OTOH, my husband is an optimistic estimator. We balance each other well!

Report comment to moderator

A “catastrophic rolladex”?

Please elaborate?

Report comment to moderator

Consider the use of FBI files by powerful politicians to silence opponents. Just because the original intent is good, it doesn’t protect from those who come later who see an opportunity to punish or control.

My husband says I have a “catastrophic rolladex” about things like this…

Report comment to moderator

FRANK: I don’t think the concern is one of “mere” privacy, but rather the State’s wholesale collecting, collating and sharing of information on law-abiding citizens. (Notice, however, that how I frame the question presupposes that there’s something downright strange about wanting to keep one’s affairs private.)

Consider: If you withdraw, deposit, or even make a purchase with cash in the amount of $10,000 or more, your actions will by law be reported to The Authoritahs — all in the name of fighting the War on Drugs, you understand.

But suppose you’re not a drug dealer, but on sheer principle, you don’t like the idea of Big Brother knowing you have your hands on ten grand. So you withdraw, deposit or spend $9,500 instead. Well, if The Authorities find out), you can be charged with the “crime” of “structuring” — intentionally transacting in an amount less than $10,000 in order to avoid reporting requirements. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don’t.

But hey, KBells, you hold the answer: “If you’re not doing anything wrong why do you care who sees you?”

Stop ask yourself just how that kind of sheeple-think contradicts everything America’s Founders stood for and sought to bequeath us. Consider just for a moment that people inherently don’t like to be suspected of criminal activity just because they have ten grand in their duffel bag. And that kind of presupposition of privacy shouldn’t automatically make them suspects.

Report comment to moderator

I personally fret over the idea of sending a ticket through the mail based on evidence from a camera. You probably don’t remember going through that particular intersection, so you can’t dispute the ticket as you might if you were pulled over right then and you had a valid reason for your action, and furthermore, the person who owns the car isn’t necessarily the one driving it–the driver, not the owner, should receive a ticket. In other words, video-based police action does present some problems.

Is it worth the tradeoff of privacy for safety? Perhaps. But the question is certainly worth asking, and I for one wouldn’t give it an automatic yes.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

As a former officer I frequently checked on suspicious behavior. Sometimes a perfectly innocuous behavior merely appeared suspicious in context. I stopped a man pushing a heavy box through a deserted commercial hour after dark only to learn he had been put out of his house and was taking a shortcut with all his belongings to another place to stay. Other times it identified people who would become suspects (or witneses) as later information about crimnal activity arose.

Aggressive policing also reduces crime, by depriving criminals of some of their opportunities. Nothing a good beat officer would do, or these cameras, by enhancing the beat officers’ ability to observe, actually “predicts” crimes a la “The Minority Report.”

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator