Posted on 04/26/2006 8:55:46 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
" Great Britain has installed more than 1.5 million video cameras in public places in response to domestic attacks by IRA terrorists as well as increasing concerns about violent crime. According to one estimate, the average Londoner is now photographed some 300 times in the course of a typical day."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-07-22-ncguest11_x.htm
It doesn't stop the Brits from being the most vivacious protestors on the face of the earth.
Out of common courtesy, and for the sake of clarity of communications, I never use acronyms when speaking in a general forum like this one, certainly never outside of my technical "tribe".
"Great Britain has installed more than 1.5 million video cameras in public places in response to domestic attacks by IRA terrorists as well as increasing concerns about violent crime. According to one estimate, the average Londoner is now photographed some 300 times in the course of a typical day."
It's only a matter of time before such are WIDELY used here in the USA.
In fact, some cities, notably Washington DC, have already installed robotic cops that send you a speeding ticket when it clocks you breaking the speed limit.
Never thought I'd see FReepers defending communists tactics, and yes that's what this is, on this site. By your reasoning there's no problem with identifying the people in the photos and running an FBI check on them. I mean why else would you take the photos if you weren't going to try to identify the people? You'd make a good little communist. Hillary and Putin would be proud to have you as their comrade.
"When you "protest" your image is up for grabs---be it government or the ACLU, etc. It's a risk you take, knowingly."
Isn't that the idea? To let people know that you're unhappy about something, and are willing to risk repercussions for speaking out? If you're not willing to be known in a public way, then why bother?
And the protesters, at least those who understand protest, would love nothing better than to clog up the government with work in as they prosecute / persecute the protestors. They know that if the government finds it more expensive to repress the protesters than to address the grievance then the grievance might be addressed.
Finally, there are always the psychotic nut cases who need to be violent and destructive. Those people really do need to be put in jail.
I see. Thank you for sharing.
funny stuff.
Right. Maybe the poor little protesters got their feelings hurt by having their picture taken. Oops, forgot they were there for the press photographers and TV. Awe too bad if we catch a few terrorists in their midsts (not to say traitors).
/Sarcasm off
The ACLU doesn't have access to your tax records, FBI files, military records, telephone records, or computer accounts. The government does.
"Never thought I'd see FReepers defending communists tactics, and yes that's what this is, on this site."
As I pointed out (did you even read what I said?) the term "communist" is an inflammatory term that is at once inaccurate as well as indescriptive.
As I pointed out, those tactics are not "communist". They might be used by commies, but they are not, strictly speaking, "communist." In fact, they are used by every type of government in the world. The commies, for instance, breathe air; do you say that breathing is a "commie" thing?
No, you used that term in order to poison us against the action, leading me to believe that you cannot articulate your agrument in more substantial ways. You don't cite First Amendment case law, nor do you tell me how the government might misuse this info.
"By your reasoning there's no problem with identifying the people in the photos and running an FBI check on them. I mean why else would you take the photos if you weren't going to try to identify the people?"
Isn't that what the protesters want? I mean, if I don't want the government to know that I'm unhappy then why would I openly protest?
And as I pointed out in another post, the protesters WANT the FBI (et al) to spend time and energy and money on them, believing that if the cost of the protesters is greater than the cost of change, then change will occur.
So, why not give them what they want?
"You'd make a good little communist. Hillary and Putin would be proud to have you as their comrade."
Again, cheap ad hominim attacks that convey little in the way of logic. I think that you'd be awfully boring over drinks discussing politics, unless we just get off on calling everyone we don't like commie pink fags.
So you wouldn't have a problem if abortion protesters had government agents take their photos outside of an abortion clinic? Of course the photos would be turned over to the FBI, you know because religious freaks bomb clinics. So it's just a precautionary measure they're taking when they review their IRS records, bank accounts and on-line accounts. Do you see how this can get out of hand? Or do you agree with Hillary's review of the FBI files?
If the hammer and sickle fit...
Hey, if we're at war, let's fight a war. And that means massive mobilization. Personally, I don't think we are at war. We're in a conflict that doesn't require a draft and doesn't require massive economic mobilization.
You're the one who wants to call it a war when it's rhetorically convenient to excuse something, but doesn't want to actually fight it like one.
Huh???? I have no problem with the feds taking pictures of people at these demostrations. They are in a public venue, publicly protesting. They have ABSOLUTELY NO expectation of privacy here. If you don't want your face associated with this activity, don't show up!
I think the police should have multiple video cameras running at every public event. If there are no problems, good. If there are, then it is just like a dashboard camera, good evidence for court.
How much are FBI files worth?
But we are in a war, a war unlike we've ever been in before.
You're the one who wants to call it a war when it's rhetorically convenient to excuse something, but doesn't want to actually fight it like one.
Pot, Kettle, dear.
USSS does countersurveillance, but only when a protectee is involved. They won't reveal themselves to anyone, and won't take any action unless it's warranted. If things get out of hand, they're more likely to truncate an event or some other "passive" reaction, rather than remain in a situation that could spiral out of control.
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.