[IP] more on "if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"]
Begin forwarded message:
From: EEkid@xxxxxxx
Date: February 19, 2006 9:34:10 AM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] "if you are not doing anything wrong, why should
you worry about it?"]
It sounds to me like many of our public officials are trying to mimic
the public surveillance systems used in the UK. For many years, I've
often wondered why they tolerated such intrusions into their lives.
Now, seeing how slowly and quietly such systems appear, I understand.
Since 9/11, we have seen tremendous change in how our government and
public officials view our civil rights. What was a completely
unacceptable governmental intrusion 5-10 years ago, is viewed as
essential or acceptable today. In my humble opinion, I believe this
slow incepid creep is as good a reason as any to stop the
surveilence, monitoring and intrusion nonsense now.
Today, we wouldn't want the government listening to our phone
conversations or using technology to monitor our every movement
around town. Our government to my knowledge isn't currently doing
such things. But what happen's 5-10 years from now? When all of
these easily exploited technologies are in place and ripe and ready
for abuse? Will our elected officials demonstrate restraint and
avoid exploiting those technologies as the easiest solution to some
future problem?
When government officials keep changing the definition of what is
'wrong'. Such as wearing a tee shirt with a certain slogan or
peacefully protesting at a "nationally significant event" or speaking
out against our elected officials. Then what should we expect in the
future? Which common everyday behavior that everyone views as a God
given right today, will be viewed as the next wrong?
When asked "if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry
about it?" we all need to reply, because you have control over the
definition of was is legally wrong and you keep changing the terms.
I can remember years ago, I heard FBI director Louis Freeh say
something that made my blood run cold. He said, we will never stop
drug smuggling in the US until we can limit free travel within our
borders and American's aren't ready for that yet.
Well, when will it be? Tomorrow? Next week? Next year? When will you
accept it as important and essential to our safety?
Jerry
In a message dated 2/19/2006 8:49:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dave@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
I saw this, indirectly, on Techdirt.
I do feel sorry for the police chief, and for the people of Houston.
But still, it's a pretty scary idea for anyone to raise.
-d
Houston eyes cameras at apartment complexes
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Police_Cameras.html
By PAM EASTON
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
HOUSTON -- Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing
surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets,
shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a
shortage of police officers.
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my
response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should
you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a
regular briefing.
Houston is facing a severe police shortage because of too many
retirements and too few recruits, and the city has absorbed 150,000
hurricane evacuees who are filling apartment complexes in crime-
ridden neighborhoods. The City Council is considering a public safety
tax to pay for more officers.
Building permits should require malls and large apartment complexes
to install surveillance cameras, Hurtt said. And if a homeowner
requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera
surveillance of the property, he said.
Scott Henson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Police
Accountability Project in Texas, called Hurtt's building-permit
proposal "radical and extreme" and said it may violate the Fourth
Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.
Andy Teas with the Houston Apartment Association said that although
some would consider cameras an invasion of privacy, "I think a lot of
people would appreciate the thought of extra eyes looking out for them."
Such cameras are costly, Houston Mayor Bill White said, "but on the
other hand we spend an awful lot for patrol presence." He called the
chief's proposal a "brainstorm" rather than a decision.
The program would require City Council approval.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/