According to Police Chief Magazine, the Los Angeles County (CA) Sheriff’s office is launching the Advanced Surveillance and Protection (ASAP) program, ASAP. It’s a combination of technologies: high-resolution night vision video surveillance, acoustic gunshot detection (for that grassy knoll moment), automated license plate recognition (ALPR), “and other advanced components.” If a suspect vehicle drives through an intersection equipped with surveillance cameras (ALPR cameras are also mounted on the roofs of patrol cars), the system will alert the sheriff’s command center. Live images of the fleeing vehicle are transmitted to patrol cars, which can then go into pursuit. Finally, the command center can take control of the local traffic signals to reduce the potential for collisions involving innocent drivers. So here’s the question: is all this electronic policing a good investment, or should we just put more boots on the ground (cops in cars)? And should there be additional limits to police electronic surveillance?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
legalize all drugs. the soft ones (say, pot) won’t cause anyone any trouble. those addicted to the hard stuff will be able to get oodles of the junk on the cheap, and they’ll be overdosed and dead in a week. problem solved. keeping drugs illegal keeps prices high and makes it worth killing over. legalize it, and it’ll be as passe as cigarettes.
then remove all restrictions to the 2nd amendment. once everyone is armed, only the boldest criminals will have the nerve to violate the rights of others. you’ve just reduced the criminal subset by 90%. most of them are big chickens, just like you and me.
now that you’ve eliminated 95% of US crime, you don’t need big brother and his creepy cameras.
problem solved.
Another reason to skip LA LA land :-)
Seriously though in this case CA is not in the lead. We’ll have to study the British experience on surveillance. The big difference may be that the Brits will live with it, stationary stuff in the US may get shot to bits. Yeehaw!
I’m Canadian so maybe I need this explained to me. How does anyone expect ‘privacy’ in public places???
Putting cameras in public places is just a cheaper way of putting more “boots on the ground”. And it saves all the he-said/she-said in court. Why should I have a problem with that?
then remove all restrictions to the 2nd amendment. once everyone is armed, only the boldest criminals will have the nerve to violate the rights of others. you’ve just reduced the criminal subset by 90%. most of them are big chickens, just like you and me.
now that you’ve eliminated 95% of US crime, you don’t need big brother and his creepy cameras.
I always dreamed of installing a .50 MG on the hood of my car….
Whether I’m being watched by a cop in his car or by a camera makes no difference to me: I feel uncomfortable in both cases.
The erroneous assumption of people supporting such measures is that the government is there is help the general population when in fact the government has interests of its own and mainly does what is good for the government – get more money from its citizens and make them more manageable by limiting their privacy and civil rights.
From the Patriot act to speed and surveillance cameras, it’s all the same game.
I think its fine when being used to track the “bad guys”. The only problem is when the definition of bad guys expands.
I agree with i6, not just because I’m Canadian, too. Increasing police presence has been shown through a number of studies to not have any effect on crime (see, for instance, the Kansas City study, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_preventive_patrol_experiment) So boots on the ground is an expensive, and useless solution. The cameras are by far the better option, in that they are always there, always watching, and while the crime rate likely will not decrease over several years, there will, I suspect, be more crimes detected and offenders caught.
However, in the short term, the crime rate will decrease – 80% of the crime is committed by 20% of the people, so if those 20% get caught (or even a decent-sized fraction thereof) crimes will go down because the criminals will be in prison, or otherwise incapacitated.
Also, given that LA has a high crime rate, and many police officers are killed there each year, it makes a good location to implement such devices. More boots on the ground will just make, sadly, more coffins in the ground.
The problem with Government’s ability to collect data is that unless safeguards are applied at the on-set of whatever date collection program you are talking about, the government will ALWAYS start using it for other things.
So now the system can track people who are in a high speed chase. Great. Then what about tracking people who are speeding? Then we get to people doing illegal lane changes? And if an Amber alert goes out, we track every Silver Accord on the road. And soon, we are tracking everyone everywhere.
And now the government knows where every car is, and how it got there. Do you really trust the Police and/or hackers not to abuse this situation?
