So, 71 percent of Americans are okay with spy cams, that level of an invasion of privacy.
So, I wonder which side the American people are on when it comes to tactics used by our government to keep us safe.
(Some of) one side wants a secure boarder which almost eighty percent of America agrees with..
The other side must like things the way they are currently...
GWB has done things like monitoring terrorist money accounts and wire taps, and we have stopped every single plan of attack for 6 years...
Dems complain about these tactics and, again, don't seem to have a better way to watch terrorist....but one thing is for sure, we will not make it easier to get warrants and keep it almost impossible to wire tap and listen to terrorist talk to each other!!!!
I guess the American people would rather be safe...
Monday, July 30, 2007
Surveillance Cameras Win Broad Support
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
May I make a suggestion? When citing a fact, such your stat of 71% favoring cameras, at least cite your source of information, or provide a link. Without either of these, someone may think you were making it up.
Its in the story...most of the time my links are found by clicking on the headline...as in this case...
From link:
71 percent of Americans favor the increased use of surveillance cameras, while 25 percent oppose it.
I'm fine with use of surveillance cameras in public places as long as any information gained from them is used in a legal, transparent manner.
I'm sure that a majority of people would approve of ANY tactic the government uses to keep us safe as long as it is done in a legal manner with legal oversight.
That's what people like you continually fail to understand. It's not the tactics themselves that people who believe in the rule of law object to. It is the fact that it is being done illegally when it could easily be done legally.
Everybody wants a secure border except some elements of the radical left, but they speak for few Americans and they don't speak for me. Please show me a Democrat who is NOT for a secure border.
The Democrats have offered to do whatever is needed to bring the law in line with whatever needs the government has to protect us. The government (read Cheney) refuses because he insists on ultimate secrecy above all else and he wants to push an agenda of supreme power of the presidency.
If it's legal, we're for it. If you can't prove it's legal, then it isn't. If it isn't legal, then it isn't legal, and if the administration still does it when it isn't legal, then the rule of law is lost and the enemies of the United States have won.
Got it?
I couldn't find it anywhere in the article (not that I studied every word), but it would be interesting to see how many of the 71% have bitched about Bush's surveillance and intel gathering strategies.
As to the practice itself, naturally, I would prefer that there be absolutely no such "Big Brother" type techniques employed in this country. The reality, however, is that in today's world, the public use of such things can be helpful in solving or preventing crimes. I guess when you disarm the public, you have to employ other means that infringe on the rights of the people. How else can we protect ourselves from the scum of the earth? Persuasion?
Who's going to do the watching?
The same incompetents we have at the airports?
Oh, and who's gonna pay for all this?
I guess the American people would rather be safe
To be more accurate, I guess the American sheeple would rather feel safe...
than free
I think you've got it backwards, Jim. You have to prove something is ILLEGAL, otherwise it's legal. Cameras scanning a street corner is not exactly infringing on personal privacy since it's a public street corner. In a high crime area, I've got no problem with such tactics. For that matter, even in a very low crime area I've got no problem with it other than the fact that it makes no sense in an area with no crime. On a public street corner, people can gather for just about anything they want as long as it's not to engage in illegal activity and if what they do is not illegal, why would it matter if the city installed cameras? A public street corner is not a place where rational people congregate for privacy. In a high crime area, it's good that the scum have to consider that there are fewer places where they are not being watched. I like it.
"The Democrats have offered to do whatever is needed to bring the law in line with whatever needs the government has to protect us. The government (read Cheney) refuses because he insists on ultimate secrecy above all else and he wants to push an agenda of supreme power of the presidency."
Utter nonsense from top to bottom. Pure fear-mongering and smear tactics. To test the Constitutional limits of presidential authority is hardly an agenda of malevolence. Give it a rest. And as far as I can tell, the Democrats have only concerned themselves with similar baseless accusations. If what you say is true, they'd not wet their pants over a FISA law that has been rendered worthless by the advances of technology. No. They'd rather spend their time seeking ways of indicting a president intent on protecting his country.
Hash,
Cameras in a public place are monitored just as any other such surveilance system. A period of time is recorded and should a crime take place, the tape is reviewed. What straw man did you have in mind?
Realism,
I'm as free as I ever was. What happened to you?
