Dean's World

If there are going to be government cameras everywhere in public places, then the data produced by those cameras should be accessible to all, not just to the government.

I don't get torqued over cameras. I do get concerned, though, about what's done with the taped materials.

If they're wiped after 48 hours, unless they become part of a criminal investigation, then I won't complain. I'll take my chances that my behavior will not rise to the level of felony crime.

I most certainly do not want tapes accessible to all. While my behavior may not rise to the criminal level, it has risen to the level of acute embarrassment and might have caused serious trouble in work or at home. There's a difference between surveillance and voyeurism, after all.

I've sworn that if I ever lose and eye, rather than a glass eye replacement, I want a video camera replacement.

There is quite the effort by police departments to prevent private citizens from taping the actions of officers in the line of duty. This action by the police is wrong, and should be stopped as vehemently as possible, and as quickly as possible. Police have no privilege of privacy in their on duty actions, in my opinion, and should be subject to the public scrutiny of every single action they take on behalf of 'the public'.

The alternative is pretty scary.

We just got a very small, and cheap, video camera for $100. It's an RCA Small Wonder, and easy enough to use, I'm going to try carrying it around with me and make a home video of my daily life to keep for the grandkids.

So I could conceivably record something important happening. But, I'm also noticing one or two places where I'm not allowed to have it. I'm not supposed to take pictures on base, and I was in court the other day, and they don't allow cameras of any kind, or cell phones.

Dean, I'm not against cameras in public places. What I'm against is cameras set up *only* for the police to use, and prohibitions against private citizens using cameras to tape state agents. And that's what Trudy's restrictions come down to as well (a case could be made that courtroom camera restrictions protect defendants and witnesses, but .

Personally, I fear terrorists less than the state. I know that sounds odd, and like some Michael Moore statement, but I truly feel that we have the ability to recover from any terrorist attack, and that an open society makes any such attack more difficult. Even whatever horrific nuclear attack you want to come up with. Conversely, I think the actions of government to reduce liberty are far more wide-ranging and harmful against the future of the citizens. I think we can do both: Protect the people of the US against terrorists and open society.

The trouble, as Dan points out, is that people can already be and have already been prosecuted for taping state agents. The public policy question is being decided for us without our input or consent.

Dean is making a "can't stop the signal" ;-) argument, and there's something to that, but I think somewhat more will be required to make the state behave.

I am somewhat torn on the issue of cameras. I am the last person to advocate having cameras everywhere, but we may have to as a last resort. We don't have an expectation of privacy anyway in the public domain so it wouldn't change things all that much. But we definitely need extra cameras to watch the Police and Prosecutors.

Chris Jones
www.thehotjoints.com