New York City to get London-style "surveillance veil"
By Donald Melanson 
posted Jul 9th 2007 5:51PM
posted Jul 9th 2007 5:51PM
It looks like New York City will soon be seeing a slew of new ever-watchful eyes, as The New York Times reports that the city is set to get a London-style "surveillance veil" that would eventually consist of thousands of cameras monitoring vehicles and individuals alike. Dubbed the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, the system will initially include more than 100 cameras that are expected to be in place by the end of this year, each of which will be able to read license plates and send out alerts is suspect vehicles are detected. That appears to just be the tip of the iceberg, however, with some 3,000 public and privately-owned cameras set to be put into service by the end of 2008, along with a series of pivoting gates that'll be installed at critical intersections, giving authorities the ability to block off traffic at the push of a button. From there it'll apparently grow even further, with the entire operation expected to be up and running by 2010. No word on head-mounted cams as of yet though.
...and so it begins
So on the next "9/11" they'll have the money shots from even more angles.
Scary isn't even the right word for this.
Fishes,
narco.
It is about time.
i definitely agree that it is about time. this will prevent crime so much and if something bad DOES happen, the cameras will be able to record all of it and allow the authorities to identify criminals/terrorists so that they can be taken off the streets. i think i would feel much safer knowing that there is a watchful eye on public streets. and you cant complain about privacy invasion because you shouldnt be doing anything on a public street unless you are willing to have other people see it.
Note the lack of mentioning face recognition technology which is kind of inevitable and street blocking gates, how long until entire areas are blocked off to free roaming and you need a pass to get into the nicer areas of New York?
Imagine all the roadworks that'll be required to install those gates, New Yorkers are going to LOVE that.
The timing after the failed UK attacks are interesting too...
Big Brother control freak elitism pwns.
Paranoid much?
Its amazing how many people will have problems with this. Whats so wrong with keeping an eye on the streets, as long as they don't put cameras right into my house then I don't care. You should only have to worry about these advancements if your doing something you shouldn't be. I say bring on the added security and peace of mind.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
It's amazing how many people won't have a problem with this.
Never underestimate the power of the government - and by "government", I mean the humans who make up the government - to abuse whatever little piece of power you give them. They are very clever that way. The best way to prevent them from doing so is to give them nothing to abuse.
Hitler could have said the same thing. As long as the German citizens weren't doing anything wrong, and harboring Jews, they had nothing to fear. Anyone who implicitly trusts their government does not believe in fundamental American ideals. You might as well live in a dictatorship.
Um, they're not gonna be sitting behind these cameras jerking off to everybody that passes by. These are here for our safety. Benjamin Franklin may have been pretty cool and "with it", but just cause he says something doesn't make it 100% truth.
People who implicitly hate the government are worse, imo, than those who "implicitly trust" it.
Thomas, do you really thing the cameras are somehow going to not look into people's windows as they scan? I think Google's vans showed if it's visible from the street, it will get captured.
Yeesh, I know I don't have an expectancy of privacy when I'm out in public but that doesn't mean I want to be taped all the time.
Well Jake, considering the bang up job the government has been doing keeping us safe and capturing terrorists, pardon my skepticism at their altruistic motives.
Christ. It's not like any of us bitching on Engadget is going to do anything. Whatever. I wish we could just skip the slippery slope crap and jump ahead 15 years when the US is completely a police state. I'm so sick of caring when no one else does or how people just accept the government's "protection" from ourselves.
Our worst enemy is our own apathy.
-p-
@Jake
I don't "hate" the government any more than the government hates me--but since I'm not asking to film all Congressmen and law enforcement personnel as they go about their daily tasks, I'd say I "trust" them far more than they trust American citizens.
@Dave: Just in case you were wondering, there's a big push going on right now to make the filming of police illegal.
Thomas, let's hear that opinion again when somebody in the NY traffic-cam department with a vendetta against you posts a video of you picking your ass with your hand inside your pants on YouTube and it gets a hundred thousand views.
"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither"
Big Brother is watching.
Extensive use of these cameras is overkill and an invasion of privacy. This will not make NY a more attractive place to visit and will have a chilling effect on all kinds of spontaneous behavior at all times of day. I say NIMBY on this idea.