We might as well just have a government required transmitting GPS unit in every car and let them ticket us for every violation. Try fighting that in court!
as long as it is a complimentary technology, sounds good…
carguy: Do you realize, that without a government, that collects money from its citizens, there would be no nice roads to drive on? (not to mention that the automobile industry would probably be 30,40,50+ years behind where it currently is – if existent at all…)
Doesn’t matter whether one likes it or not. In my Chicago suburb in Illinois, every major intersection has a 4-way camera installed. I have no idea how sophisticated they are — if they can capture license plates and issue citations for stop violations, or merely serve as a means of 24-hour taping — accident instant replay, basically.
As far as Big Brother — there are ways Illinois is keeping tabs on its drivers, other than cameras. It costs twice as much to pay tolls with cash vs an in-car I-Pass. The reason, officially, is traffic flow. However, I-Pass records your every coming and going — time on, time off the toll road, and by extension, your average speed. Coming soon, I-Pass speeding tickets by mail.
And also soon, crime solving. (Sir, I-Pass has your vehicle in the vacinity of the crime in question, which doesn’t match your previous statement. Could you come with us, please?)
Do I object? Mmmm.
Sorta.
Kinda.
Maybe.
Depends.
If cameras are used to catch crooks or resolve an accident dispute, fine. No problem.
If cameras are used to catch ME doing my God-given right of civil disobedience, (ie: pushing the speed limit by 10 mph as a matter of principal), then Darn Right, I have a problem!
Can I have it both ways?
Answer of the Day: No.
I have zero confidence in the government’s ability to establish, operate and maintain such an operation.
-Matt
What good does any enforcement do when the judges let the criminals off anyway?
NICKNICK-“the soft ones (say, pot) won’t cause anyone any trouble”
I’ve known way to many pot-heads to buy this.
They hurt themselves and everyone around them.
Bunter
If you’re not doing anything wrong, why should you care if the government listens to your calls and monitors you 24/7??? JUST KIDDING!
Well, I hate the idea of being watched 24-7 by the government. But then again my day job is writing all the image processing algorithms that automate all of the surveillance. You’d be surprised what we can do (I just can’t tell you). So soon it won’t be big brother watching you, it’ll be big brother’s computer who does everything and then just drops big brother an email when something looks wrong.
i6 :
April 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I’m Canadian so maybe I need this explained to me. How does anyone expect ‘privacy’ in public places???
It has nothing to do with an expectation of privacy and everything to do with the mechanization of law-enforcement and an encroaching police state.
I don’t care if you see me pick my nose at a stop light.
I care very much that the government that gave us Iraq and the Patriot Act is now granting itself the ability to track every citizen, guilty or innocent, without any sort of oversight or restraint.
How much easier is it going to be to kidnap german citizens and torture them for a year if you can track their movement 24/7?
It’s for the children, isn’t it? How can you be against it, then?
@ The Canadians, et al
While one may not expect a certain level of privacy in public spaces, might one expect anonymity? Or if not privacy, indifference to one’s actions, so long as they don’t grossly exceed normally expected conduct or break reasonable laws – those involving violence towards others? If we must be watched constantly, then we might as well be prisoners.
@improvement_needed
Because there’s no way that one could have private toll roads, right? As for there being no cars without the government, I was unaware that fleet sales were that important.
@Bunter
Was this harm actual physical harm done to other people, or was it “they behave in ways I don’t agree with and I don’t like it”?
I believe in self-sovereignty. What I do to myself is nobody’s business but mine. What you do to yourself is not my business at all. As long as you do not physically harm me or someone else, we’re cool.
Presumption of innocence is central to the English common law (and most modern Western justice systems.) These surveillance systems presume guilt – that everybody is guilty of something, or will be at some point.
It may be time for a Constitutional amendment dealing with privacy issues.
@ NeonCat93
you wrote:
“Because there’s no way that one could have private toll roads, right? As for there being no cars without the government, I was unaware that fleet sales were that important.”
please open your mind instead of closing it…
A society without rules and regulations will not prosper too well with everybody looking out for number one.
without such rules, i doubt any industry (aggregates or auto) would be able to grow into anything resembling what exists today…
not to mention foster, protect and grow trade routes across open water…
improvement_needed – there is a role for government in the areas of infrastructure, defense and the like. The problem with government throughout the western world is that it is ever expanding its reach into our lives and pockets. Once we tolerate mass surveillance as a “preventative measure” to stop crime we are well on track to losing the freedom and liberty our forefather fought very hard for. The idea that we can trade liberty for safety is a fairy tale – a government’s ability to “keep us safe” is very limited but the tendency to abuse their power has been demonstrated throughout the world many times. Personally I’d like to live in a society where the government is afraid of the will afraid of its people and not the other way around.
> I’m Canadian so maybe I need this explained to me. How does anyone expect ‘privacy’ in public places???
That’s the main question, and the answer, imo, is that there is no expectation of privacy at intersections of public roads.
@ improvement_needed
Funny, people keep telling me I need to open my mind, usually because I disagree with them. Perhaps YOU need to open YOUR mind and think that maybe government has drawbacks, many of which cause it to appear to be a bumbling thief beholden to those who can deliver money and votes to those in charge.
Nowhere did I advocate total anarchy, which is what you seem to be accusing me of, but since you love the state so much, I will childishly insist that you must be a totalitarian who not only loves Big Brother but longs for the day when his omnipresent gaze watches us all. As it is, I believe you are confusing “society” with “government”. They are, and ought to be, two entirely different things. Government may be a necessity, due to the unfortunate failings of humans, but it should be regarded as George Washington suggested: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
He also said, wisely, “The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.”
@ miked:
That might not have been the smartest thing to tell some of these guys. I hope you’ve never divulged where you sleep on the internet.
I’m entirely on the fence with this issue. I can’t decide for the life of me because there are good aspects to this as well as frightening aspects.
Something to think about, though, for anyone else still on the fence: If we try to monitor everything everywhere eventually we have a society that monitors a laboratory where there are no secrets. None.
There’s an article in today’s Chicago Tribune about ALPR’s in San Jose, CA.
Near the end is this:
“Imagine a city with hundreds of mobile and fixed cameras that upload and store time and place information on every license plate they see. Then imagine how useful it would be in identifying criminal suspects and retrospectively tracking their movements, checking alibis and locating fugitives, witnesses and conspirators, particularly when combined with cell-phone tracking records and omnipresent surveillance video.
And imagine how ominous it would be in irresponsible hands.”
Because they put an immobilizing boot on offenders cars, it concludes with:
“From the boot to the leash. It’s closer than you think.”
The Hartford Courant recently ran a piece about automated traffic camera’s, and mentioned that CT has thousands of duplicate licence plates. (I could be wrong, but I seem to recall it’s because passenger plates could end up with the same alphanumerics as commercial plates.)
Anyway, one CT resident got a ticket in the mail from NYC because an automated red-light camera took a photo of “his” plate running a red light there.
Problem is, he’d not been in NYC. The plate in the photo was actually affixed to a 40-foot-long bus– not the guy’s car. It took him three hours on the phone to NY to sort that out.
I’m with the CT legislator who said the following when CT rejected speed camera’s:
“Cameras aren’t proven to make any one safer [and] would mostly be photographing drivers who weren’t breaking the law.”
“State surveillance of our law-abiding citizens is not an area in which I am looking for Connecticut to lead. A lot of other right-thinking people have made that judgment, and that’s why these cameras have not caught on.”
“Placing importance on our civil liberties is an American characteristic. Benjamin Franklin said the man who trades his liberty for temporary security deserves neither.“
Smart guy, that Ben Franklin.
Electronic surveillance isn’t the answer, IMHO. We’re a society that considers crime to be acceptable and criminals to be victims. I don’t agree with that stance. We need much harsher penalties for those who actually commit crimes against others, and we need to remove penalties for “crimes” that don’t directly hurt anyone but the “criminal” himself (in other words, legalize drugs). Cameras don’t bother me, but at this point it’s just a waste of money since the justice system won’t do anything once the criminal is caught.
Bunter1, I’d say your experience is unusual. I know dozens of well-adjusted, productive pot smokers who harm nobody.
rpn453: We need much harsher penalties for those who actually commit crimes against others, and we need to remove penalties for “crimes” that don’t directly hurt anyone but the “criminal” himself (in other words, legalize drugs).
Drugs are not illegal because they only victimize the perpetrator but also because the use of drugs imperilizes others and can ruin families and friendships. Even if you only smoke pot in the privacy of your own home and you have no friends or family, your use of pot still has consequences on other people, primarily those who are in the business of drug dealing and the people of the countries that export drugs, legally or illegally. Do not get the idea that the recreational use of illegal substances only effects the person abusing the drug, no matter the circumstances.
rpn453:
Cameras don’t bother me, but at this point it’s just a waste of money since the justice system won’t do anything once the criminal is caught.
My thoughts, exactly. Since, basically anyone can get (and keep) a license regardless of competence or behavior, what’s the f***in’ point?
Hell, LALA land is famous for it’s high speed chases in which cops shut down roads and endanger the lives/ruin commutes for thousands of innocents so some meltdown wack-job can have his 15 minutes of you-tube fame.
I don’t know Cali justice, but my guess is that these degenerates do a few weekends in jail…
# Bunter1 :
April 4th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
NICKNICK-”the soft ones (say, pot) won’t cause anyone any trouble”
I’ve known way to many pot-heads to buy this.
They hurt themselves and everyone around them.
Bunter
Really? My experience is the opposite of that. All the potheads i’ve ever known have been harmless. often worthless, but always harmless. they usually just holed themselves up with video games and snacks. not the way i choose to live, but whatevs.
B-Rad :
April 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
“Even if you only smoke pot in the privacy of your own home and you have no friends or family, your use of pot still has consequences on other people, primarily those who are in the business of drug dealing…”
That’s kinda what i was getting at. If they were legal, there wouldn’t be any money in drug-dealing. the violence would then stop. how much killing is there over cigarettes and beer? pretty much zilch. during prohibition? WAY different story.
i don’t use the junk myself, but i want it legalized so the drug violence in my area will stop so i don’t have to be afraid to go out at night.
Should Big Brother Be Allowed to Watch You?
Hell No!
@ NICKNICK:
It’s possible the drug violence in your area would be reduced if drugs were illegal but would it really be eliminated? There’s a “black” market to almost all industries. Why would it be any different for drugs? Besides that, beyond your area, or our country, would it be eliminated? Drugs are legal in all other countries that they pass through to get here.
I hear you as far as drug violence in the States is concerned but it’s a much broader issue. Drugs would still be able to have negative effects on family and friends as those who are addicted to drugs, whether it be pot or heroine, will go to many lengths to appease their addiction.
B-rad–
if you count the drug addicts friends and family, you are absolutely right. i guess i’m (more than) a little harsh when i say it would be better for everyone if the addicts just OD’d and culled their own herd. i’ve never had a friend kill himself with drugs–just video games and munchies. it would certainly suck to have a friend or brother die.
if drugs were legalized everywhere (all countries), i bet the high black market prices would fall across the world.
as for black markets for all industries–i wonder why that is. is it because they’re dealing in illegal things (like suitcase bombs), or are they just trying to avoid taxes? off the top of my head, the only black markets i can think of are for illegal things. at this point i am very weakly speculating, but wouldn’t that indicate that when there is no government involvement making things illegal or taxable, there is no black market trade? i don’t really know.
if you can think of any examples, let me know–it’s friday night and i think my brain is about empty. i won’t be able to think for myself much longer :)
A lot of chatter about cameras and right to privacy in public places. How about in your car? Many modern cars track the last 15 or 20 seconds of operation, much like a aircraft black box. When you crash the box has data about your speed, braking, etc. This data has been used successfully in product liability lawsuits. Cases are pending where charges in accidents have been upgraded based on data held by the car’s computer. That computer is MINE. Why should the data in it be available to anybody. Why should my own car incriminate me? I suspect this is going to become a big issue in the future.
