ACLU & SF Surveillance Cameras


  I'd be in favor of putting cameras inside the offices of the mayor and Supervisors, and broadcasting the feed on public access TV. We know there are lots of crimes being committed there, and I'm sure the public would be able to identify many of the miscreants. 8)

  However I don't favor giving government more power to spy on ordinary residents. Imagine how a totalitarian regime might use these cameras, then ask yourself what real assurance we have that the United States, or this part of it, will not become a totalitarian regime. Certainly not the Constitution, since it is already being violated right and left. The will of the people to resist despotism? It's far from obvious when the people will wake up.

  Surely you can see that the dangers of inviting additional government surveillance measures in a climate where such a scenario is conceivable outweigh any benefit to be gained from possibly apprehending a few extra street criminals at no inconsiderable cost to taxpayers? According to the Examiner, the city currently has 33 cameras, which carry a $450,000 price tag. I'd rather see them spend the money improving street lighting, which not only deters crime, but improves safety and aesthetics.

Love & liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

actually, i am in favor of cameras at intersections where there may be traffic scofflaws (speeding, red lights-running) as well as places where miscreants can be identified or crimes committed.

there is a deterrent effect, if nothing else.

it is a cost effective way to prevent crime -- and anything that keeps costs and taxes down is good!


In a message dated 1/10/2007 3:08:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, writes:

Someone at the ACLU called me about this. Just sharing.