What sort of 'spontaneous' behaviour do you think it will curb? Spontaneous muggings? Spontaneous hit-and-runs?
New York allready has ALPR (Automated License Plate Recognition) cameras in some places.
I, for one, bow down to our new voyeuristic overlords...
Mooning the camera of course!
Yay! The quote game!! I wanna play! I wanna play!
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
? President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918, during WWI
...but seriously, with the popularity of home surveillance items such as webcams and government spying (AT&T aka NSA), it's just a matter of time until we start getting sued for doing things like sharing files or something. ...oh. ...wait.
I can play too!!
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
-- Martin Niemöller
You shouldn't let it go just because "you have nothing to hide."
I'm next!
"If you give a mouse a cookie..."
-Laura Joffe Numeroff
the point is, if you start giving in a little to the government on small demands, they will always demand more and more and finally where will we end up?
I for one welcome our new human overlor...., wait, bastards!
You guys have no idea how effective these cameras are.
I live in a pub and partake in our local communities 'Pub net'. We use a radio system to alert, and be alerted by CCTV of any individuals that should be either picked up by the police, or watched by CCTV due to drunkenness, violence, etc.
CCTV should only bother those who have something to hide. It's a step towards protection, don't fear it - embrace it.
Grant,
My father didn't defect from Cuba because he didn't feel safe. His government kept him quite safe. There are greater things to fear than drunks. What you have to "hide" depends on what your government decides is or is not acceptable. The cameras will still be there--even if the laws change.
For the most part, most of the cameras intalled out here so far have been to raise revenue for the state (red light traffic camera, etc.). There's nothing to prevent them from using any subsequent cameras in the same way. When they finally give us (in the U.S.) a national health care system, maybe I'll start to embrace it too. Until then, let me enjoy being drunk and obnoxious in public!
Why would I ever want to spend MORE on taxes just to have some national health care system so that smokers, obese, and the "depressed" (the group of people who feel that they are depressed when really they can stfu) can be cared for thanks to their ineptitude.
Sorry, no thanks. I get health care through my job and even then, I rarely have to use it. I don't have a long wait for procedures and my meds still cost next to nothing. Once again, why would I want a national health care system?
Zach,
I don't know how we got to national health care from surveillance cameras... Either way, you are a nasty person. First of all, if there was national health care then your company would not have to pay for health insurance. Socialized health care has a much lower overhead than privatized, therefore you would actually pay less in new taxes than you would get back on your salary. And no matter what job you went to, you would be covered even during the interim. When you lay out all the benefits (including societal, which you seem to be completely unaware of), there is no reason we should NOT have national health care. HMOs stand to lose a lot of money, which is why there is so much disinformation on the subject.
@SugarDaddy
Internal Revenue Service
Department of Education
US Passport Office
Your local Motor Vehicle Administration
State and Federal agencies that are run for shit and are Rube Goldberg efficient. And I should want a federal agency to run my healthcare now too? Have you *been* to a government "service" agency recently? I live in DC. Dude, you don't want a gov't service agency responsible for your health and life.
Ok, if I look at the pros and cons of this, I am left comparing the US (in particular NYC) to the book 1984. Say what you want but this isn't a good thing. I think too much power in government leads to eventual abuse and misuse of the power, irrespective of the "good intentions". That being said, some will disagree, but at the end of the day the better questions are: 1) What's next 2) What's too intrusive 3) And what will this really prevent... (to parallel the third question, look to all the failed/breached security devices that were in place to prevent a 9/11 from occurring).
These are just my thoughts, don't mean to offend anyone, just thought I would chime in...
What the people dont realize is the already amazing benefit these cameras have brought to the city of London. I mean look at the convictions of terrorists and the people they have to catch after terrorist attack attempts etc. etc. is very convenient.
I had briefly worked on surveillance and the problem is that in most cases these things are only viable to catch someone or find out information after a crime has occurred. The information coming in is so much that it is impossible to stop an attack since the intimidation angle hardly works for terrorists who is anyways going to blow himself up.
