how about "There is nothing to fear, but fear itself". (Always liked that one!)

Edited October 6, 2009 by whYNOT

[Selene]

Jeffrey writes "while it may be hard to draw the line where security and freedom balance correctly..."

I don't know if a balance can ever be sustained, or even how desirable it is.

I do know that my secondary horror following 9/11 was the reaction to it by the U.S. :- the stripping away of several freedoms.

All life is risk in my estimation, so I lean heavily on the side of being left alone; with the given that the police, Intelligence agencies, etc., are doing their work effectively.

Ben Franklin got it so right : "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither, and lose both."

Or how about "There is nothing to fear, but fear itself". (Always liked that one!)

My personal choice is the Bene Gesserit recited ritual statement in Dune, to calm the mind and prepare for peril:

"I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain"

Adam