Skip to comments.
Surveillance cameras will 'patrol' city
The State ^
| 8/22/02
| JEFF WILKINSON
Posted on 08/22/2002 11:52:27 AM PDT by PJeffQ
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
To: Elsie
an ordinance governing how the cameras are used, if needed. (1)
City manager Leona Plaugh said those areas don't represent high-crime areas(2)
...they were effective in deterring crime or catching criminals(3)
"Once we assess the effectiveness of these cameras, we can begin putting them in other areas(4)
"But they are a minority. I don't see those arguments as valid(5)," Hiltner said
...and we need to treat that neighborhood with a higher standard (6)
Heil Hiltner!!!
1. "Them pesky people are STILL worried that this'll be misused. I assure them: it won't"
2. Why not: why are they here, then? (oh, see #3)
3. database image matching
4. Big Brother wants to be everywhere: to PROTECT you, of course.
5. Phooey on your right to privacy!
6. "...some are more equal than others......." Animal Farm - George Orwell
21
posted on
08/22/2002 2:36:23 PM PDT
by
Elsie
they need some cameras around USC.. University of Southern California
To: PJeffQ
The UK has invested millions in survelliance cameras for urban areas over the past few years.
One only need to observe the rapidly rising crime rate to evaluate how effective it has been.
Just one of the many web pages about the issue: http://tash.gn.apc.org/cctv.htm
To: PJeffQ
But he said if they were effective in deterring crime or catching criminals, City Council might decide later to place more of them in other parts of the city. "Once we assess the effectiveness of these cameras, we can begin putting them in other areas," he said.
Ummm...if they aren't effective they will be removed, right? Yeah, right. [roll eyes]
24
posted on
08/22/2002 4:07:24 PM PDT
by
hattend
To: PJeffQ
"They would observe just as you or I would if we were standing on a street corner," he said. "It's just like a news photographer taking a picture on a public street." Wonder what their attitude would be toward a citizens group, on public streets, recording the comings, goings, etc. of the city council and police departments?
25
posted on
08/22/2002 4:59:38 PM PDT
by
templar
To: joyful1
Will not adopting biometrics and survellience security guarantee another 9/11. Yes.How? Better photography of the planes crashing into the WTC? Personally, I thought the video coverage of the event was quite good enough.
26
posted on
08/22/2002 5:17:45 PM PDT
by
templar
To: TC Rider
... but you will be able to buy a copy of the video of you snapping off that double tap into the guy who trys to rob you.Out of curiosity, is open or concealed carry legal in the cities where these types of surveilance devices are being installed? Most of the places I've noticed these things going on seem to be really anti self defence, especially with guns.
More likely that double tap photo will be given to you free at your trials, one in the criminal trial and one in the civil suit by your attacker or his survivors.
27
posted on
08/22/2002 5:23:49 PM PDT
by
templar
To: joyful1
You got it bass ackwards.
Adopting biometrics and survellience secuity will ensure a 1984 nightmare.
Adopting all the biometrics and survellience security in the world will not deter another 9/11 event.
28
posted on
08/22/2002 5:25:14 PM PDT
by
Wm Bach
To: templar
More likely that double tap photo will be given to you free at your trials, one in the criminal trial and one in the civil suit by your attacker or his survivors. Better judged by 12, than carried by 6.
29
posted on
08/22/2002 8:21:23 PM PDT
by
TC Rider
To: PJeffQ
To: Wm Bach
The arguments against biometric/survellience make as much nonsense as the arguments against gun ownership. Both are necessary tools for law enforcement and protection. We need the best protection available today. Polls show overwhelming support (demand) for this technolgy
Bob Barr was the biggest outspoken opponent of biometric/survellience in Congress. He lost big time. So will others who oppose it. Libetarians will say Barr lost because he is against drug abuse. I don't think so. You guys make good points, but will not win on this issue.
31
posted on
08/23/2002 5:53:47 AM PDT
by
joyful1
To: templar
Wonder what their attitude would be toward a citizens group, on public streets, recording the comings, goings, etc. of the city council and police departments?
Easy! You're a stalker! ....and we have LAWS against that!
The Gov't CAN'T stalk: it merely collects information.
32
posted on
08/23/2002 6:03:32 AM PDT
by
Elsie
To: Teacher317
"As long as you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear." Grrr. Sorry, but I'm just not that anxious to welcome 1984. People really need to
DITTO!...give the government an inch, they will take 800 miles!
33
posted on
08/23/2002 7:44:42 AM PDT
by
timestax
To: joyful1
also it will let Big Brother watch YOU & your FAMILY! and SNOOP into LAWFUL, but un-appreciated activities of peaceful citizens!
free dixie,sw
To: Black Agnes
!!!!!!
free the southland,sw
To: joyful1
it will eventually cause BOTH 1984 & 9-11. given the left's wish to control everything, do you TRUST a bunch of un-elected bureaucrats with your LIBERTY?
free dixie NOW,sw
To: Orion
WELL SAID!
free dixie NOW,sw
To: PJeffQ; Pistias
Bet a couple can be swung toward a womens dorm or two.
To: unixfox
Two words:
Paintball gun.
To: PJeffQ
Was the prosecutor murdered, or was he assassinated?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson