If we all knew they said " SMILE . . .. .. you're on Candid Camera " ??? LOL .
Anyways .. . . .. What Do You Think About Great Britain's Methods ?
2007-07-24 17:16:09 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't have a problem with it, either. What's the difference in a cameras eye or a person' eye? LOL! If you are in public you will be seen!
ArgleBargleWoogleBoo--stop picking your nose in public and you won't mind it either.
2007-07-24 17:39:04 · answer #1 · answered by Miss Kitty 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't have a firm "yes" or "no" answer.
People are on the street anyway, and therefore there is no expectation of privacy.
But there's not an expectation that one will have one's activities RECORDED, either. At least not yet.
Then again, I suppose plenty of movies use "crowd scenes" or film, say, on the streets of NYC without getting releases from anyone the camera happens to catch.
On balance (and it is a balancing test) I would favor street cameras for a legitimate purpose. But I am not totally comfortable with it.
Lots of things that are legal are not totally "kosher" from a comfort standpoint. It's a shame society is forced to do these things - I blame those whose criminal acts caused this to happen.
We are all searched before boarding airplanes, and now are subject to random searches on the NY subways. We have random "drunk driver" checkpoints on highways. I really resented those when I was younger. Now, I worry about being killed or maimed, or having a family member harmed, by one. And, to be blunt, 25 years ago there may have been things in a car I was riding in that shouldn't have been. Now I'm squeaky clean.
Are we "boiling the frog" and becoming a police state? Or has human behavior (assisted by technology) degenerated to a level that the choice is strict control or deadly
anarchy? I dunno.
I have written much, and said little. I'm conflicted.
2007-07-25 08:21:36 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well I suppose I had better take the opposing view and say I agree with them totally, the more the better. When you say they do not stop terrorism you are wrong. Ok they may not stop everything, but a number of recent criminal trials have shown video evidence of suspects carrying bags to railway stations, meeting other suspects, buying explosives and other materials etc. When the London car bombs were defused video evidence quickly identified the persons responsible and tracked their movements.
Don't you realise what an incredible tool this is to detect offences and offenders. I for one am happy to be photographed, videod, fingerprinted and anything else which may protect my loved ones. In the case of Madeline McCann, if video cameras etc had been widespread in Portugal, we would not now be wondering what had happened to her...she would no doubt have been found by now, or at least the suspects arrested. Stop being so naive.
2007-07-25 03:56:16 · answer #3 · answered by Knownow't 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We are way past George Orwell's futuristic interpretation of 1984, yet it's getting more and more eerily similar. I think taking a photograph of someone without their permission, famous, not famous, in public or not, is highly invasive. I especially disdain cell phone cameras. I will concede though, that the use of security cameras in banks and stores, and dimly lit parking decks have helped put criminals behind bars.
2007-07-25 01:49:03 · answer #4 · answered by persnickety1022 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
With camera phones, video phones, security cameras, etc., anyone who thinks they are have a right to privacy while in public are sadly mistaken. Even the police have had it brought to their attention that they can't just beat up on folks.
My major objection to this type of program is the expense to tax payers, for installation and monitoring. So much space is already om tape in the public sector at private expense, why should the government bother.
2007-07-25 03:37:20 · answer #5 · answered by character 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is a big catch 22 to this. On one hand most would feel it to be too intrusive. On the other hand those same people would thank their lucky stars if it aided in identifying a criminal who did ill will towards them.
I guess I am the third hand. IF, and yes that is a very big if... IF they were to be used as a public safety measure only... major traffic violations would be pushing the envelope... certainly not for use as a money maker for small traffic violations... IF it could be controlled how they were used... I may still shoot it down... but I might consider it in high crime areas.
2007-07-25 00:28:13 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Perfect 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I really don't think that I would want that to happen here. It might be OK for the Brits but not for me. Do the Brits know what real freedom is? I have my doubts on that. Maybe I am too "old school". I must belong in a different period of time.
2007-07-25 00:48:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have no problems with street cams. I think it's a good idea and would love to see some in my city where crime is rampant.
If people knew they were being watched maybe they would not commit half the crimes they commit.
2007-07-25 10:48:09 · answer #8 · answered by egg_sammash 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It has its good points and bad points. I have heard that crime has fallen dramatically which is good. If people know that they are being watched and their criminal actions may be caught on (undisputable trial evidence) tape, then they are far less likely to commit those heinous crimes. On the other hand, some people may think it is an invasion of privacy.
2007-07-25 10:53:28 · answer #9 · answered by mountaindew25 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In public I have no problem.
You can't go into a store without being on camera so why should it bother people when they are on the streets.
2007-07-25 09:22:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