Americans Favor Surveillance Cameras (Ron Paul, Iran, lawyer, speech)

[Jason_Els]

The UK is getting scary. Now they want your DNA. Nothing like criminalizing your population to keep them in line.

The Human Genetics Commission, the Government’s independent DNA watchdog, yesterday announced the first public inquiry into the database. Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, QC, chairwoman of the commission, said: “The police in England and Wales have powers, unrivalled internationally, to take a DNA sample from any arrested individual, without their consent. We want to hear the public’s views on whether storing the DNA profiles of victims and suspects who are later not charged or acquitted is justified by the need to fight crime.”

[dreamofmonterey]

If they had them on NYC (every corner) I doubt it will help- I saw a man knifed on 54th St , and it took the cops over an hour to help anyway. Another sad fact in todays paranoid society. They wont secure the borders, but film the average joe walking down the street and proof 75 year olds just to buy a can of Heineken at the supermarket. Utter idiocy.

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by sunnyhelena

If they had them on NYC (every corner) I doubt it will help- I saw a man knifed on 54th St , and it took the cops over an hour to help anyway.

But, if the camera helps the police catch the guy that knifed the man on 54th street perhaps the biggest benefit is to the next man/woman who won't get knifed by this guy because he was caught. I see the benefit of the cameras. I just don't see the benefit for the immediate crime victim. Same with terrorism. The cameras will help catch the perp, post incident, as they have done in Great Britain. But, I don't think they'll prevent the incident.

I'm for them just based on their benefit to police detectives and government agents. I'm just a little surprised so many others (71%) are, too.

[Rita Mordio]

Originally Posted by famenity

You could try the HRA (Human Rights Act)

The Human Rights Act is enacted in UK, am I right? Like previously stated, I thought we were talking about surveillance cameras in America.

Yes, the government is going to abuse this. Everything gets abused. The cameras aren't going to deter crime or make things safer. However, if the government wants to waste time and effort to put cameras on things that they technically own, that's their prerogative.

As for using "Liberty" to justify your right to privacy, do you really think the government will twist the word the same as you to prevent themselves from doing what they want?

Americans get watched all the time. Whether it be for suspected child abuse, terrorism, etc, etc. What difference does it make if somebody is following them on foot or watching them on a camera.

Too many times you hear that such-and-such person got attacked or robbed on the street and the only description is a *whatever color* man/woman with *whatever color* hair. If there are cameras everywhere, his/her face will be plastered all over.

Yes. It's going to be abused. Just like every other thing the government does. But would you rather have a government that does nothing at all, or one that overdoes trying to be helpful. They go about it the wrong way.

I guess my opinion comes from the fact that there are ALREADY cameras where I live. I live near the Oceanfront and there are cameras on every light post (which are approx 5-7 feet apart). And yes, some of the camera techs stare at some of the skimpy wear that is seen at the beach... but I don't mind the cameras there because they don't bother me because I'm doing nothing wrong.

[Rita Mordio]

Originally Posted by Jason_Els

The UK is getting scary. Now they want your DNA. Nothing like criminalizing your population to keep them in line.

Believe it or not, they do that in some parts of the U.S. too. A friend of mine was arrested because she was in a private woods (which was actually owned by her parents and she had permission to be there) but when they finger printed her and got her mug shot, they also swabbed her mouth. When she asked about the swab, they said it was for DNA to keep with her record. The charges were dropped, but now the police dept has her mug shot, fingerprints, and DNA.

[famenity]

Originally Posted by Kuharai

Believe it or not, they do that in some parts of the U.S. too. A friend of mine was arrested because she was in a private woods (which was actually owned by her parents and she had permission to be there) but when they finger printed her and got her mug shot, they also swabbed her mouth. When she asked about the swab, they said it was for DNA to keep with her record. The charges were dropped, but now the police dept has her mug shot, fingerprints, and DNA.