Where's all the footage from 7/7? Oh, yeah--all the cameras were broken. OH! And you shot the wrong guy... Great system you guys have over there.
Sorry. I just re-read your comment and realized that you were probably against the cameras. I think...
As a Londoner I can confirm Arnie is right whereas Dave obviously knows nothing about about 7/7 and all the subsequent terrorism attempts.
The 7/7 bombers were all caught on video and their journey traced-backwards allowing the discovery of a car containing explosives.
The 21/7 bombers whose bombs failed to detonate were all captured after their pictures from security-cameras were circulated, and this helped secure their convictions this week.
"They list evidence which apparently doesn't add up. For example, the official Home Office report into the bombings stated that the four bombers caught the 7.40am train from Luton to London. However, there was no 7.40 that morning, it had been cancelled. The Home Secretary, John Reid, apologized for the error in parliament, blaming erroneous first-hand witness accounts.
Whichever train the bombers did catch, when they got to London, there appears to be no photograph of the 4 of them together in the capital - no CCTV either, despite London having one of the highest numbers of surveillance cameras of any city in the world."
And you shot Jean Charles de Menezes for wearing a coat. The UK and the US are becoming alarmists. You still have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being the victim of a terrorist attack. Why don't our governments do something about the lightning if they're so worried about our safety? Perhaps federally mandated lightning rods on every home? Mandatory non-conductive body-suits?
Try to keep one eye half-open as you cower in fear.
If Google can do it, why can't the government?
Because the Constitution protects us from the government but does not protect us from other private citizens.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Anything that you can be seen doing in public can be photographed or filmed. (Goes way back to Katz v US in 1966, where the court rules that there are places where we have reasonable expectations of privacy (our homes) and places where we don't (public streets).
if half of 5th Ave. can see you running down the street with an old lady's purse, why shouldn't the govt. be able to film you running down the street? On the same note, if you pick your nose while walking down the street, why can't someone take your picture? TMZ catches celebs all the time. http://www.tmz.com/2007/02/17/pick-a-winner/ Are you so special?
Chaya, that's a good agonizing point, however, you need to make the distinction between a private and public (the gov) entity.
I don't pay taxes to TMZ to film that crap. There also isn't much fear involved with TMZ coming back later and going "Oh, well we can film anything. you can't film police brutality."
Show me some statistics that proves that cameras in London have actually made a great impact. IMHO they're a waste of time and money.
For all you legal eagle's ... there is no legal expectation of privacy when you are in a public place. Therefore, there is no infringement of civil liberties, therefore the repeated quotes from Benjamin Franklin demonstrate that you don't know your ass from your mouth.
Okay, discuss...
Dear Chris, I feel that being surveilled all the time will have a chilling effect on my willingness to speak my mind in those public places that have traditionally been set aside for public debate. Additionally, it will also infringe on my freedom of association because now I will be afraid to gather in a public place for such debate because I will be linked to the guy standing next to me who is in fact a terrorist, even though I've never seen him before in my life.
You have more liberties than the Privacy Rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment (and as they are incorporated into the States under the 14th Amendment). But I guess only those of us that don't know our asses from our mouth would think that, right?
-p-
While there is no expectation of privacy there is an expectation that law enforcement will get a warrant or have reasonable cause to start survelliance on someone. Prior to these cameras, that surveilance was forward in time only. Now that the capacity theoretically exists to retroactively review someones entire outdoor life, just because they have the wrong friends, I think we need some additional checks and balances.
Dear Mr. Vote or Die,
There you go again... stuff that should be coming out of your ass is coming out of your mouth.
What you present are unsound legal arguments that would never hold up in court. The principal I have stated, that there is no legal expectation of privacy in public places, is established legal precedent. Even the ACLU would agree with me (although they would probably still fight it).
Additionally, I was not saying it was good or bad to install cameras. I was saying that the government has the right to do so. I was attempting to frame the discussion how it should be framed, that is in terms of right and wrong, not in terms of government legality. Otherwise it is pointless. This is not one that can be reasonably fought in the courts; however, it can be fought by lobbying your elected officials.
I also want to thank you for demonstrating Godwin's Law in near record time.
Please see comment directed at you (by me) below...
