Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/28/2006 8:02:26 AM PST by boryeulb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
To: boryeulb

It is always nice to know that our officials value freedom! (sarcasm)


2 posted on 02/28/2006 8:04:37 AM PST by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb
Put cameras and audio bugs in the politician's homes.
3 posted on 02/28/2006 8:07:11 AM PST by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb
"VOTE NOW: Do you support proposals in Chicago and Houston that would put security cameras in private businesses and homes?"

Here's my vote: "BLAM!!! (ka-chink) "BLAM!!!" (ka-chink) "BLAM!!!"

4 posted on 02/28/2006 8:08:28 AM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb

..."I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"...

The classic response of a statist goon. If I had been there, I would have clubbed him senseless with a chair or something.

I simply can not comprehend why anyone would live or work in a city in the first place.

It seems the goons have already won, since one can not state the simple and obvious solution to this problem.


5 posted on 02/28/2006 8:08:39 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com ("If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb
Hey, if you're not doing anything wrong... /sarcasm

Voters are idiots. I'm becoming more and more convinced of it by the day. Like stupid sheep, if you give them the tools to defeat their captors, they will just stand there, bleet at you, and go back to grazing.
6 posted on 02/28/2006 8:09:28 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb

I have little problem with cameras in public places. Cameras required in private homes or businesses should require a warrant.


7 posted on 02/28/2006 8:11:19 AM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb
And here's the kicker: Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt is also advocating that the local building code be changed to require that private apartment complexes install surveillance cameras. Hurtt even said he wants cameras installed, telescreen-style, in private single-family homes if he decides there have been "too many" calls for police assistance from the home.

Damn, looks like the fascists and the communists won. This is INSANE.

11 posted on 02/28/2006 8:13:05 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Islam's true face: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J169127BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb
Democrat Mayor Bill White, who appointed Hurtt, has been equivocating about Hurtt's outrageous idea as the public reaction is tested.

If he has any intention to run for governor in 2008, he'll squash this proposal.

14 posted on 02/28/2006 8:19:44 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; metesky; Mears; ..
Nanny State PING

Under the plan, private businesses that remain open more than 12 hours a day and bars that remain open until last call would have to install the cameras also. The bill as written now would not require that businesses hook up their mandatory cameras to city networks, but Chicago Tribune reports that eventually, "the city does plan to link cameras in office and apartment buildings and other private properties to its system."

Better enforcement of the new smoking ban, perchance?

17 posted on 02/28/2006 8:26:28 AM PST by Gabz (Smoke gnatzies: small minds buzzing in you business........SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb

How about live web cameras in the offices of elected public officials?


19 posted on 02/28/2006 8:27:14 AM PST by michigander (The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb

I fail to see how at least part of this is unconstitutional and probably all of it. Problem is, it may never be tested.


20 posted on 02/28/2006 8:29:19 AM PST by davisfh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb

Since most of the things that most people don't want caught on camera are not illegal, but rather, shameful, when faced with the march of surveillance, for people to remain free they need to adopt a bigger dose of "SO WHAT?" then they are accustomed to.

Yes, I bought beer. SO WHAT?
Yes, I smoked a cigar in the alley. SO WHAT?
Yes, I bought two porno CD's. SO WHAT?
Yes, I had a drink with the hottie in accounting. SO WHAT?

The whole ability to lynch people, especially politically, for little moral pecadilloes only works if most of private life of most people is not recorded.

Consider the PeeWee Herman case. Now, granted, diddling in the back of the theater was not the move of a brainiac, but the whole faux-shock: My GOD, the man DIDDLES watching PORN (GASP!!!) which ended his career...that only works because everyone else in the country doesn't have a camera in his/her shower.

You start really surveilling people - and the Hollywood types have lived under that sort of scrutiny longer - and the only possible responses are to either wilt in a puddle of self-loathing apology for being HUMAN (what your enemies HOPE you will do, so as to be able to manipulate you through the fear of "exposure" of the fact that you are a human (i.e., sinful), or you get a big dose of SO WHAT brazen bravado, precisely like Hollywood does.