(The game bowing down to Marshall)
"Cameras in a public place are monitored just as any other such surveilance system. A period of time is recorded and should a crime take place, the tape is reviewed. What straw man did you have in mind?"
Marshall, your premise is (as usual) incorrect. Whether the monitoring is done under government auspices or it is done by a private security company, will it be done by a low-wage illiterate who has a) absolutely no interest in investigating anything anyway and b) could be infiltrated by the very individuals we are aiming to "protect" ourselves from?
Don't say it couldn't happen. The control over our very ports were turned over to countries like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia under the watch of the Republicans.
In addition, what you SHOULD be asking is whether, in the digital age, these images could be manipulated to achieve a desired result, one way or another.
Overlooking the obvious pitfalls of modern technology and considering all the aspects of turning over small fortunes to private security operations whose motives may not be true, for a quick fix to a complex problem is just one example of why liberals (and increasingly, Americans across the board) fundamentally distrust conservatives to implement initiatives that will successfully augment law enforcement.
And my question remains: who exactly shall foot the bill for all of this? This technology is expensive and still will require a surprisingly large work force in order to maintain and supervise it properly.
The London model appears to be quite successful, and actually quite popular with the residents there. But America is not Europe; our cities, suburbs and rural areas are spread out over great distances, and installing these networks anywhere here is a massive undertaking by comparison.
Who will foot the bill? Who will profit from this? And will the results justify the cost, in the final analysis?
There was a time in America where so-called conservatives didn't have to be told not to spend like drunken sailors. Sadly, the Left has to be a check and balance over the Republicans' irresponsible squandering of America's essential financial resources.
The infrastructure for an Orwellian nightmare takes time to build.
I wonder if it's going to be a democrat or a republican that flips the switch?
It might be instructive to consider the way in which two things happened:
The Milwaukee Common Council recently approved the purchase and installation of cameras to watch high-crime areas. There were several public meetings about it; our elected officials debated it in open forums; the media were apprised of the story and kept the pubic informed. In the end, when the cameras went up, they'd been explained, vetted, and clarified appropriately.
The Bush administration decided to engage in wiretapping of US persons without a warrant as required by law. They did this without the knowledge or consent of the Congress which had passed the law in question. They were doing it in such a questionable way as to cause three top US law enforcement figures--Robert Mueller, James Comey, and John Ashcroft--to threaten to resign if the program continued. When the press finally became aware, the administration demanded (and the NYT acquiesced for nearly a year) that they not run the story. Once the administration knew the press had it, they "briefed" the so-called "gang of eight" in Congress, but did it in such a way that the members of Congress couldn't even discuss the program with their colleagues.
In one instance, everything was done above-board and with the consent of the governed. In the other, everything was under the table and obfuscated as much as possible.
Tell me, Game (and other conservatives in this thread), which of these two do you approve of?
security guards paid off by terrorist, the govt digitally altering video for there own gain...you guys should write movies...
And you can also stop saying we are scared of terrorist when you are scared of cameras
So game, you trust the Bush Administration without question, I take it.
And when Hillary is president, same thing right?
Game, you didn't actually answer my question.
I also haven't seen any evidence that liberals are "scared of cameras."
Mayor Daley in Chicago favors cameras in high crime areas. He ain't no Republican. It's one of his few good ideas, considering he also favors keeping the public unarmed and helpless.
Hash,
You really need to see someone about that paranoia. We're talking high crime areas. These cameras run without monitoring in most cases where they are used. When a crime is committed, they are reviewed. Do you really thing this'll break the bank? How can it possibly be implemented in so many places now if it that cost prohibitive. And what possible strategies do YOU have for fighting crime in the inner city that has any chance of making a difference? What will it cost, particulary if it doesn't work?
Jay,
Yeah, I trust the Bush admin.
Jim,
No. I wouldn't trust the Hill Clinton admin.
But for all the idiotic and childish rantings about a "Bush Crime Family", I've never seen or heard of definitive proof of any profits being taken through the implementation of any of his policies. The Clintons, however, show a real hunger for power. They shouldn't be trusted by anyone.
I didn't say anything about the Bush Crime Family. I'm more worried more about Dick Cheney. But that's besides the point.
Do you think rules, laws, and the Constitution should be changed administration to administration according to whom you trust? That's bullshit. The rule of law should transcend administrations so as to avoid misuse and abuse.
It's really a simple concept.
Post a Comment