Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 14:37:21 -0400
To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
Subject: More comments Re: Rebuttals To Cameras Reduce Accidents
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 15:51:57 -0700
To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
From: "E.J. Totty" <echeghlon@seanet.com>
Subject: Re: Rebuttals To Cameras Reduce Accidents

Matt,

Charles Platt (Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>) hit the
proverbial nail dead on.

If government was so damned interested in monitoring
traffic patterns, then a mobile camera not capable of measuring
speed or making determinations of traffic light running, would
provide more information as to density. But, I digress: Why would
any government want to station permanent cameras anywhere,
if the intent wasn't to do something more?

A camera is like a surrogate guard. It sees everything,
even when the watcher is away. Government pretends that it
has the authority to see all things. The arguments go something
like this: If cops are assigned to the same location 24 hours a
day, then a camera is no different -- the camera merely takes
over where the cops left off; public property is government
domain, and therefore is subject to whatever scrutiny
government may assign, be it random or constant.

The flaw in that thinking is that the police are not
'guards', and employing them as such exposes the real intent
of the leaders. The idea of using cameras as surrogate cops
is faulted from the premise of that use: cops are not guards.

More importantly, however, is the very idea of the
police/cameras being assigned to 'watch' the populace, as
though the people are guilty of things, it being only a matter
of time before everybody is discovered in some illegal act.

There is that aspect of behavior modification here
as well. If you expect certain behavior as a norm, it will be
forthcoming while under 'surveillance' of the cop/camera.

Soon, that behavior is endemic to every aspect
of life. Sounds like '1984', does it not?

If you can use technology to prove that people
cannot be trusted to conduct themselves lawfully, then it
follows that the people cannot be allowed to be free.

Of course, it also falls on that premise that ever
more things must be outlawed in order for the contention
to have validity. Ergo, the need for cameras. The cops can't
be everywhere, right? Wrong! With cameras, they will be,
in more places than you can imagine.

All of this, you understand, flies direct into the face
of a community that considers itself to be 'free'.
What we witness is the vanguard of tyranny in the
making.
A cop on the street, walking a beat, isn't much of
a threat to anyone, as s/he can observe only so much. The
object for that cop is to deter crime, and apprehend the
criminal -- not to spy on the citizenry, and that is precisely '
what cameras are used to accomplish.

If, the legal premise of the Constitution is to stand,
then cameras must be outlawed when used, or employed
by the government in the public sense, for their use as device
to spy upon the citizens violates the several aspects of our
government's reason for existence.

Mere observation is one thing, but intense scrutiny
is quite another. Cameras can scrutinize in ways a human cop
could never.
If any of us would find it ludicrous to station several
cops at a particular location, and that they were required to
make note of every aspect of the goings on there, the faces,
what they wore, with whom they spoke, in short every visible
aspect, including to note the time, then such a use of the
police powers of the state would be seen as in violation of our
rights to privacy. For what lawful purpose could such observations
be collected? Who -- except the private citizen -- would want
to collect and analyze the comings and going of the citizens
in general? For what explicit purpose might the government
have in such an endeavor?

We would launch a critical and highly vocal
protest against such actions by government. Surely those
responsible for that invasion would be held to account.

If we would not condone the use of hired cops to
conduct such a thing, then neither can cameras be valid for that
purpose either.

For the time being, I invite every citizen whom happens
to be under the camera lens, to 'flip the bird' at the camera
as they pass into view. When enough people express themselves
in that way, maybe the idea of 'anti-tyranny' will see more light.

I myself view those cameras as 'sitting ducks', if you
get my drift.
-- 
In Liberty,
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
Let the people think they govern and they will be governed.
-- WILLIAM PENN (1693)
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=

ET


Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/