http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArSQ8xTUWM5Sg7th_i3smI7sy6IX?qid=20070701211602AAiF45b&show=7#profile-info-XevkgD50aa
If you're in a public area... there *is* no privacy!
2007-07-01 17:41:46 · 17 answers · asked by MotherBear1975 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Three... granted they could peek inside... hmm... curtains work wonders! Most people I know use them anyway!
2007-07-01 17:57:36 · update #1
My reasoning would be that people want to be protected so long as it doesn't bother them in any way shape or form. They don't want to be hassled or feel intruded upon in any way, but still expect protection.
I agree with putting cameras up in public. The city has every right to protect itself and investment, just like Target or Wal-Mart, and yet nobody complains about cameras watching them there.
If putting cameras up will help make the cities across our country safer then by all means do it. It doesn't just help against terrorism, but against all sorts of crimes:
Mugging,
Murder
Drug Dealing
Gang Violence
Pick pocketing
Just to name a few. If you can't see how this actually helps improve your safety and make an officers job easier then I don't know what else to tell you.
2007-07-01 20:57:32 · answer #1 · answered by bigdaddy33 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
that would be... "which rights ARE being violated?"
and presently the right to know if an action of the government is effecting you in anyway whatsoever and address the issue and appeal it.
If they haven't done away with "no-fly" lists, you can and will be placed on them for exercising your right to assemble and protest the war.
This is coercion, trying to silence protesters and there is no way to appeal the decision.
even if that problem is gone, how many fascist governments came right out and told their people, "today we are taking this right away and tomorrow we will take something else away"??
NONE
they eroded the freedoms slowly, over time setting up the stage to enforce complete control.
The best way to do this is to convince the people to give them up to protect them from a common threat.
you should really study more, and learn how fascist governments arise, being supported by your very same argument..
2007-07-02 01:50:15 · answer #2 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why would that bother you when government can go through all your personal mail/data/files/credit/phone conversations, etc. and satellites can zoom in on you at a moments notice?
Cameras are everywhere...you'd be dumb to think you can get away with anything anymore.
You think being free means you have the right to privacy? Not anymore. Those fences once up, just get higher and higher.
2007-07-02 00:46:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
We have some of these here. The police like them. I have been told that if there is a missing child alert, they can pull the footage at both ends of the main thoroughfare and figure out which way and what time...
I don't know about violation of rights with the cameras, but I can see a due process problem with prosecution of light-runners and speeders, so I am not thrilled with the technology. But it's the way of the world.
2007-07-02 00:55:45 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Even if 9-11 had never happened... even if there *were no* terrorists... I'd *still* support this idea. So would my girlfriend who got raped in an alley, screaming for help but no one came... if someone had been monitoring a camera, she may not have been spared, but she would at least have the satisfaction of knowing the bastard didn't get away!
If they tried to put them in private homes, etc. of course I'd oppose it, violently! Anyone with sense would. But in public, they would be welcome!
2007-07-02 01:19:38 · answer #5 · answered by pittiesrock 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'd be fine with it. I got mugged in NY last week... people actually walked by and did NOTHING! Lost my rent money and now I may lose my home... if it can stop or solve crime then hell ya!
2007-07-02 01:54:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
you sheeple are selling out liberty for chains one step at a time.
Just like a frog in warm water, you can heat it slowly and the frog will not hop out because the change is suttle. But after a wile, you realise you are in hot water!
Wake Up America!
If we give up things for the so called "terrorist" then you are living a terrorized life!
Morons!
The terrorist are in the White House!
Al CIA DA is run by Dick Cheney!
not OBL!
2007-07-02 01:11:10 · answer #7 · answered by jim c 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Provided the recordings are strictly protected and can only be used in the case of criminal prosecutions, I have no issue against more cameras. Look at it this way, when the criminals know someone is watching, they are less likely to strike.
2007-07-02 01:05:04 · answer #8 · answered by vtchuck2000 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
There is'nt any constitutional ground for any opposition. How can you expect the remain private in a public place? If you want to be private go inside your home and stay there.
2007-07-02 00:46:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
not every "right" is spelled out
....that doesn't mean that those rights should be
forfeited
in "public"
one has the right to expect real-time/real-space privacy
and exposure
what you do w/in the range of human notice
is acceptable
bein' eavesdropped on in a restaurant
or spied on via technology....for later examination
is unacceptable
2007-07-02 01:05:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