Casper Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2010/09/28/story-columbus-homeland-security-camera-monitoring.html?sid=102Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 moar fear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Homeland Security officials said the camera feeds will not be monitored, recorded or stored and provide only a real-time view of the infrastructure.:lol::lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Quote:Homeland Security officials said the camera feeds will not be monitored, recorded or stored and provide only a real-time view of the infrastructure.:lol::lol:Well I feel better now... they have my permission and vote to go ahead with it:nono: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Meh, this is what they do in the UK. I'm a huge privacy advocate, but as long as the cameras are in public, I don't see an issue.But...I think the caveat should be that they aren't used to weed out minor misdemeanors (i.e. no tattle tale cameras, like speed cameras or red light cameras). These cameras should be used to settle civil cases, major misdemeanors (1,2,3), and felony's only.Though as it's already pointed out... "Of course I believe you". Once they're there, they're there. (Profound, I know). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted September 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Meh, this is what they do in the UK. I'm a huge privacy advocate, but as long as the cameras are in public, I don't see an issue.But...I think the caveat should be that they aren't used to weed out minor misdemeanors (i.e. no tattle tale cameras, like speed cameras or red light cameras). These cameras should be used to settle civil cases, major misdemeanors (1,2,3), and felony's only.Though as it's already pointed out... "Of course I believe you". Once they're there, they're there. (Profound, I know).Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.But, I understand the concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienpi Posted September 30, 2010 Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 (edited) All we need is a few false flag attacks where cameras are installed, but where the footage is supposedly not recorded and stored. They will say that we could have figured out who did it, if only we kept records. And then another false flag attack will happen soon after the footage is now officially stored. They will catch the person. He will get punished, and we will become "more secure" because of the wonderful Homeland Security cameras. Edited October 2, 2010 by alienpi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.