Surveillance Cameras Win Broad Support

ABC News ^ | July 29, 2007 | MICHELLE LIRTZMAN

[Sherman Logan]

I agree. I assume you will agree that particular train has long left the station.

Of all the things the federal government does that fall outside its original constitutional parameters, surveillance of public spaces is by no means the most egregious.

[supercat]

Of all the things the federal government does that fall outside its original constitutional parameters, surveillance of public spaces is by no means the most egregious.

Well, yes and no. It is by no means the most egregiously unjustifiable. On the other hand, it poses a bigger threat to freedom than most other unconstitutional measures.

[af_vet_rr]

Naw, the surveillance comes from guys just like you who want to know what government employes are doing with their money.

Actually, it probably comes from the companies who make the cameras who lobbied and bought donated to the campaigns of various Congress critters and White House folks. They send put some money into a campaign fund and whisper "hey, we need some cameras watching this or that place".

Setting up a camera to watch criminal acts on the public highways doesn't come near what goes on already.

Can you get me the name of the company that makes a camera that can only record criminals? They sound like a good stock to invest in, since up until now, I've only heard of cameras that can record everybody.

[af_vet_rr]

Of all the things the federal government does that fall outside its original constitutional parameters, surveillance of public spaces is by no means the most egregious.

That doesn't make it right, nor does it mean we should accept it simply because the Republicans are running the show (especially since the Republicans are running the show, you'd think we hold ourselves to higher standards). Then again, so much of this goes in out of sight of the public - I mentioned campaign donations and the like being used to push this stuff through.

[muawiyah]

The things that go on when your back is turned. "They" are/have developed software that "recognizes" faces. Doesn't take much imagination to figure out what the software will have to do to "recognize" crimes.

I'd buy some stock in the face recognition companies.

At the same time I expect you to write a letter to your Congresscritter today to demand the financial disclosure laws for public employees be rescinded.

[CJ Wolf]

“OK, was anyone here asked that question for a poll? Does anyone here know anyone who was asked that question?”

Not I.

[Balding_Eagle]

How would you point out a posters foolishness in a way that couldn’t be called a personal attack?