I'm not saying it's about privacy. I'm saying it may have a detrimental affect on Free Speech. Completely difference civil liberties.
>> I was saying that the government has the right to do so.
Reread your post. You never ONCE said this. You said you have no right to privacy and therefore it is not an infringement of your civil liberties. My reply was that while, yes, it does not infringe a right to privacy, a right covered by your Fourth Amendment civil liberties, it may in fact have a deleterious affect on people exercising their First Amendment civil liberties of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.
I know there is legal precedent for being recorded in general in public. But, unless you can direct me otherwise, there has not been a mass surveillance of this nature in the US. I know the government has the right to install the cameras. I'm just saying I don't think they should and there are Constitutionally motivated reasons why they shouldn't (not that they can't). And if you know of precedent supporting mass surveillance versus ordinary surveillance, please provide it because I don't think it exists and I think there IS a difference.
For example, the NAACP does not have to disclose it's member list. If I was a member of the NAACP, and I thought I was being recorded ALL THE TIME, I may be less likely to attend a rally that the NAACP was throwing. It's not a privacy issue, it's a freedom of association issue. What if I wasn't a member of the NAACP. I also have the freedom not to be associated with a particular group. Just because I passed by and stopped to listen for a minute doesn't mean I am associated with them. If I thought I was being recorded all the time, I may cut a wide swath and avoid it all together.
Lastly, the Nazi reference was part of the quote game. It is a poem that was written about how people need to stand up for others. I never claimed that this administration was comparable to the Nazis, therefore I never invoked Godwin's Law.
Mr. Diddy -
A cop is allowed to stroll down the street and look around with his own eyes. If this chills your speech, than that is your problem. The only thing it can reasonably be expected to chill is your propensity to perform an illegal act.
Legally speaking, there is no difference between a cop walking down the street patrolling and a cop in the operations center watching on CCTV.
Now-you make the argument that surveilling en masse changes the constitutionality. Well I would argue that we have been doing this for a long time in varying ways and degrees. At public events or demonstrations, over which you express the chilling effect of cameras on your First Amendment freedoms, you are guaranteed a strong police presence to keep the peace. Also, where I am at least, Washington, DC metroplex, there are multiple traffic cameras at almost every intersection.
Ask yourself this: What has the larger chilling effect on speech, the 50 cops that have been dispatched in uniform with firearms to your demonstration, or a ubiquitous camera array?
You can take the parting shot.
You could of course have a copyrighted tshirt or a copyrighted video where you own the rights playing as you are caught on these cameras and then sue under copyright.
Seems a sad state of affairs where you have no rights to protect yourself from being monitored and recorded in this way but if it is a video or movie instead of a person that is captured on the camera then we will pin them to the wall and take them for every penny
Are we the people actually going to let this happen. We are the voice of this nation.
Despite being very pro civil liberties and very opposed to Bush's ideas of wiretapping and such, I don't actually have a problem with this. There are tons of private security cameras, people have cameras on cell phones, there are webcams and traffic cams. When you are in a public place in a city, there's an understanding that you don't have any right to expect privacy. If anyone else can carry a camera in public, then the police out to be able to also. However, I would have a problem with any deception tactics being taken to try to give people the impression they are not being watched when they are.
I find it a bit offensive that this would be compared to nazism. If you can be watched by a cop with his eyes, then why not remotely? I'd actually rather have a video tape than the eyewittness word of a cop if I was in trouble, but then again... there is a need for some degree of regulation to assure that cameras are not used unfairly. IE: edited video, using to zoom into windows of private residences...
That's the thing that scares me, Buzzo. It starts as cameras, then what? Minority Report? Stopping crimes before they happen?
There is no way to regulate what people do with the cameras. It's not that I don't trust the police, I just don't trust anyone. Jesus, did you see people's reaction to the Geek Squad debacle when they were copying porn off people's drives? Everyone was like "What? I'd do it too!"
People, as a whole, are stupid and untrustworthy. I don't want them video taping me all the time and not just looking in my windows, but recording it. There is no way to prevent it and no amount of oversight will convince me it won't happen.
-p-
And the Nazis reference was just playing the quote game.
