Replies

This doesn't bother me at all. And if these are like the existing cameras, anybody can link to them via the Internet. Came in very handy during the Republican convention, when I had to be in the office on the weekend, and the leftists were threatening to march through an area very close to my office, that the police had declared off limits, to an illegal mass demonstration in Central Park. I could check what was going on in the streets before leaving the office, to make sure I wasn't going to find myself tangled up in a violent mob scene. The leftists' planned civil disobedience didn't really materialize (sort of like their planned mega-protests this past weekend), but if they had, I could have monitored the situation from the safety of my office, and waited until the streets were under control before venturing outside.

Of course we should be vigilant, and if we detect any abuse of the surveillance camera network, we must raise a massive ruckus. But I'm not interested in hamstringing our law enforcement agencies by declaring them guilty before they've done anything wrong. Keep in mind that al-Qaeda operatives are perfectly free to set up a similar network in the city. There's no shortage of tall, strategically-placed buildings where anyone can rent or sublet an apartment.

Hi Government Shrinker-

My opinion is that one could also learn about traffic jams and mass demonstrations by listening to the radio, watching TV, or accessing sites like FoxNews.com for updates. That should provide more than enough information to make a decision about one's evening commute home on trains, buses, and ferries. This prevents us from having to contend with statist abuse of the camera network, which would be a bundle.

~ Blue Jays ~

I think you hit on, then glossed over, an important -- no, crucial -- point about the cameras. That point is that the cameras could be connected to the Internet.

If the cameras are connected to the Internet, and in public places only, then that is a far different thing than cameras that are monitored only by government agents. If the average person could monitor the cameras, that person could avoid crowds (as per your example) and possibly avoid crime (check out the next unlit block on your wireless before you walk there). Further, internet-connected cameras might even reduce the power of an abusive state by providing a record of police abuses.

For example, I was stopped recently in Costa Mesa, CA, for having all my rear lights out. My license was run, and I was harassed. The thing is that none of my lights were out, but I had no way to prove that after the fact. Publically-available camera images might have allowed me to pursue this matter.

Cameras are just a tool, like ... well, like guns, to coin a beloved FR phrase. If the tool is available to everyone equally, then it increases everyone's power equally.

The thing about 1984 is that only Big Brother had the cameras. It's the current, real world that is more like 1984. Today, only government has access to the vast majority of surveillance equipment, from satellites on down. Putting cameras everywhere, but allowing everyone to use them, is, in my opinion, a step away from Big Brother, because it reduces the information disparity between citizens and the government.