Interesting to see your immediate views, am wondering if you see the imposition of satellite following of cars as anything to worry about, this coupled with all thats been said so far on this blog, this is at an advanced stage in the UK being used by Norwich Union insurance company to allow insurance at a cheaper rate if you do not go over your anticipated mileage.

So far so good but the government wants to tax ropad use this way too. Perhaps this is ok too but wait speed control accrate down to 1mph will be regulated this way too.

No harm in all this if you don't speed or drink and drive (it can detect D+D cases from the behavoir of the car, I'm sure most will support this, I do 'cos I do not drink alchohol.

I don't speed intentionally being quite old now and naturally going a bit slower, laughing at the other drivers with bad manners, unlike my young self who retaliated.

Of course you might be the one in a million who has never put a foot wrong, so you will be alright.

There is talk now over here on the other side of the pond to chip our kids at birth, some parents are actually saying they think it a good idea, so they can track their childrens every move.

Catching isn't it?

[Rita Mordio]

Originally Posted by famenity

Interesting to see your immediate views, am wondering if you see the imposition of satellite following of cars as anything to worry about, this coupled with all thats been said so far on this blog, this is at an advanced stage in the UK being used by Norwich Union insurance company to allow insurance at a cheaper rate if you do not go over your anticipated mileage.

So far so good but the government wants to tax ropad use this way too. Perhaps this is ok too but wait speed control accrate down to 1mph will be regulated this way too.

No harm in all this if you don't speed or drink and drive (it can detect D+D cases from the behavoir of the car, I'm sure most will support this, I do 'cos I do not drink alchohol.

I don't speed intentionally being quite old now and naturally going a bit slower, laughing at the other drivers with bad manners, unlike my young self who retaliated.

Of course you might be the one in a million who has never put a foot wrong, so you will be alright.

There is talk now over here on the other side of the pond to chip our kids at birth, some parents are actually saying they think it a good idea, so they can track their childrens every move.

Catching isn't it?

The system you speak of that detects speed and behavior of cars is actually in private use today. Parents can get a device put into a car that their child will drive. It detects how hard the child accelerates, brakes, if the child goes over a certain speed, how loud they have the music, how many people (besides the child) enter and leave the car, and the parents can even watch their kid's position from their computers at home through the GPS system.

I'm not quite sure, but most cars today have the data port required for the system under the dash.

Also, parents can monitor where their child goes with one of those "kiddie" phones. It only allows the child to dial up to like 10 numbers that are saved in the memory and have GPS chips.

So.. if the government wants to put the above mentioned device in the cars of habitual reckless drivers (5 or more reckless driving tickets/accidents/DUI's) and monitor them via satellite, I'm all for it.

I may be young(er), but in my 4 years (all-be-it a short time for most people...) of driving, I've never even been pulled over once. I keep inspection up-to-date, I keep my registration good, I don't speed more than maybe 4 or 5 mph above, and I sure don't drink and drive.

[ShadowCaver]

If a person is not currently worried nor apprehensive about video cameras, cause the thought such is all benign and there to 'protect' us from them... then please tell me that the following is not a concern either?

Data Mining 101: Finding Subversives with Amazon Wishlists | Applefritter

And recall that this work presented was by a singular person, with basic equipment - not a NSA, FBI, etc type of resources and funding...


BTW, and just who is it that decided who the us's are and who the them's shall be?

[famenity]

Originally Posted by ShadowCaver

If a person is not currently worried nor apprehensive about video cameras, cause the thought such is all benign and there to 'protect' us from them... then please tell me that the following is not a concern either?

Data Mining 101: Finding Subversives with Amazon Wishlists | Applefritter

And recall that this work presented was by a singular person, with basic equipment - not a NSA, FBI, etc type of resources and funding...


BTW, and just who is it that decided who the us's are and who the them's shall be?

Brilliant bit of work. Thanks for that, an eyeopener.

[emjbulls]

Originally Posted by LauraC

I'm just a little surprised so many others (71%) are, too.

I'm not. People throughout history have been willing to trade away their rights out of fear.