Jeez! ...no love for the quote game! In comedy, there is usually a "straight man" and the "eccentric". Maybe we weren't eccentric enough?
"You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists."
Abbie Hoffman
YAY quote game!
Apparently, people think that protesting will do no good. I think we need to resort back to you never know until you try it.
Another reason not to go to New York City.
Of course since crime has been eliminated in England their methods should be brought here. /s
I can't speak for everyone but I am not expecting "privacy" in public. That would be a stupid arguement and/or comment on my part. I believe what most people are arguing is that this technology, in the hands of misguided leadership will cause more problems than it will solve. In our society, we have something called "civil liberties". Any interested parties can Google them. While I was serving in the military, we had something called CID...an internal affairs of sorts. They released approved and unapproved locations that you may visit (bars, gas stations, etc.). If you visited an unapproved location you were subject to UCMJ law. They would hang out at these locations to catch soldiers on purpose. They would also infiltrate units to catch people visiting location deemed unapproved by the government. If this is the direction that they're leading us to and society approves, this is a truly scary world. I believe that since I served in a combat unit and put my life on the line for civil liberties, I should expect the government to fulfil their end of the bargain and give me them. When those people that don't care about their civil liberties or freedoms put their life on the line for their country, they can tell those people that did that they don't know their ass from their mouth.
Hey bro - I have the most respect for your service. You are more honorable than me! But that does not make 2 + 2 = 5... and that does not make this an issue about civil liberties. No more liberties are violated than by a policeman walking down the street lookin around with his own two eyes, speech is no more chilled in public than by having a police presence at a rally (which is legal). It is "force multiplication" (a term you should be familiar with having served). If you are waving a fully automatic rifle in public, it does not matter (legally) if the cop on the street sees you, or if the cop monitoring in the operations center sees you. When you are in public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
As I said above. It is not a legal issue; it is not about protected civil liberties. It is about right and wrong and your beliefs about what role the government should play. The government has the legal right to increase confiscatory taxes, and I believe it is wrong, but it is certainly not unconstitutional or a violation of civil liberties. Complain to your elected official, not to the courts.
Chris,
...and I believe that most of us understand your point of view (and the context of the law that allows it). I think a lot of us that are against it are arguing the future repercussions. A great example would be the occupying of a certain middle eastern country. While some believe it is necessary in the present, some may fear the long term effects and precedent it might set. ...imagine cameras on the light post by your house, by the fire hydrant and a drone flying above your house. While I'm not saying you are wrong, you did present your view in a derogatory manner. ...and it seems that before you speak to denounce peoples' stances, you should check how much they sacraficed to defend those opinions and stances. Respect for everyone's opinion means a better solution for all.
You really think this is for your protection?
You stupid stupid moron.
Remember everywhere you work and everywhere you shop has cameras.
the Omni-present government presses on even over our rights!
I find it amazing that people go on about "liberty". What about the liberty to feel safe? what about the liberty for people to have a chance at prosecuting the criminals that attack them?. Get off the paranoid Orwellian trip, and "look at clever me i can quote a historic person". Stop using this as an excuse to reinforce your American feeling of superiority too as many have.
He is another example; 2 years back a 15 year old girl in my town was walking home along the outskirts late at night. She got followed by a dangerous rapist, who dragged her into a bush. However, this was spotted by a camera operator and the cops where there in seconds. She was saved from being raped and murdered and he was prosecuted for this and another rape and attempted murder. Now, what about the liberty of this girl? He liberty was saved by the camera. Now if my liberty was brutally taken away from me because i was caught on camera walking home from a bar (which i dont think it was), then so be it. If it saved that one girls life then to me it's worth it. People need to be less selfish, and look at the greater good and start worrying about the things their government is doing thats really dangerous, like destabilising the world the way it doing right now.
If the girl was in our country (America) and carrying a gun and/or tazer and/or mace, she wouldn't have that problem...would she?
In a neighboring town (Chicago area) of mine, there was a rape/murder also. This took place in a very lighted and heavily monitored mall parking garage. Security never caught this and they were unable to make the face out (masked guy or something) enough to ever identify the person.
