In the article “Policing Public Space“, Public Space may be defined as social space that is open or accessible to people. This may include, roads, public parks, benches, etc. In this article it is shown that public space may be interfered with when it comes to police and their surveillance. Although there is a freedom of space around the environment, certain individuals feel that they are being violated by the camera’s that seem to record everything that they do. An example would be in the statement “The proposed police cameras will be surveying public spaces throughout the city. We feel that it is reasonable to assume that law-abiding citizens should be free to walk the streets and enjoy the public spaces without being monitored by the police. The very act of continuous monitoring reduces the freedoms we all value within our public spaces. It puts into jeopardy our rights to privacy, and anonymity, on the streets of our city”. This statement better explains the fact that although public space means having your space to yourself, it is violating to certain individuals that they are not able to walk free in the streets, since they are technically being watched by the monitoring of the police. Public space usually includes parks, malls, or any type of space that allows residents walk around freely. In the PDF “Queens Triple Play“, it is stated “The communities of Elmhurst, Corona, and Flushing are already under provided with open space, especially space for active recreation for their rapidly growing population. Much of the land officially mapped as parkland is occupied by parkways, buildings, and space leased to private entities”. This statement refers to the amount of public space that some areas have due to the rapid growth of population. Parklands, parks, and parkways all needed extra land space for people, but although acres of land was used for this, parking spaces took up most of the land and there wasn’t much left for it to be considered “public space”.

Sources:

Dr. Dawg. 2008. “Policing public space”. BLOG POST.• Davis, Mike. 1992 “Fortress LA” (pp 224-241 ONLY).

The Pratt Center for Community Development 2012. Queens Triple Play: Willets West,Major League Soccer and The National Tennis Center. Brooklyn, NY: The Pratt Institute(September 21, 2012). queens triple play.pdf

Assignment 4-8, Public Space, ,

3 Comments

  1. I don’t really agree with those certain people in this article “policing public space”. They are basically saying how the public space is not really a public space because they feel violated by the camera’s that are recording the area. But like it mentioned, public space is defined as social space that is open or accessible to people. Though the public space has camera, it is still a public space because people are still allowed to access to that open area. Also I can’t agree with this statement, “The proposed police cameras will be surveying public spaces throughout the city. We feel that it is reasonable to assume that law-abiding citizens should be free to walk the streets and enjoy the public spaces without being monitored by the police. The very act of continuous monitoring reduces the freedoms we all value within our public spaces. It puts into jeopardy our rights to privacy, and anonymity, on the streets of our city”. I think having a camera is really nothing to do with individuals freedom. It’s actually protecting the individual to have a freedom. If there is a no camera it will definitely increase the chance of having crimes and if the crimes happen how are we going to help the victims without the evidence or whatsoever. Therefore, the monitoring of the police is not violating the individuals that are walking free in the streets, they are actually being protective by police so they can enjoy their freedom.

  2. I disagree with the statements that were proposed. I do not believe that surveillance cameras and “policing” violates our freedom in any form. A public space is a social area that is accessible to people to gather and interact. The video surveillance is simply a precaution and ultimately serves for the citizens own good. In your argument you state, ” . . . although public space means having your space to yourself, it is violating to certain individuals that they are not able to walk free in the streets, since they are technically being watched by the monitoring of the police. Public space usually includes parks, malls, or any type of space that allows residents walk around freely.” I don’t understand how individuals feel that they are not able to walk free in the streets/public spaces because they are being “watched by the monitoring of the police”. If anything, acknowledging that there is video surveillance in a certain space should actually make you feel safer because it is there for your own protection; if a crime were to happen, you should feel lucky that there was video surveillance around to capture the incident and help justice to be served. The police are meant to be there to help citizens feel more free and at ease. You also quoted the statement, “The very act of continuous monitoring reduces the freedoms we all value within our public spaces. It puts into jeopardy our rights to privacy, and anonymity, on the streets of our city”. Of course we, as citizens, have the right to privacy. However, I don’t believe anyone should even expect to have any sense of privacy in a public space. We all have access to privacy in our homes and on our own property, but once we enter the “public” space, you are bound to run into good people and bad people; police monitoring and surveillance will only be there to protect you.

  3. I would have to say I disagree with the points made in this blog. I don’t think public space is a place where people’s rights to privacy can be violated by being monitored by cameras and surveillance because a public space is a place that is the opposite of private by definition alone. I think being watched and surveilled while in a public space is no different than another person just watching and monitoring someone while there in that public space as well. It’s perfectly legal to have eyes on someone while they’re out in public because it is no different than just being there in person to monitor them yourself, it’s just being done with cameras instead. It would be one thing to monitor someone that’s in the confines of their own home, which would be an illegal invasion of privacy, but for the police to surveil people in public spaces for reasons that are likely just to maintain a standard of public safety, it is in no way an invasion of privacy. In my opinion, if the ones who we pay to protect us, cannot be justified in acting to go the extra mile for the public by watching, listening and monitoring suspicious people, then what do we have them for? I believe the police doing all they can to protect the public by doing something like listening to and watching people in a place where it is completely legal not only for them but also for any citizen to do so, is little to no price to pay for what should be considered a service that the police are doing for us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>