^ Isn't that a bit of a stretch? I really don't see the "potential" as there are plenty of privacy laws in place currently to make sure we aren't going Orwellian IMHO.
Any politician that would raise the issue would probably be asked to leave the Chamber or remove his tin foil hat.
"Yes, if you are not doing anything illegal then there is nothing to worry about. Another great lefty-right debate"
As private citizens we shouldn't have to prove that we are not doing anything illegal. It's an invasion of privacy. If I wanted to live in a police state I would move to one. And it's those kind of statements that allow erosion of freedoms.
Ouch. I'm not allowed to say that? Does censorship not imply police state?
Curiously libermom, it is possible the 11 year olds' rapist may have been caught due to a camera; would you trade off this for a little erosion of your privacy?
I'm thinking we can't make the streets safe enough for kids, especially in the inner city, especially in areas where there are sex trade workers. So, that being the case, that the most dangerous places for kids are where sex trade workers ply their wares, would it not stand to reason that the cameras would regularly record illicit activity or force it somewhere else?
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Triniman</cite>Where would be a satisfactory location for this illicit activity to relocated to? And should that location have cameras?</blockquote> That's the point. The minute you start recording illegal activty you are going to force the problem somewhere else. There isn't a good place for it anywhere.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: DeanK</cite>mandatory implanting of information chips that broadcast an RF frequency that can be read to track where you are and who you are.</blockquote> Some people have suggested that local residents of William Whyte should have some kind of beacon to identify them, from the strangers who cruise the area.
It blows my mind when someone talks about the right to privacy, comments on the police not abusing the film!
What is the matter with us?? We have a right to privacy in our homes! When we are outside who cares that we are being filmed? The film is there to provide the police a helping hand when there is trouble!
In London it identified the people responsible for the bombings of the subway! Did anyone complain that their privacy rights were abused? What a lame statement! Even the statement worrowing about being filmed going into a 7-11 store is lame! I am sure that the companies that have cameras going are quite happy when it identifies those responsible for illegal activities, even the cop who was so abusive to the take-out cashier at a fast food restaurant probably lost his job, for his abusive behaviour! Thank goodness for the cameras out there! Remember the RCMP in the Tazering death in the Vancouver airport ?? and their statement the next day, which surprisingly did not conform to what we saw on the video?
Anyone who worries about being seen going into a 7/11 is actually right , but their concern should be in eating the poison that is being sold there!
"When we are outside who cares that we are being filmed?"
I'll bet most people don't realise how many cameras are already out there. And no, I'm not talking only about the stationary ones. I bet Mr. Dziekanski's family was happy that someone had a camera to film his incident.
Grumpy Old Man, just b/c I don;t agree with you does not mean that I want to censor you. You are allowed to say whatever you want. Not sure how you inferred from my statement that I wanted to censor what you had to say.
No, I still would not want to give up my privacy for the sake of more security.
Cameras aren't going to keep my kids safe. People deciding to behave properly will. Unfortunately that is not going to happen, so I will take my chances and prepare and equip my kids as best as I can to defend and protect thmeselves if I am not around.