Monitoring your thoughts or tapping your phone without court order are unconstitutional. Photographing you in public is not.
Just ask all those cheatin' spouses that were caught by private investigators.

Waxy ,

Every considered "Nose Pickers Anonymous"

 

First I'd have to admit I have a problem. I'm not sure it's a problem.

Good looking guy like me, I'd just have to copyright my image and collect the royalties.

Why is this?

Why is deemed OK to monitor my life with a video camera and not with a phone?

I don't see the distinction. I don' think there is one. Eventually I think we'll find out what the courts think.

This thing is like a weed. First banks, then retail outlets, then PUBLIC street cornerns, what next? All in the name of my best interests?

I don't oppose it in private commercial enterprises, as long as I'm informed of its presence. It's my right to choose whether I enter the premises or not. I STRONGLY oppose it in public places where you either have no choice but to be videotaped, or are unaware that you are being videotaped.

Waxy

 

Waxy, I have to agree with sinjin on this one. I don't see any difference between a monitored camera and someone watching you in person.

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." (Waxy, not implying you per say)

There was a news story not very long ago about Sears getting caught with cameras in a dressing room. I don't want people in person watching me in a dressing room, same goes for the camera. It's the difference between public and private.


I also have a problem with the reported practice of doctoring the signal lights in an attempt to generate revenue through the use of traffic cameras.


As for my guns, they are already after them.

 

Folks, as surmised a little earlier; I do have some reliable information on this whole video situation.

You have also clearly grasped that this is a VERY hot potato in the public domain (key words there at the end).

TECHNICALLY speaking; there is definitely cause for concern in a people that values their ability to move about . . . unwatched.

It is true and correct that most municipalities that have installed these systems did so using Federal grants. Ostensibly in most cases under the "public service" concept. It is not a hard sell to convince voters/taxpayers that it would be GREAT to be able to check the morning rush hour traffic before leaving home!!

The catch is; in order to "qualify" for that grant, you have to make the camera addresses available to The Feds. Think about that a second - *theoretically* someone could not only follow you around town, but from one town to another. It is stated in the grant language that this is to enable the government to periodically monitor these cameras to make sure they are being used in accordance with the grant terms. Are you getting this? The feds HAVE all the camera addresses NOW and they have already said they will be monitoring the camera installed by the municipalities.

. . draw your own implications from that. But in my opinion the only thing keeping the line between "right" and "wrong" intact is the guy sitting at the computer terminal joy stick scared to death he is going to be the next one "retired" 2 years away from pension eligibility.

Scares me to death. I find myself driving around downtown humming the theme to "Candid Camera" sometimes.

 

What would you do in the hypothetical (and oh so sadly real in Canada) situation I proposed re guns?

Surely you see the pattern?

It doesn't bother you?

I do not believe that the minute I step out my front door, or the the door of a change room, that my life becomes public domain and my rights to privacy are somehow diminished.

Waxy

 

People with that attitude terrify me more than Al Qaeda could ever hope to.

 

Try being famous.

 

They're also used for more...UNOFFICIAL purposes, especially in the summer...especially when the 20-something males running them see an attractive female...

 

You can't be serious?

 

So what, the girls who dress skimpily know we all look including the ones they're not interested in.

 

Sinjin, I have a question . . though I dread wading back in on this . .

You said: "You have no reasonable expectation of privacy the minute you walk out your door."

My question is this:

"Suppose every time you walk out your door you see a person "over there" snapping pictures of you, or your family, no matter what time of the day or night it was 24/7/365. How long do you suppose it would be before you had a problem with that?"

You mentioned "celebrity" also. Good point. In fact the courts have been addressing that issue, and more and more frequently standing up for the folks that do not want the shutter bugs around all the time. . . right?

 

Wrong. To date the Pappawhatevers have had their right to pursue you upheld. Just watch what happens to Kid Rock for his recent stunt.

Yes I would have a problem with it but I accept that if someone wants to photograph me I have to live with it. It's already happened to all of us more times than we know. What negative effects have any of us experienced?

 

see...i'm with sinjin here.....i'm ok with cameras because i belive they deter crime,,,as do concealed weapons.

 

I'm not on the other side of the fence from you guys on this - neither is Waxy.

But there is a huge factor that nullifies the whole concept:

"Career Politician"

This . . . animal, has no morals, has no respect, has no modesty, has no honor, has no dignity.

You can do as you choose obviously. But I can not rationalize trusting folks being supervised and directed by career politicians to do the right thing.

Cameras unequivocally deter crime. They also just as easily and effectively can intrude into "personal space". The only limiting factor, is policy created by afore mentioned "career politicians".

It scares me to death. That doesn't mean they do not have significant value.

 

I'm not so sure of this. They may help in finding the person after the crime, but crime in places like England (and here) is going up despite all the cameras. Maybe we need cameras in people's houses so we can protect them better whilst in their abode (after the crime has happened).

And if you think cameras are bad, everything you do on the internet is being tracked and sniffed. Be careful what you say. Just think how something you do could be taken out of context to ruin you if you ever become politically significant and some unscrupulous politician (of which there are only a few, I'm sure) has access to the information.

Regardless, I haven't heard of any of this monitoring preventing a crime, only allowing someone to go back and trace the steps of the perp after the crime has been committed. Perhaps things are different in England. But if we were getting any benefit from it over here, I would think that would add justification to their existence.