Washington Plans Unprecedented Camera Network

REUTERS ^ | February 13, 2002 08:10 AM ET | Reuters

[Travis McGee]

Great theme, worthy of a thread. Let's see how many more freedom stealing mantras are in common use.

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the arguement of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." ~~~William Pitt, House of Lords, 1783

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." ~~~Edmund Burke

"The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." ~~~Albert Camus

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." ~~~Daniel Webster

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot, stomping on a human face, forever." ~~~George Orwell

"In 1960 when I came out of prison as an ex-convict, I had more freedom under parole supervision than there's available to the average citizen in America right now." ~~~Merle Haggerd

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

"Only those completely distrustful of all government would be opposed to what we are doing with surveillance cameras." ~~~Howard Safir, 1999, NYC Police Commissioner, former head of US Marshals.

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[technochick99]

Having grown up in a small town where everyone knew everyone, it seems to me that the "privacy" argument is "silly." It is really an anti-social argument.

Perhaps the real issue is that I don't want to have my every move while out in public monitored. Whether each tape is scrutinized (by man or machine) is not relevant. Indeed, one of the points in 1984 was the randon nature of monitoring. That I don't want to be watched and or tracked like an animal is not silly.

[alphadog]

You should be locked up.

LOL...you are so funny...I for one like your satire.

[Squantos]

That's a keeper.......especially Mr Websters....

Stay Safe !

[Travis McGee]

I have about 40 great quotes, I plan to match them to the front of chapters.

[Rebelbase]

Behavioral adjustment due to the presence of cameras is not what I'm worried about. Its the potential for abuse that concerns me.

We are rapidly becoming a nation where taking a stance for something one believes in is considered politcally incorrect...resurrecting prayer in school, Right to own weapons, being a vocal advocate against abortion, etc.

The corruption that breeds in bureacracy could foster a misuse of these cameras for polical gain or policy objective. Gun control...Lets see who visits the gunshop, that way we'll know who is buying ammo. Christianity becoming a radical nuisance?...lets monitor the chrurchs, "gee we shut down that church, yet I notice the same people gathering over in that recreation building, better check it out". Abortion protesters? "Get face shots of each one so we can put them in the database".

The power of our form of government rests in the hands of THE PEOPLE, not the elite office holders and appointees who dictate policy that others agree to. This camera business is a way to control people. When the people can be controlled, those in charge take larger idiological liberties for themselves for what they consider their own best interest, not the people's interest.

All, IMHO, of course.

[twigs]

I don't have a problem in the climate of terrorism today to have a "terrorist profile" in place which could conceivably include some types of behavior. Richard Reeve (sp?) is a case in point. He had tried to board a similar plane earlier and if I remember, did not have appropriate luggage. But this can obviously carried too far. What if I am chasing a child through the terminal that just left my sight? Will some official stop me, thus allowing my child to wonder into danger? When will software identify that I am not buying the government line? Our civil liberties are definitely on the line here. The brave new world is getting here much quicker than I ever thought it would.

Thanks for posting this information. I want to stay informed.

[Squantos]

Money in hand to buy that book buddy , keep me posted !

Stay Safe and be careful !

[Doctor Stochastic]

Will these tapes be available during the discovery process in civil trials? Will a subpoena be needed?

Question for the proponents: "Are you willing to bet your life on the correctness of identification from these pictures?" (You really are, of course.)

[freeeee]

You're welcome.

[callisto]

The power of our form of government rests in the hands of THE PEOPLE, not the elite office holders and appointees who dictate policy that others agree to. This camera business is a way to control people. When the people can be controlled, those in charge take larger idiological liberties for themselves for what they consider their own best interest, not the people's interest.

Well said!

[spunkets]

My comment regarded the futility of bothering to locate cameras. There's no point in messing with them, unless they become a threat to some decisive action to remove some intolerable tyranny. In which case, raids and hacks are inappropriate, the equipment can be shut down with any of several different countermeasures.

[FreeTheHostages]

This is good. Public space is public space. I live in D.C. and there's a lot of crime here. So all of you guys who say it's a bad idea, why not let the people who live in D.C. decide? I bet most D.C. citizens would agree with me: It will make us safer, or at least make it easier to convict the robbers etc. So even apart from terrorism, I like the idea. It's perfectly legal, so while I understand that it might spook some of you, and I sympathize that it sounds eerie, as long as it's legal, I'm gonna vote for the anti-crime perspective.

BTW, if some of you who don't live in D.C. were thinking that heretofore we all weren't being watched, there's always been a lot of police surveillance in this city. I live in a neighborhood where there are a lot of embassies and, I therefore presume, a fair amount of undercover Secret Service patrols watching us all anyway. Washington's a different kind of place, always has been. And I for one have always thought of law enforcement as the good guys, not the bad guys.

[Travis McGee]

Gotcha.

[jerrymdss]

"Waco, Ruby Ridge"

What about these -- do libertarians really believe that they can setup their own state -- ignoring federal, state and local laws and not pay taxes?

Freedoms do have limits.

Maybe they belong in a third world country, becuase that is what they would make of it.

[jerrymdss]

"Waco, Ruby Ridge"

What about these -- do libertarians really believe that they can setup their own state -- ignoring federal, state and local laws and not pay taxes?

Freedoms do have limits.

Maybe they belong in a third world country, becuase that is what they would make of it.

[Destructor]

"Hey, hush up. Who are you to protest. If you aren't doing anything illegal then you have nothing to fear. Instead of complaining, why don't you, next time you are out, wave to one of those cameras and wish a good day to those heroes on the police force who are protecting you."

Aren't you over doing it on the sarcasm just a little bit?

[freeeee]

do libertarians really believe that they can setup their own state -- ignoring federal, state and local laws and not pay taxes?

The original intent of the Founders was to have a very limited federal government, confined to a very few enumerated powers, and allow the states wide discretion to determine the rest of the extent of government. That way, the local people can tailor the government to their needs and wishes.

This is sometimes called "Laboratories of Democracy". Under this type of decentralized control, also known as a constitutional republic, libertarians would be free under the 9th and 10th Amendments to establish their own libertarian style state government within the Union.

However, libertarians hold no delusions that the US is currently a constitutional republic. Because of this, we'll never attempt to establish a libertarian state within the US because we know the federal authority no longer respects constitutional restraints. We know the fed would deem any libertarian style government a threat to its (unlawful) authority, and it would destroy it by force.

Libertarians have discussed establishing their own government, but not anywhere within the US.

Happy now?

[spunkets]

"Freedoms do have limits. Maybe they belong in a third world country, becuase that is what they would make of it."

Perhaps you missed it. A notably significant feature of all third world domains is a lack of Freedom and the presence of omnipotent authoritarian rule.