"Actually, I have no objections to the placing of security cameras in public places. After all, they are public places."
I believe the security cameras in England were useful in regards to tracking down some terrorist. So there was and is some good that comes up of them- and undoubtedly some abuse.
But nevertheless the purpose of cameras was to reduce crime and they don't.
The cameras and the monitoring costs money, money which could be spend on other things.
The issue is not whether some private party, can buy a camera and record the public space.
Or whether police officer can have a camera that records any arrests made.
But rather a public project that buys, installs some 4 million cameras [I seriously doubt these things cost say a little a $100 a per camera- knowing governments, probably more like around $1000 or more per unit- and I'm sure some the right people made a fortune on this public works project. And for a police officer that wants to watch TV and eat donuts it's a hellva job.]
Current Events » in reply to re: Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence
re: Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence
The whole thread (42 posts)
- Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence
- "Leniency to evil coupled with authoritarianism.....that is the Left"
- Numbers don't add up...
- And yet unconstitutional surveillance doesn't bother the neo-cons.
- re: Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence
- Because American conservatives are so concerned about our right to privacy...
- Should be on Flame (n/t)
- "Leniency to evil coupled with authoritarianism- in brief summary, that is the Left."
- Oddly, I don't see it that way...
- re: "Leniency to evil coupled with authoritarianism- in brief summary, that is the Left."
- No big deal, Geoff ambushed me once on the Space board.
