Posted on 07/29/2007 5:40:02 PM PDT by ECM
Hmmmmm....ABC “news” ...me thinks somebody over at Walt Disney thinks it a better idea.....
As the old saying goes those who give up liberty for safety will soon have neither
I don’t believe this poll.
Polls of this type usually survey less than a thousand people. Out of the 300M in America, it's pretty unlikely one of those
OK, was anyone here asked that question for a poll? Does anyone here know anyone who was asked that question?
Polls of this type usually survey less than a thousand people out of the 300M in America. It's pretty unlikely one of those under a thousand people is handing out on this thread.
Sticking a camera on the side of a building does not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
I understand people's discomfort, but as somebody has pointed out, not every bad idea is unconstitutional.
Unless you think the Supremes should get out is ouija board and find some emanations and penumbras to make the Constitution say what you think it should say. This approach has had so many bad results I think it should be avoided even in a good cause.
Personally, I think it's time for an amendment addressing privacy and surveillance issues.
Well lets see. Your name and address is public isn't it? Your occupation is public. The property you own is public information. Marital status, children, parents, etc. that is all public. Any legal problems? That is all public. Where you went to school, your friends, neighbors again that is all public.
So if it is all public and you have nothing to hide, why don't you share that information with us? We are all friendly here and couldn't possibly do anything with that public information, could we?
Why do I suspect that you aren't going to share that public information with us? What do you have to hide? I think that you might be growing marijuana in your house. I think that we should investigate you. How would you like a nice little no knock warrant served about 5:30 Am tomorrow morning?
Are you sure that you have nothing that you want to hide from us?
I disagree. As I say the purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of government...the right of the people to be left alone.
This is not a issue of finding a new right to privacy and freedom from government intrusion its one of the basic principles on which the constitution is founded.
This is really bad. It is the beginning of the end of freedom. But it’s legal.
How is it any different than if a cop sits at the corner and watches. Legal.
Think of the nosey neighbor who watches who comes to your house. Legal.
What is so dangerous (and unstoppable) is how easy it is to keep all this information, forever, and combine it cheaply with other public data to rob you of your privacy.
Any way, I was curious about the representative nature of the sample. I mean I could get a Newark, N.J. phone book and have my 70% poll goal done by quitting time same day. Or, I could sample the rural Midwest and it would give an entirely different picture---e.g., like firearm issues.
I think 70% is extremely high for the nation in general and that the sample had an urban and suburban skew.
I disagree.
The Constitution says what it says, not what we think it ought to say. It does not express general principles, which the judges then apply to new situations as they see fit.
The Constitution very explicitly states what powers government has been given and quite a number of things it is not permitted to do. You won’t find surveillance of public places in either category.
It constantly amazes me how conservatives are constitutional literalists until an issue arises that they feel strongly about, but which is just not in the document. Then they begin finding broad principles in there, like “the right of the people to be left alone.”
Can’t you see that any broad principle must be interpreted and applied, inevitably by the branch of government least accountable to the people? Do you really want five people wearing black robes and with life tenure to decide exactly what the broad principles mean, and inevitably discovering new ones whenever the urge strikes them? Haven’t we gone a good deal too far down that road already?
Why not use the mechanism for addressing new situations that the Founders installed right in the Constitution?
The deal here involves "public places" ~ streets, sidewalks, parks, and so forth.
"Private places" are controlled by private parties who provide whatever surveillance measures they need. Check out Wal-Mart.
Typical bullsh*t polling.If 71% like the idea then one would think somebody we know would have been polled.Anybody?
If you come across now we'll put in a good word with the DA.
I don't trust government to do the right thing. I don't trust the courts, I don’t trust elected officials, I don't trust law enforcement, I don’t trust anybody....
In my view thats the philosophical basis on which the country was founded.
The cops can't just stop and frisk.
On the other hand, your public presence creates your public image. The eye is passive. It can't turn on or off that which appears before it. A police officer can look right at you on the street and, lo and behold, there you are.
There is no element of evesdropping involved in one individual watching another in a public place. Thinking there is one is comprable to claiming that free speech involves the right to not be offended and we all know that's BS don't we (I hope).
These camera systems are not going to be doing anything more than a cop might do if he or she were on the scene ~ and there is that word "the scene" ~ that which the eye takes in whether it wants to or not.
Government employees live this every day they work for the government. They learn how to deal with it and so can you.
The Constitution does not prohibit surveilance cameras in public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.