NICKNICK,
Yeah, now that I think about it, I’m kind of in the same boat as you as far as the black market goes. The only real examples I can think of are like fake fashion accessories like purses and sunglasses. I guess the appeal for those is that the fake stuff is cheaper than the real thing (like remakes of Gucci handbags or something). So maybe a black market for drugs would provide cheaper drugs, which I’m sure many poor addicts would love.
And I think a black drug market in a society that has legalized drugs would be similar to the drug dealing we have now, but maybe on a smaller scale. Regardless, I think our government has a good stance on drugs and that we shouldn’t give up on the “war on drugs”.
As long as the electronic gizmos don’t have remote-controlled Tasers, what’s the harm? The real scare about law enforcement are the bad apples that use excessive force and let their powers go their heads.
golden2huskey:
Cases are pending where charges in accidents have been upgraded based on data held by the car’s computer. That computer is MINE. Why should the data in it be available to anybody.
Good point. Given the tendency of the law to focus mostly on speed, and given that most people speed several times per day, I have a hard time trusting those in authority will put the data to good use.
Worse is the potential for abuse – I have my doubts about black-box data security. If use of black-box data becomes widespread, there will be strong incentive$$$ to hack the data.
Actually, the case could be made that since it’s YOUR black box, YOU have every right to modify data in real time.
A scenario: A jury full of Oprah watching addicts hands down a $10 million damage award against a Ferrari driver whose black box pegged him at 5MPH over the limit. Ferrari driver claims he was cut off by the driver of the 12 year old minivan when it pulled out of the mall lot.
If a story like that ever hits the media, they’ll be a VC stampeed to develop a unit to wipe/modify black boxes. The market always adapts.
The increased surveillance will do a little to prevent crime; crimes of passion and crimes of opportunity will still occur because those who commit them instinctively know that a camera can’t stop them in the act, and the irrational nature of the mind that turns to crime won’t likely give a lot of thought to the increased possibility of capture due to the surveillance.
While the ineffectiveness of “Big Brother” methods to prevent serious crime is sinking in to society, its cost will be paid for by criminalizing petty offenses “committed” by ordinary citizens. Thus, the surveillance industry, judges and lawyers will enjoy increased prosperity, while citizens will suffer reduced liberty. The poorest citizens will suffer the most, because they are the least likely to afford proper counsel to defend themselves against the “infallible” eyes of the law.
shaker,
You may be right about there being no reduction in crime rates. However, will there be an increase in crime solving? Like, will more criminals get caught for their actions?
Somebody should do a study on this: one city have no surveillance and and another rely on surveillance. Then they should compare crime rates and capture rates. I pretty much am against “big brother” but this would still be an interesting study.
It always saddens me to see Americans so eager in the name of safety to erode their civil liberties.
The Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The intent of the Fourth Amendment is to ensure that the government does not subject you to threats of criminal prosecution unless it has genuine cause to do so. A large part of that protection is that they cannot investigate you just for the hell of it. If they are going to even start compiling evidence against you, they need to have a reason to start. It is not the government’s place to just randomly pick you out of a hat and start looking for reasons to pursue you.
The mass electronics spit in the face of that intent. They use the monitoring to actively look for reasons to prosecute you and snare you into the court system.
It’s akin to laws against wiretapping — the state is supposed to have a damn good reason to monitor your phone chatter, they aren’t supposed to be able to start snooping just for fun, as implied in the Fourth Amendment. They certainly aren’t supposed to do it randomly and to everyone.
Digital cameras married to other technologies provide access to a degree of premature snooping that is unprecedented and well out of line with the intent of the Founders. It’s a very slippery slope, it won’t take much to slide headlong down this one.
Pch101:
Digital cameras married to other technologies provide access to a degree of premature snooping that is unprecedented and well out of line with the intent of the Founders. It’s a very slippery slope, it won’t take much to slide headlong down this one.
