So the problem is if you are cheating on your wife/husband you dont want the cameras cause you may get caught. Or if you are lying to your boss about being sick and instead you were shopping and you are afraid your boss may find out. Its this the cameras fault?

If you CHOOSE to be dishonest and to lie then you have always stood the chance of getting caught. Even before the cameras existed it was still the chance you take when you choose to be that kind of person.

As far as the “anyone can look at them” argument. Anyone could have always looked at you anyway. YOUR IN PUBLIC. They could have always taken pics of you, your kids, you dog, your cleavage, whatever. That “perv” could have always been watching your kids or looking down you dress.

But maybe, just maybe, with a camera or too in the right places we might be able to catch them watching you. If your kid were to vanish right now you can bet you will be glad those cameras are there. Would you still be quoting Ben Franklin then?

Been to a party or public event anytime in the last 10 yrs. You can bet your pic is posted somewhere online. Without your permission. If you would prefer to do without people SEEING you then stay home. Thats the only time you ever had privacy in the first place.

Unless your kids have a camera phone.

People are either leaders or followers, or more broadly: free or servants. Those who are by nature free resent anyone having oversight/power over them. Those who are naturally servants long for a strong master and in the absence of one – will make one.

When you are a servant, your best policy is to make sure your master is happy. That way they have no reason to punish you. That’s where you get the “If you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about” policy. It works the same whether your a plantation slave or a “citizen” in a police state – make sure you don’t anger your master and you will be fine.

When you are a leader, your best policy is to be ever vigilant – for the people trying to take your freedoms away never rest. Ironically, the takers of freedom aren’t nearly as dangerous as the followers who will Give freedom away willingly. These people are scared – always scared – and that fear drives them to give freedom to any who will offer them protection.

This is what Ben Franklin was speaking of when he said “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” You see, he didn’t feel sorry for a society dominated by servants and followers – he felt contempt for them. His country, The United States of America was founded by leaders – strong, free people who were willing to cross the ocean into an unknown land and forge a new country dedicated to the principles of freedom. I think Mr. Franklin would be ashamed to see what the people of the USA are now –frightened followers, willing to sacrifice ANYTHING to ANYONE who will promise to protect them.

The shame of it is Mr. Franklin is right. These frightened servants will sacrifice our freedoms one by one, but loose both our freedom and our security.

I feel really sorry for those like Gina, momama, and KarenA. who use the “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about” attitude as an excuse to join the SERVANT class described so well by “Freeman” in his post on page 6.

But…what more can be expected of folks who probably don’t even realize that there is NO difference whatsoever between B. Hussein Obama, Hit-lery Clinton, and MacInsane and while they’re at it, believe these staged events are actually elections, with the “votes” being counted!!

Cameras in banks and convenience stores…I can see that, but anything further is a complete violation of the Bill of Rights. Once again, as a previous poster stated…welcome to “1984.” You are now considered nothing more than a food-consuming “labor unit” by your (non)leaders….

John:

Let’s not forget that apostrophes are also used for contractions!

You know, I miss the numbering so folks could respond to particular comments, and not get others ruffled.

Karen A brings up a good point about ‘having your photo out on the Internet without your permission’. I seriously doubt that’s the case with me…I’m “of an age” that my friends don’t have camera phones (nor do I), and kids rarely take photos of anonymous grayhairs on the street.

That being so…I wonder if someone could sue for image infringement if the photo is taken from one of these spycams. What if you’re caught doing something which could be construed as being unflattering or inappropriate, or embarrassing, but not actualy illegal? If you’ve ever seen a model release form or read one of those books on photography law, you’ll find that a “private person” does retain certain rights to their own image, even if they are are in a public space. There are exclusions for genuine news, faces in a crowd, etc., but generally if a person can be personally identified, he/she retains some rights to their image, unless they have acknowledged that the photographer has their permission.(Laws are looser for “celebrities, politicians, or folks who are generally known in the public sphere.”)

Obviously is someone is doing something illegal, it is “evidence”, but if you aren’t….if someone hasn’t sued by now, it’s about time!

Teresa, your short explanation of Missouri privacy law is muddling two concepts. The first is an individual’s right not to have their seclusion intruded upon or private facts disclosed to the public. This is the situation where celebrities, etc. have “fewer” rights than private citizens. But, if you are in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy.

Then there is the idea of misappropriation of one’s identity for personal gain. This generally is associated with the use of another’s image for personal pecuniary gain. Both private citizens and public individuals are afforded the same rights (except, commonly, the right to identity of celebreties is generally inheritable).