Chances are, people are not going to turn into Puritans if you surveil them very long. Rather, they will lower the overall moral standards of society so that they can't be manipulated anymore by the bastards who control the cameras.

There is another option. I will call it the French option. There, there is a strict legal right of privacy, and if you start intruding on it, publishing things, etc., you get prosecuted for a crime.

Either people can protect their privacy and the current structure of morality by using the law to punish anybody who pushes a camera where it doesn't belong and attempts to use any information there, or people will have no privacy, everything will be on camera, and everyone will brazen it out.
The choice is really France, where people commit their sins and it is a criminal offense to tell anybody else about it even if you find out, or Hollywood, where everybody commits his sins on camera and doesn't give a damn.

What isn't going to happen in this life is a world where, because people are surveiled, they stop sinning. Exposed to the bright light of relentless scrutiny, people will not forego the pleasures of life in order to uphold tradition morality. Rather, they'll beat morality to death with a club so it can't both them anymore. Traditional morality always has reposed on plausible deniability and hypocrisy. If you strip away all of the ability to hide, people won't become more moral they'll become more brazen.
Hollywood is brazen because American laws don't let people hide from those who want to pry.
Paris is more discreet, because French law punishes people who pry as felons, and truth is no defense to an assault on privacy.

Because I am a fan of public morality, and think that the veneer of good manners and correct behavior is well worth the price of hypocrisy that supports it, I think that the French approach of criminalizing efforts to pry into private life is preferable to the argument "If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

Everyone is doing something wrong.
Anybody care to have a camera installed in EVERY room of their house, on ALL the time?
Didn't think so.


22 posted on 02/28/2006 8:31:45 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb

bump


23 posted on 02/28/2006 8:33:06 AM PST by lowbridge (I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming, like his passengers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb
>>Hurtt invoked the name of Orwell's dictator in defending his radical proposition: "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"<<

If I only had a nickle for every time I have seen some lamebrain on FR write that.

Of course, the police chief will be first to set a good example by installing a camera in his own home.

/sarc

25 posted on 02/28/2006 8:38:03 AM PST by SerpentDove (The internet is big. "Oprah" big.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb
Hurtt invoked the name of Orwell's dictator in defending his radical proposition: "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

How many times have I heard people make this argument? When I'm taking a cr*p, I'm not doing anything wrong, but I don't want to be camcorded. Got it?"

27 posted on 02/28/2006 8:39:04 AM PST by Richard Kimball (I like to make everyone's day a little more surreal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Eaker; humblegunner
Hurtt invoked the name of Orwell's dictator in defending his radical proposition: "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

OMG

Completely unbelievable.

29 posted on 02/28/2006 8:59:03 AM PST by RikaStrom (The number one rule of the Kama Sutra is that you both be on the same page.../Exeter 051705)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb

Dick Daley peeping up little girls dresses coming to a bathroom near your!


33 posted on 02/28/2006 9:17:48 AM PST by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb
Democrat Mayor Bill White, who appointed Hurtt, has been equivocating about Hurtt's outrageous idea as the public reaction is tested. If enough Houstonians stand up for their rights to private property, White presumably won't push through the extreme surveillance program. But if Texans don’t stand for the idea that a man's home is his castle, the plan will almost assuredly move ahead.


34 posted on 02/28/2006 9:24:13 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb

Yep, the slippery slope is getting steeper.

But I remain convinced that Americans are so reflexively superstitious about "The Rule Of Law" that they will go right off the end of the slippery slope and accept tyranny, so long as the tyranny is legally and correctly instituted, rather than develop an ethic of selective observance of the law, and intentional breaking of bad law.


36 posted on 02/28/2006 9:34:37 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boryeulb

Oh this article just reminded me: time to buy more ammo.


45 posted on 02/28/2006 10:16:50 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson