|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 03/24/06 11:28
With neither quill nor qualm, Connie Pierce quothed:
> > > >....A video camera on a public street corner isn't any different from
> > > > a police officer standing there watching you...or anyone else standing
> > > > there watching you for that matter...it's out in public.
> > >
> > > Absolutely true . . .
> >
> > Bullshit. The naivety of that opinion will not do your progeny (-if
> > any) any good at all.
>
> Then educate us. How is a video camera *that* much different than a
> police man standing on the corner actively watching you??
There is always a difference between human and mechanical means, but the
real point is that perpetual surveillance is _definitely_ not a good
thing.
> Personally, I have nothing to hide. If someone were following me,
> "staring" at me with a VC, then I'd mind (it would be tres creepy). But
> otherwise, I don't really give a damn. I'm not even the least bit of an
> exhibitionist. I just figure that if I'm in public and I do something
> stupid, then I deserve to either be caught (if a crime) or embarrassed
> (if doing something humiliating). And if you're doing something that's
> either a crime or stupid, well, you have no street sense/survival
> skills and deserve what you get.
Very idealistic - just like Communism.
> > > we're in the middle of a big controversy here
> > > because the city/county wants to put in video cameras to discourage
> > > Spring Breakers from doing some of their obnoxious (not all of them,
> > > but enough) crap.
> > >
> > > It's become divided into a "party" issue - the Reps in favor of and the
> > > Libs against.
> >
> > Well that's no surprise. Republicans are always in favor of "family
> > values". <derisive laugh>
>
> I don't get what family values has to do with this subject? The Reps
> are for it mainly to discourage the complaints and to create revenue
> (from fines). Family values on this matter have nothing to do with it -
> it's all in the name of commerce and getting more money from tourism. (
> :
Families don't appreciate the kind of fun spring breakers do.
Republicans would be happy to put an end to it because it is annoying to
the mainstream voting family-type masses and quashing it is in line with
Rep Party "family" policy to boot.
> > > We've already had Libs threaten to call in the ACLU over
> > > it (invasion of privacy) while the average citizen (not including
> > > tourists/Spring Breakers) thinnk it's a good idea.
> >
> > Oops, hold on there. You are assuming that today's "average citizen"
> > _can_ think in the first place. There has been some question regarding
> > this in recent times, particularly after they re-elected Bush.
>
> I'm an average citizen and I *DO* think quite often, LOL. I'm in favor
> of it because of the drug problem that we've had (really bad problem
> with dealing in several areas where the cams are being proposed) and
> because of the many child abductions (Joseph Smith was caught on the
> basis of a video tape).
I was, of course, being sarcastic. However, it is without sarcasm that
I can quite truthfully say there is little crime in a police state.
> > > Personally, I figure if you're in public, you're in full view of others
> > > (some of whom, esp with the video camera industry the way it is now,
> > > may be filming you). I figure "what's the difference?" If you
> > > re doing something stupid or funny but not a crime, the people who are
> > > more likely to use that "against" you are the common citizen with their
> > > HandyCam (America's Funniest??).
> >
> > Would there be any difference if _every cubic inch_ of so-called "public
> > space" was video-recorded 24/7?
>
> I don't get what you mean . . . privacy *IS* a basic American right,
> but several cases have proven that you are only "guaranteed" privacy in
> your own home or business (unless they use cameras, too). Personally, I
> don't mind it. I'm not retarded enough to do anything that could be
> misconstrued in public.
I mean that if the average person in the US ever was under constant
scrutiny by authoritarian forces, your freedoms would be history. Many
of them are history now. You just don't realize it.
Also, if I'm walking down the middle of a public sidewalk, I have the
right to a certain amount of privacy, guaranteed or not. I don't need
to be accosted by someone selling "Rolex" watches or discount coupons
for the Follies Bergeres or anything else. If someone persists in
bothering me, I can summon a cop who can legally rid me of my pest under
the auspices of general privacy laws. How does this fit in with your
"1984" picture?
> > > I don't think it's too far of a stretch to act in public like you
> > > *were* being recorded . . .
> >
> > That isn't the idea. The real goal is for people to act decently.
>
> Well, obviously. But you can act decently and still pull the wedgie out
> of your ass on a busy streeet. LOL. You won't be accused of indecent
> behavior or wrong-doing if you pick your nose in public (Lord knows
> I've seen enough men do it at stoplights). The point is to be on your
> best behavior everywhere, but at the very least, in public where being
> stupid can hurt you socially, physically, and emotionally.
And for the less-than-perfect citizen, what? -Termination? -Isolation
to a secluded compound for misfits? You are the personification of the
darkest science fiction I have ever read.
> > > you're certainly being mental recorded
> > > here (such a small town - you can't fart without someone guessing what
> > > you had for dinner). So if you don't fix wedgies, pick your nose or
> > > otherwise act the ass in public, you have nothing to worry about.
> > >
> > > Also, a problem that we've had with the SB - just FYI, is public sex
> > > after hours in front of bars, strip clubs and the like. The majority of
> > > the locals are wet blankets and are mad about it . . .
> >
> > The real problems you have are your politicians and non-partisan
> > delusions.
>
> Actually, our politicans are Democrats. ( :
Oh, excuse me, that invalidates everything I've said...
> Just curious . . . are you also against the VCs in police cars? I
> would think they (like the ones wer're discussing) would be a good
> idea. It protects everyone - at least those who can keep from digging a
> wedgie out of their ass in public! LOL.
>
> I'm also for it because I believe it creates a protective barrier
> between the average citizen and the police, BTW. We've had several
> "issues" with our police that I think could have been settled if there
> had been a VC handy. One man was shot (and no VC, therefore no record)
> and killed by police on a street well known for drug dealers. The
> police say he drew a gun on them, witnesses said he didn't. Would have
> been nice for the guy's family to have some sort of evidence proving
> the guy was innocent of selling drugs AND pulling a gun when they took
> the family home, car, bank accounts, etc.
>
> Don't you think?
I'm not against VCs in police cars. I'm not against VCs at all if
they're not abused. But one thing to remember, one very primary thing,
is "Who watches the watchers?"
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|