Enough of that, now down to why this is just creepy.

I wonder when this country lost its way and now fully embraces the idea of omnipotent governmental powers. When did our distrust for the government subside so as to offer our civil liberties to the government on a silver platter? What is the point of these cameras? What will be their result?

Sure, they may result in more arrests for petty crimes. They will certainly deter law abiding citizens, e.g., Me. But won’t the police become complacent with the existence of these cameras? The answer is yes.

Police Officers are heavily reliant on technology and use that technology to the fullest extent to “catch the bad guys.” They do this without any regard to “the bad guys’” rights and seem to relish in their perversion of civil liberties. Police Officers are also generally pretty dumb (no joke, some jurisdictions won’t higher cops who score too highly on their aptitude tests). They will think that, because these cameras exist, they don’t have to be as vigilant. Additionally, many cops would probably be fired because of these cameras. Generally, I would be all for this, but the general incompetence of cops requires two or three of them to equate one reasonably, intelligent adult. You can see the problems this could present…

But, what is my real problem with the cameras? It makes it too damn easy for the government to keep tabs on me. I should be able to walk down the street without worrying about whether or not I committed some silly, pointless misdemeanor which will cause the thought-police to descend upon me like gorillas out of the mist (i.e., mailing me a citation). Everywhere we go, we are being frisked or forced to walk through metal detectors. I don’t want to have to walk out of my house and be stared down by some camera “protecting” me.

I can protect myself. Just read the 2d Amendment.

Karen A - first, learn to spell (your/you’re, too/two). Second, I said interview, not shopping instead of working. Big difference - do you tell your boss you’re looking for another job? That’s a good way to get let go of early. Third, if you’d have read the link, you’d realize the “nothing to hide” argument is bogus. It doesn’t matter what I’m doing - it’s my life, and unless it’s illegal, watching it (by the cops) is against the 4th amendment. There is a big difference between other citizens seeing or watching other people in public and wholesale surveillance by an uncontrolled government.

“I should be able to walk down the street without worrying about whether or not I committed some silly, pointless misdemeanor” Right. There are a ton of stupid laws on the books, like that no spitting law in Illinois somewhere. Perhaps you’re an activist against the war in Iraq, for instance. Now the administration just has the cameras follow you around until you swallow a bug and spit it out, and then they go after you. What’s to prevent this sort of crap? That’s the problem with surveillance. No one is arguing they would like their kid to get kidnapped. However, I guarantee the chances of abusing the system are much more likely than my kid getting kidnapped, or cameras helping to solve the crime.

Just because it gives a few people a warm fuzzy (with questionable real benefit - see Britain’s system), that’s no reason to infringe on the freedoms of everyone. This is the land of the free, right?

As I re-read the concluding sentence of the editorial,(”Would you be comfortable with city-owned cameras privy to every move you make?”) I came to realize that the question is poorly framed.

First, if these are cameras on light poles/power poles and on the outside of public venues pointed along the public thoroughfares, sidewalks, etc.; then what is the problem? There are very few things one can do walking along a sidewalk that constitute a concern for “investigation”.

Second, “privy to every move you make”, however, is different from the above. This implies that everyone is under observation everywhere at all times. This then would be Winston Smith with his large screen MAC or PC with the camera built-in and always on.

Cameras are always passive observers. However, if central dispatch was aware of a certain type of crime being committed in a general area, they might decide to pay a little more attention to that area. But they would not be able to watch all areas all the time.

As someone touched on here before,why is it that the majority of people who have or want these cameras everywhere are the first to cry foul when the cameras are facing there homes 24/7 or there business.
Try walking around all day with a video camera trained on everyone or walk into a bank with one or a police station or government building and see what kind of reaction you get.Or hey film your neighbor with the cctv camera’s on his property and see how they like it?
You have nothing to hide right? The point being is If you already branded me a potential criminal just by me walking down the street on camera,then I can also make that same claim against you no matter if your a cop,politician,government worker etc.
The potential abuse of this in our own government has already happened and is still happening nationwide you don’t trust me I don’t trust you so I can have everyone on my camera All Day Every day no matter where I go and no matter what building I walk into and this is the way to make it stop cause it will really hit home the real goal of all this.
The business owners and the powers that be don’t want you watching or filming them everyday,they just want to watch all us citizens as we have all been branded potential terrorists or to be more accurate,enemies of the state,meaning a threat to those who hold the power.