Really getting annoyed with the homeland security.

[rainstorm]

i think cameras should be everywhere. safety is num 1. every corner, every store every home.

[Guest]

i think cameras should be everywhere. safety is num 1. every corner, every store every home.

Liar! You i know really hate these cams more then i probably do for that matter.

[rainstorm]

nope. its time to be safe. where is that link?

[streetsoldier]

What I fear is not what they are being used for NOW...but what a Kerry or Hillary Administration might do with them LATER.

Tools in some hands are to the good...but in other's...

[rainstorm]

whats good for the goose is good for the gander

[GalvestonDuck]

whats good for the goose is good for the gander

That's fowl!

[rainstorm]

whats good for the goose is good for the gander

That's fowl!

QUACK!!

[Josephine96]

MOO! lmao.. sorry

[WEATHER53]

The problem with cameras is that they are pre-emptive of the right to meet your accuser and I think that is un-american. You can be in court and even if you were making every effort to stop but your car happened to go one foot over the magic line and got your picture taken you are guilty and fined. The guy next to you could have been drunk, going 90 in at 50, and running cars off the road and if the cop does not show, he is walking out scott free. Something wrong here? I think so, I think cameras are mostly revenue enhancers and a form of make up for other law enforcement deficiencies.

[rainstorm]

cameras dont lie

[Derek Ortt]

If you follow the law, you have nothing to worry about, We do have to give up some of our freedoms during this time. If we want to win, we must sacrifice. We cannot have it both ways, never been able to in the past and cannot in the future

[WEATHER53]

cameras dont lie

Truth versus liberty. Law, I think, is not as cut and dried as that. I believe that intent and subjectivity is a part of the law. When engaged with a police officer there is permittted exchange. I believe that 9 times out of 10 would a police officer observe a driver making every possible effort to come to a safe stop but merely crossing the magic line by a foot or so and not causing any other danger then he would not issue a ticket. The camera precludes that, takes into account no other issues, you are guilty period, that is un-American and again is more about revenue enhancement that any public safety issue. Blowing through a stop light, that is what cameras should legitmately be about, hunting down ordinary law abiding citizens for monetary gain who intended no harm and caused no harm, has sinister aspects to it and I am not interested in furthering the next step forward along this silppery slope.

[Guest]

hunting down ordinary law abiding citizens for monetary gain who intended no harm and caused no harm, has sinister aspects to it and I am not interested in furthering the next step forward along this silppery slope.

Exactly! They may say that is not what the cameras intended use are for, but just wait and see. This will only lead to BAD things for good citizens.
...Jennifer...

[WEATHER53]

hunting down ordinary law abiding citizens for monetary gain who intended no harm and caused no harm, has sinister aspects to it and I am not interested in furthering the next step forward along this silppery slope.

Exactly! They may say that is not what the cameras intended use are for, but just wait and see. This will only lead to BAD things for good citizens.
...Jennifer...

A little freeze frame of your tag is not the whole story, that is what law and justice is about, the whole story and to preclude that and be guilty, not even until proven innocent is bad enough but just guilty period, is un-american.

[Guest]

hunting down ordinary law abiding citizens for monetary gain who intended no harm and caused no harm, has sinister aspects to it and I am not interested in furthering the next step forward along this silppery slope.

Exactly! They may say that is not what the cameras intended use are for, but just wait and see. This will only lead to BAD things for good citizens.
...Jennifer...

A little freeze frame of your tag is not the whole story, that is what law and justice is about, the whole story and to preclude that and be guilty, not even until proven innocent is bad enough but just guilty period, is un-american.

Agreed and this is the whole point i think alot of people are missing here. Nothing good at all can come from having these cams and alot of bad things can such as been stated here.

[chadtm80]

Nothing good can come of it.. You honestly think thats true?

[Guest]

Nothing good can come of it.. You honestly think thats true?

Yes I do.

[WEATHER53]

A camera shows you throwing down a bag. You get a ticket for littering. The reason you threw down the bag was to run out into the street to pull a child away from an approaching car-that's the whole story; the camera does not catch that. That is what is wrong with cameras.

[coriolis]

Heres some thoughts: Some of these conflict, but it shows that there's two sides to this question.

1. They already have cameras in banks, convenience stores, and many other places. Of course these places are private property, so if you don't like 'em, you don't go into the store. I have'nt heard of any cases of philandering husbands getting busted buying condoms.

2. Camera's in strategic public places can deter crime and have been used to solve crimes. Didn't they recently catch a kidnapper with a camera?

3. I agree with the concept that it would be ok in a public place where we have no expectation of privacy. It would be extra eyes and ears for law enforcement. Using interns or students to monitor the screens would free up highly paid personnel to do other things.

4. There are going to be questions of what constitutes a public place. What about a camera in a public place that inadvertently sees something on private property? I suppose that it's the same principle as a cop on the street seeing something on private property. Police do stakeouts, aerial surveillence etc, so this would be essentially the same thing. Cameras could be set up to monitor suspected drug houses avoiding the expense and risk of stakeouts.

5. Cameras could be vandalized.

6. Cameras are not a substitute for cops on the street and should not be used as and excuse to reduce presence.

7. Cameras would not be effective against terrorism. Terrorists could easily avoid their view, or appear to be doing innocent things. How's a camera know if the van that just pulled up is packed with explosives?

Overall, I'd say that they have their use, but can be overdone, just like anything else. I'd feel intimidated if a cop in a car was frequently parked in front of my house just watching. A camera isn't any different.

[WEATHER53]

I do not object to cameras for observations or security purposes. I object to them as a default for the personal interaction and totality assessment of the situation that comes into play when a law enforcement officer is involved. They have become for red lights, speed control, and god knows what next a substitute for legitimate human interaction as to the interperetation and totality of the situation at hand. They are a revenue make up for the municipalities and it is ridiculous to not even have the opportunity to be innocent until proven guilty(or even guilty until proven innocent for god's sake) but to be slam dunk guilty when you go into court as the result of the magnificent camera while the guy next to you, and many like him, gets to skate because the cops do not show or some other arbitrable consideration which such arbitration the camera is presumed to preclude. It is an un-American form of law enforcement and justice; actually lack of justice to be honest.