space junk wrote:El Protoolio wrote:space junk wrote:I'd like to hear someone explain exactly what it is they object to about the cameras, other than a) they "don't like" being filmed, b) it is totally "Orwellian" or c) erm...they just don't like being filmed.
Why aren't any of those reasons good enough for you? Sometimes ideas are important.
They aren't good enough because they don't amount to anything other than a personal preference. I don't like being stared at with suspicion by cops. Should we get rid of the police on these grounds? No.
You cut off the crucial part of El Protoolio's statement: the reasons and ideas he cites are "liberty, habeus corpus, a presumption of innocence and a right to not be interfered with by the state without probable cause". Are those merely "personal preferences" to you?
Even if we were to grant you that they are "preferences", aren't they legitimate bases for political action in a democratic society? Are they less important that catching crooks?
space junk wrote:El Protoolio wrote:space junk wrote:What - exactly - are you scared of?
Abuse. I am suspicious of the police and the government. They do not have the benefit of my doubt.
Right. Yeah, let's just get rid of them. Along with the evil cameras.
Limiting the power of the police not only helps protect us from the abuses of that power, but in fact is freedom itself.
Put it this way: why aren't you suspicious of a bunch of well-armed, well-funded people who possess a near-monopoly on the use of force in your society? Why don't you find that suspicion reasonable?
space junk wrote:Baseless paranoia.
No, in fact it's a pretty well-grounded extrapolation from current practice. That gives it a base, and your calling it "paranoia" is an ad hominem slur on people's fear for their liberties against the some most powerful and ubiquitous punitive authorities the world has ever seen.
You're the one making arguments like:
If you accept that these cameras significantly help bring convictions against criminals - which they do - then you accept that they are serving a useful purpose in society.
By your logic, a little privacy is a small thing to sacrifice to catch the bad guys. So why stop with cameras?
You know what would "help bring convictions against criminals"? Cavity searches. Everywhere, all the time: "spread 'em" and the greasy cop fingers go right up your ass to check for contraband. The practice would have to be pretty frequent and widespread in order to be thorough, so let's say every ten miles on the highway and every few blocks in the city. Such a practice would help prevent people from loading their asses with C4 and blowing themselves up in crowds, so it would certainly help catch criminals. Does that mean it's reasonable, or desirable?
Arguments like the ones you give engender the very slippery slope at which you sneer.
space junk wrote:If they put cameras in your home or something, yeah, that's pretty invasive. But cameras on the street? How awful! I can just imagine the scenario:
A shady, leather gloved government enforcer takes me to his office. "We have you on film," he hisses, creepily.
"Oh yeah?" I reply.
"Yeah," he replies, menacingly.
"And what am I doing on the film?" I ask.
"Not much," he says, spookily. "Walking around and stuff."
"Okay," I say. "Goodbye."
A real horror story. The nightmare that is the future. *shudders*
Yes, a violent bureaucracy having access to even greater means with which to waste my time and groundlessly harass me (At the very least -- have you been reading the Chicago police thread? Does the name Jean Charles de Menezes ring a bell?) is a horror story.
Would you rather crimes go unpunished and undetected because you feel being filmed on the street is a violation of your privacy?
Yes. We value freedom from unjust and arbitrary thuggery both in and out of uniform.
