Anne Linehan and Charles Kuffner are two of Houston’s best bloggers on local political matters, and they have been covering an emerging story that amazingly appears to be flying below the radar screen of most Houstonians — i.e., Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt‘s plan announced last week proposing to place surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.
Building permits should require malls and large apartment complexes to install surveillance cameras, Hurtt said. And if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property, he said.
And the Chief’s justification for surveillance cameras in private homes?:
“I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?”
H’mm. That is not the kind of reasoning that one would find in, say, The Federalist Papers, now is it?
Based on the above response, it appears that Chief Hurtt must have been asleep during the Constitutional Law course while earning his criminal justice degree. Except that, it turns out that the Chief doesn’t have a criminal justice degree. Rather, he has a bachelor’s degree in sociology from Arizona State University and a master’s in something called “organizational management” from the University of Phoenix.
As you might expect, as this story filters through the media and blogosphere, people are scratching their heads and wondering exactly what is going on down here. The Spoof ran a story under the headline “President Bush taps Harold Hurtt to replace Michael Chertoff”:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After hearing Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt’s remarks in one of the Police Chief’s recent press conferences, President George W. Bush gave praise to Chief Hurtt.
“He wants cameras in people’s homes. That is my kind of man,” said President Bush. “This man is going to be my new Homeland Security czar.”
When Chief Hurtt was asked by one reporter why people who aren’t doing anything wrong should be surveilled, he responded: “Only al Qaeda sympathizers and terrorists would protest such a policy. Are you with bin Laden?”
“It was that response to the reporter’s question that really got the President’s attention,” explained White House aide Emma Faker.
Seriously, I recognize that Mayor White is a competent fellow and has a reasonably good understanding of what makes Houston tick. But how is it that Chief Hurtt’s outrageous public comments aren’t grounds for termination of his employment in a position where he is supposed to be responsible for securing the rights of citizens?
“Grounds for termination”?
I’ve only gotten through commerce clause, seperation of powers, and state sovereign immunity in my Con Law class so far, but I’m not sure any of this is something we should talk about firing a man for.
No one has put up any of these cameras yet. I’m not sure that I favor them, and I am sensitive to the civil liberties concern and selective enforcement problem, but why not use them to surveil public places like street corners? People don’t have an expectation of privacy on a street corner, do they?
Would anyone be opposed to the idea of posting a police officer or security guard at the same location? Then why not allow a police officer to monitor cameras posted in such a place?
As far as the private home camera, I assume that he meant to place it somewhere the public or an officer has a lawful right to be, ie on the street. He did not say that he wanted them in anyone’s home. Sure, its not great to watch anybody’s home, but if there are repeated complaints of criminal activity coming from one home, it would be OK to have an officer drive by every hour, wouldn’t it?
Most importantly (I know how silly this is about to sound to some people), Chief Hurtt’s job is not to guard the rights of Houstononians, it is to guard the safety of Houstonians. It is the job of the city council to figure out what the balance between those things should be. The Chief should be an advocate for public safety measures, especially prospectively.
I still love the blog, and read it almost every day. Thanks!
Adam, history is filled with fascists who undermined freedom through subordinating individual rights — such as the right to privacy — to the convenience of an alleged greater public good.
Thanks for the kind words and for reading HCT.
Love the blog. A FREE reference to the Federalist Papers is as follows: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
One of the beauties of the internet is Amazon. But also the ability to access information without paying Amazon for public domain documents.
I find your perspective on Enron thoughtful and pragmatic. Would love to see more of it. There is no one arond to defend Enron or Arthur Andersen and the prosecutors and the press continue to rape their dead bodies.
Peace
Thank you for the very nice words, Tom.
I find it astounding that Hurtt even suggested this, and that there isn’t more of an uproar around town. Even the Chronicle seems to be snoozing right on through this one!
The idea that one can guard the safety of people without guarding the rights of people is, on its face, a perfect absurdity. It is akin to the idea that people can give up liberty for security. To which I would ask, what is the purpose of security, if not for securing liberty? In fact, if you look at the essence of crime (not necessarily that which is illegal, since the government has outlawed so many non-crimes), it is the violation of one’s rights, which is why it is a crime. Everybody is has a right to self-ownership, i.e., they own their own body, and property ownership, i.e., they own their own property. Thus, arson, robbery, theft are all crimes, as you are violating property rights. For, if one doesn’t have a right to property, then how would it be criminal to take it from them? Murder, rape, kidnapping all violate the right to self-ownership, which is they they have all traditionally been considered crimes. When the government violates these very same rights, it becomes criminal itself, and we are then left having to figure out how to provide for our true SAFETY (i.e., SECURITY for our RIGHTS).