An argument could be made that, in the founders’ time, almost everyone lived in small towns and knew one another. Today’s cameras, monitoring, and networking just mimic that ‘small town’ network.
Also, don’t discount the possible backlash once it is shown (via FOIA video releases) that enforcement is selective for certain people or times. Or enforcement results in a sizable chunk of the populace deemed ‘criminal’.
I agree with you that there’s potential danger here, but not to your degree.
@ Pch101: Well said.
Right now I think the laws we have are reasonable, with the exception of punishing potheads who could just grow their own stuff and not harm anything or anybody, and I’m sure the government would be bored as hell if they spent any appreciable amount of time monitoring my lame existence, but I’ve been to places where people still feel uncomfortable about speaking ill of the government in public. History isn’t full of examples of extremely powerful governments using that power for the good of their people.
It sounds like a lot of people don’t like cameras observing their every move. So, how does a person respond to that? If we let the government put them in, some people will grumble and some will justify it for ‘safety’, but few people will raise enough of a stink to get rid of the things. I think people need to have a concerted effort to really effect a change.
The moral? vote in the people who won’t take away our every last bit of privacy, and vote out the ones that do. Although that system is a bit broken too..
This is what is happening to the United States.
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage
Where are we now? We’re on the last line, that’s where. Everything else is just “commentary”.
Some of us still have spiritual faith, courage, and a desire for liberty. We’re mocked, laughed at, marginalized and stripped of our civil rights, if we don’t toe the PC line. Our leader, Jesus Christ, told us it would be so. We’re also liable to lose our livelihood if we speak out, and liable to lose our freedom (ironically, as many of you not amongst us also are) once this once great nation slips into bondage. As in, a police state. Yep, this is Amerika, but in some ways, for some of us, compared to what it once was, it may as well be Soviet Russia or
East Germany.
I’m part of a minority of a minority, since I just read today that 67% of Americans don’t believe there is any absolute right or wrong. What they do believe in is called moral relativism.
Interestingly, God’s nature abhors relativism, prefers absolutism. One little example: you can SAY “well I don’t believe that I’m going to fall off the cliff if I walk off the edge” but when you do, that first step is a loooong one.
The minority of a minority part comes in the fact that less than half of the 33% of Americans who actually do believe there is absolute right and wrong, actually also believe in God’s word. As in the parts that form the founding statutes and documents of the country we all still inhabit, if we be Americans in America.
So, in reality, true constitutional and libertarian, non-relativist Christians are but a small minority in this nation. But we are the only minority that it is “okay” to treat the way the blacks were treated until some 50 years ago.
Now, go back up to the top of my posting and read it again, and try to tell me we aren’t getting just what most of we Americans have “asked for” and yes, deserve.
Traffic law disobedience is merely a symptom of the overall issue I’m describing. And the knee-jerk police-state mentality of our “esteemed leaders” is merely what should be expected with the overall situation we find ourselves in now. As in, where are we on the list? Just coming back into bondage. Except, surprise, surprise, surprise. All of us get to be in bondage, even the very few elites who think they rule the roost. Because there is more than one kind of bondage.
Sounds great, we’ll just hold out our arms for the barcode tattoo. Government never does anything evil, right?
An argument could be made that, in the founders’ time, almost everyone lived in small towns and knew one another. Today’s cameras, monitoring, and networking just mimic that ’small town’ network.
One could say the same logic applies in regards to the second amendment and gun control. There is no way our founding fathers could have ever anticipated the incredible firepower of modern weapons just like nobody in the 60’s could have anticipated the power of today’s computers. BTW I don’t have a problem with you owning a gun as long as you are responsible with it. I only brought it up b/c of the comments in the King Ranch thread.
Menno, I don’t suggest you get all preachy about (your)religion unless you’re prepared to have it reviewed and criticized by others. In my opinion, this isn’t the forum for it.
Wasn’t trying to be preachy, JuniperBug. Just stating things the way I see them.
Ask a Jewish survivor from Aushwitz about what they think, because it isn’t just Christians under threat. It’s all of us, really.
God bless.
So, in reality, true constitutional and libertarian, non-relativist Christians are but a small minority in this nation.
