City Wants Lock-Box Access to Keys to Private Property

[Millefleur]

When anyone says that, I suggest they check their medicine cabinet and their bedroom activities, and indicate whether they care if everyone knows the details. After all, if you've nothing to hide...

That would be fine by me.

But it could get tricky if your bedroom activities involved others who would rather their bedroom activites were not known to certain people

[mistermack]

I don't get the problem. If people don't want this, they will speak against it, and vote against it.
If that fails, it's obvious that the people have chosen.

Or is the point that there is something wrong with democracy?
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course there is something wrong with democracy. Democracy can make abortion and birth control illegal, keep black people from voting, keep gay people from getting married, allow people to be discriminated against based on race and sex, subject political opinions/messages to a majority vote.

It's called the tyranny of the majority.

A man expressing an antigovernment position ought not be silenced by the government. Communists ought to have every right to write and publish and give speeches. Democracy can easily do away with that.

Moreover, a city council is not a vote of the people. The city council is elected by the people, but then can act in whatever ways are within their authority. It is also a part of the democratic process that the people would set forth constraints on their elected officials' power. That's what a constitution is - a constraint on elected official's power.

For example - we democratically elect a President, but the President is not an elected king that can do whatever he wants, subject to being voted out. He must act within his authority. The same is true of a city council. They are elected by the people, but can only act within their lawful authority. If their lawful authority is to be changed, that would be subject to a separate democratic process.

So, the question is - is this resolution something that is within the authority of a city council to do? I mean - 6 people serving on a city council can't make torture a punishment for traffic offenses. Why? Because their authority is limited in that, and other, respects.

[MrJonno]

My new lease includes a legal notice saying that I might be on CCTV in 'public' areas !

In my flat the inhabitants voted for and actually pay for CCTV in public areas.

This law does seem very strange I assume even in the US the fire brigade and the police can legally kick the door down in an emergency

[Coito ergo sum]

My new lease includes a legal notice saying that I might be on CCTV in 'public' areas !

In my flat the inhabitants voted for and actually pay for CCTV in public areas.

This law does seem very strange I assume even in the US the fire brigade and the police can legally kick the door down in an emergency

Yes, they can.

[Geoff]

When anyone says that, I suggest they check their medicine cabinet and their bedroom activities, and indicate whether they care if everyone knows the details. After all, if you've nothing to hide...

That would be fine by me.

But it could get tricky if your bedroom activities involved others who would rather their bedroom activites were not known to certain people

Fair point, but I'm only speaking for myself, and I don't think I'd ever be involved in anything at all secretive. Any of our "playmates", as far as I know, have nothing to hide from others, either.

[charlou]

It's not about whether or not I have something 'to hide' but whether or not I'm entitled to individual freedom and autonomy, including privacy.

The "City" can

[normal]

We have lockboxes on the homes of people who live in semi-institution homes. They basically live on their own, but are checked up on every day for their special needs. So there lockboxes are a good idea. If they have fallen over, broken their legs in the shower, had a stroke, etc.

It said in the OP article that it wasn't intended for private homes......

[charlou]

It said in the OP article that it wasn't intended for private homes......

So it does.

Gotta laugh when the person who posts the OP doesn't even present it factually. Gotta laugh again when I don't read the article myself before responding.

That said, I still don't agree with any business being legally compelled to assign keys to an outside entity. As Feck said, it smacks of Orwellian oversight.

[Geoff]

It's not about whether or not I have something 'to hide' but whether or not I'm entitled to individual freedom and autonomy, including privacy.

The "City" can

As I said, I'm only putting my own point of view, I'm not advocating that it should become compulsory, just that I wouldn't have any objection if it did. Personally, I feel I have more "freedom and autonomy" if I'm somewhere that's covered by CCTV, because of the added security it provides (since I'm much more likely to be a victim of crime than I am to commit one).

Privacy has never been a big deal for me.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not about whether or not I have something 'to hide' but whether or not I'm entitled to individual freedom and autonomy, including privacy.

The "City" can

+100

[Pappa]

It's not about whether or not I have something 'to hide' but whether or not I'm entitled to individual freedom and autonomy, including privacy.

The "City" can

Same here (though I notice it's not for private homes).

Anyway... what's to stop a corrupt official abusing the system?

[Coito ergo sum]

It said in the OP article that it wasn't intended for private homes......

So it does.

Gotta laugh when the person who posts the OP doesn't even present it factually. Gotta laugh again when I don't read the article myself before responding.

That said, I still don't agree with any business being legally compelled to assign keys to an outside entity. As Feck said, it smacks of Orwellian oversight.

The OP was presented factually. In the US private businesses are private property. Moreover, the distinction between a private business and a private residence may be important to some, but that would be up to them to make that argument. It's not a distinction, in my view, which makes a difference. If it's a distinction that makes a difference to someone else, again, then they ought to make their case. The fact that I did not make that argument doesn't mean the OP was counter-factual.

The only way to misunderstand it would be to not read it.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not about whether or not I have something 'to hide' but whether or not I'm entitled to individual freedom and autonomy, including privacy.

The "City" can

Same here (though I notice it's not for private homes).

Anyway... what's to stop a corrupt official abusing the system?

And, as the people arguing to the city council pointed out, this is or may be a stepping stone to go beyond private businesses and move on to residences.

[charlou]

As I said, I'm only putting my own point of view, I'm not advocating that it should become compulsory, just that I wouldn't have any objection if it did. Personally, I feel I have more "freedom and autonomy" if I'm somewhere that's covered by CCTV, because of the added security it provides (since I'm much more likely to be a victim of crime than I am to commit one).

Particularly the bit I've bolded ... I don't know what that level of insecurity feels like, but can understand the ethos of those it affects. My personal viewpoint is not a judgement of yours.