<blockquote><cite>Caspian</cite>what about a camera that points at your bedroom and your house ? You alright with that ?</blockquote> Long as you're over 18 and have a valid credit card handy. <img src=http://forums.naturalparenting.com.au/images/smilie/bannabutt.gif>
We arn't talking residential and you have to trust besides the US can watch me drink my beer in the yard if they want too so who cares and if someone still thinks Iam worth watching in the bedroom yea for me, curtians close.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jimmytufish</cite>At home I expect privacy. In public...well..by definition, I do not. If someone expects privacy in public, I suggest that they require a head-shake to figure out the difference. </blockquote>
So if the only place you expect privacy is while being confined in your own home then how is that freedom? Sounds like a virtual prison to me where you're free to roam outdoors but every movement is tracked.
I guess you guys think the wiretapping and no privacy on the net is cool too?
Some people have to enroll in the common sense school! Public places- Privates places-
Look up the meaning! Google surveillance cameras!
What is the complaint about cameras, as a deterrent and as a record of what actually happened??
How does this get to cameras in your bedroom, which is of no interest to us , unless you are paying some 13 year old to keep you company there? Is that what you are concerned about? Then you should have a camera in there supplied by the local police!
Try some common sense!
1984 is long time over! We have very strong rights in our Bill of rights!
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Starblubber</cite>I guess you guys think the wiretapping and no privacy on the net is cool too?</blockquote> Why not start a new thread to test your theory. Cripes, also shake my head... I notice that when people have weak arguments they default to the nonsense angle: if you agree with video cameras you must also agree with wiretapping and no privacy on the internet. Great argument.
This is too funny.........wire tapping and video surveillance in public places all in one neat bundle,LOL. I absolutely agree with video surveillance, nothing wrong with it at all, its been proven time and time again. I hope the paranoid bedroom folks seriously rethink their position, its not going to happen. I do recall one case though from years back, a restaurant I think on St Marys Road had a camera in the ladies restroom, but that was the owner, not the police!
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-15-houston-cameras_x.htm">Houston police chief wants cameras on homes, streets</a>
<i>"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.</i>
Whom ever said setting up public cameras also equates to carte blanche as to how it is done? Obviously there would be rules put in place to create boundaries and expectations. Sheesh.
<blockquote>Building permits should require malls and large apartment complexes to install surveillance cameras, Hurtt said. And <b>if a homeowner requires repeated police response</b>, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property, he said.</blockquote>Malls and apartments usually do install cameras as a matter of course I reckon.
Hurtt's thoughts regarding private homes is in response to the lack of police personell and his ability to properly police. What's the difference between what he wants to do and what we're doing on Magnus...parking a police car in front of a crack house?
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: StBPegger</cite>Whom ever said setting up public cameras also equates to carte blanche as to how it is done? Obviously there would be rules put in place to create boundaries and expectations. Sheesh.</blockquote>Rules that then keep changing to become ever more intrusive. After all, if you don't mind cameras on the street and agree that they help reduce crime, then what plausible objection can you have to installing them in your home? Besides, there are several positive benefits from such a measure, such as aiding an elderly person in distress.
Remember the income tax was originally a "temporary war-time measure" when it was first introduced. That war ended a long time ago, yet the tax still remains... and has been expanded to encompass more types of income.
Route71 you are mixing two scenarios: 1) cameras installed to monitor public areas vs. 2) cameras installed in a person's home, ostensibly with that person's informed consent.
And yes rules do change (in many cases not fast enough: witness the juvenile justice rules). But certainly we can influence the changes both ways no?
I spoke with a friend this morning that works security at Club Regent Casino, I had no idea how absolutely serious they were about surveillance. Throughout the Casino there is between 800 and 900 cameras watching anything and everything minus change rooms and bathrooms, the surveillance room has a bank of 40 monitors with 5 staff members doing nothing else but watching the monitors. The money counting room alone has about 45 cameras in a 12ft by 12 ft area. These are the measures you take to keep people honest, so 9 or 10 surveillance cameras downtown is nothing to worry about!