I, personally have had a police officer pull me out of my car and call five squad cars for parking in the wrong parking space. ...and I hope nobody has forgotten the Rodney King or countless other police brutality trials. Most recently a cop who beat a Polish woman in Chicago for refusing to serve him any more alcohol after he was completely intoxicated. Afterwards, the tape was released and SHE was harassed by police. The police themselves didn't arrest the offending officer for months! Trial is still pending...
...now imagine these same people with the ability to follow you around anywhere you go.
We don't live in the same world and your solution might not be right for us. The US has a VERY large population. If you go to downtown Chicago, imagine (I'm assuming you're from the UK) Picadilly Circus (in London) during a busy weekend and add a few more million people. ...now multiply that area by at least a thousand and there you have one small area of one of our cities.
Part of the success of the US has always been based on the formation of a society to escape an overreaching government. ...let's not mess that up now, shall we?
I would like to refer you to this story which is VERY recent.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=3735415&version=9&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
This is a private video system recorded by the restaurant. The video shows the on duty police officers being waved off after the off duty police beat people. One of the cops also grabbed the victim's cell phone and prevented any reports of the incident. Oh...during the TV report, they said the crooked cops would likely get off because it's hard to tell who started the fight without audio and eyewitnesses. When these people are sitting behind the cameras, who's to protect me? ...this is the world that I live in.
Endless, intrusive surveillance, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and end this madness.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
Even scarier than the government's over-reach of power over its own citizenry are the mindless "safety" citizidiots who are in favor of creating an Orwellian society.
To Chris:
You say, "Also, where I am at least, Washington, DC metroplex, there are multiple traffic cameras at almost every intersection."
Dear Chris, precedence doesn't equal justification.
Scary scary brainwashed Neo-Nazi Americans.
Sept. 11 was the thin edge of the wedge, if fact, to effect a gradual abdication of rights to privacy. Try to imagine this happening without the wide-spread paranoia and fear that 9-11 has produced. If we begin to put the events of that day in the back of our minds government psy-ops is ever ready to introduce another so-called terrorist alert to maintain the fear and paranoia and justify their ongoing agenda of total control of the country.
The UK cameras are used by the Masons to blackmail and rob citizens. High crime continueas under the cctvs. They always seem to fail at the worst time, ie on the 77 bombers bus and in all the carriages, at the railway platforms in Madrud nombings and at the check in counters in 911. Just a scam to keep you scared and big money for their buddies, who supply them. Check out http;//www.rense.com/general77/fulf.htm and find out whats going on on this rotten planet..
NYC...part of the original USA. sad to see what it's become...and still becoming. Yet, people think it's OK. What are they teaching in schools now-a-days? Or not teaching maybe!
I wonder how long upstate will put up with NYC before it cuts it off and let's it become it's own state?
Call your local representative and complain... Don't just let it happen you wimps.
Who or what company is going to get this "no-bid" contract to install all of these camaras? I'm sure I can guess!
Who cares what they do in Bloomingidiots Paradise! You couldn't pay me enough to live in that commie shithole of sewer.
Who's going to watch the moles in "Homeland" Security, the NSC, FBI and White House as they plan and give the execution orders for the next false flag terrorist attack...and all those to follow, both those that don't go off and those that do.
if we really want crime and all these geopolitical problems to cease we should be surveilling the police and the politicians ... think about it ... it isn't so much about weather there are surveillance cameras on the streets or not as it is about weather there is a balance of power between the citizenry and the government ... information is political power ... when they know everything you do and you know nothing of what they do you are living in a 1984 police state ... at least half the people in office are there for their own personal gain, not to serve progress ... it will not be possible that these cameras will not be used for political purposes ... increased surveillance is all about control of the lower classes by the upper, between which there is allways a state of repression and conflict ... i don't think we should authorise any more surveillance untill we know how much we are being surveilled now ... if it were all about crime control we would refer to the nsa cameras that watch the harbors to see who did or did not dump his wife in the bay, rather than waste several million on a long trial ...
I support having cameras watching us. And I also support having 666 stamped on our foreheads. Anyone who doesn't have 666 stamped on his forehead is a terrorist!