I’ll avoid the temptation to turn this into the Trinity Broadcasting Network, but suffice it to say, the LA Sheriff’s Department is not exactly packed full of heathen leftist moral relativists.
This is not a matter of left vs. right. There are plenty of folks of all sorts of religious and political ilks who would like to dismantle our privacy rights. They all have their excuses for doing it. (Hell, some of them want cameras to protect their Christian friends from the heathen leftist moral relativists.)
Ironically, given the tendency of US Supreme Court rulings, you would likely need liberal courts to do away with these intrusions. An extremely strict conservative interpretation of the Fourth Amendment will not lead you to the conclusions that I have reached. Taking issue with the monitors is a function of the intent of the Founders, not what they specifically said. (Obviously, they didn’t plan for camera surveillance, but it doesn’t mean that they would have liked it.)
The fundamental issue is basic — do you want Uncle to watch you or not? I don’t, and I have my reasons. You don’t, but your reasons come from a different place. I don’t need to pray to anything or anyone to interpret the Constitution as I have, and a lot of other don’t, either.
If we didn’t have a “segment” of society that wanted to steal lie cheat rob murder and everything else that sounds like fun to them-then we wouldn’t have as great a need for “big brother” would we ?? Cameras are here to stay-and it will get progressively worse so the law-abiding folks out there might as well just smile and say cheese….
Well, if the moral infallibility of government can be proven and monitored closely by the citizens for abuse, then let them have their cameras…
Wait… who’s monitoring who?
NICKNICK und NeonCat93-Haven’t been blowin’ you off. I’m not online over the weekend.
First-“worthless” eliminates the possibility of “harmless”, IMO. Someone always ends up carrying them, they influence others (say the “young and impressionable”) to ruin/waste their lives. They raise kids in a mess that propagates lousy live for them.
The “no man is an island” thing.
Which brings us to the “Was this harm actual physical harm done to other people, or was it “they behave in ways I don’t agree with and I don’t like it”?”
This question seems to suppose that these are the only two answers. Which is manifestly incorect.
There are a vast swath of social, economic and relational damage in between the two extremes and over simplification will not remove the problems.
The people I am thinking of are people I care about and affect people I care about, I recognize their “personal sovereignty” and respect it.
That does not mean that their are no victims of their actions and that they do no harm.
I think you are asking the wrong questions if you want to find the truth.
My thoughts,
Bunter
Psych101, I agree with a lot of your statements. Nowhere did I ask that only religious, or only Christian people “be allowed” to be in the ruling elite. I certainly have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that it would be what is now described as “liberal” courts who would be likely to over rule the surveillance society, however, since “liberals” have largely been in control of the Congress, or Presidential administration and increasingly in the Courts since 1933 – and the results speak for themselves. We’re going down the path of another “liberal” nation – Britain – in being surveilled constantly, much as was warned might be the case by a certain George Orwell.
As for whether I want to be constantly surveilled, the answer is a most emphatic NO. Likewise, I have enough faith in a large enough proportion of American citizens that they are intelligent enough to make reasoned decision (as long as they are NOT on illicit drugs) so that they too, should NOT be constantly surveilled by Big Brother, no matter who is in charge of the levers behind the curtain (i.e. in charge of the so-called republic).
I certainly have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that it would be what is now described as “liberal” courts who would be likely to over rule the surveillance society
If you survey which judges cast which votes, you’ll find that it is conservative justices such as Scalia who cast their votes in favor of law enforcement when there are conflicts between individual right and the authority of the police.
The conservative justices are inclined to maintain a “law and order” approach when reviewing cases involving police authority. The conservatives are predisposed to supporting whatever it is that the police do, including cases during which it is acknowledged that the police overstepped their bounds. In those cases, Scalia et. al. are inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt.
You can expect this trend to continue. Law-and-order conservatives will be inclined to vote in favor of surveillance, because of their support for the police. Let’s remember that it is law enforcement agencies that wanted these cameras in the first place, so you already know that’s with whom the conservative justices will place their sympathies.