Comments on The Council Fights Back on Nickels' Budget End Run
Finally! We can have Big Brother watching us even more! I think we should all have tracking devices with little video cameras following each of us around all day long! That will keep us safe!
And if you try to dodge the "Follower" your neighbors can turn you in for re-education!
I love America!!!
THe only way I'd be in favor of the cameras in our public parks would be if the realtime feeds and an archive of the feeds were put up on a public website viewable from any IP w/in the city or county. Otherwise, fuck this Big Bro noise.
All your parks are belong to us!
Really want to be followed? Try England. Look at how many different places the London tube bombers were caught on video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7377649.stm
I recall that Londoners typically are caught on video hundreds of time a day.
What amazes me about this posting is that this is the perfect example of local government spying on it's citizens and yet there is little outrage on the part of Sloggers. We crap ourselves about a Presidential Election that for the time being is out of our hands until November but something that is classic "1984" we just think nothing of and write if off?
Maybe some people need to rethink their complaints about George Bush flushing the Constitution down the toilet when you ignore your own mayor spying on you without a warrant or even cause.
Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.
what liberty are we surrendering here? i thought this was about the mayor abusing the trust of the council?
I don't give a fuck if the Mayor moved a little bit of funding around. What pisses me off are the cameras in Cal Anderson and soon to be in other parks. Parks are pretty safe as they are. The only reason to have cams is so the cops can have more power in their already incompetent hands.
@7, You are right, it sounds better to ignore the larger issue at stake with cameras going into every park. Let's focus on the relationship between the Mayor and the Council. Why cann't they just have a snugglefest and talk about their feelings more? Why I ask you why?
Shouldn't the Council insist on installing surveillance cameras in the Mayor's office?
the park is a public place. i guess i feel if i don't mind a cop patrolling it, why would i mind a camera? i don't like the idea of cameras everywhere, but i can't formulate a descent argument as to why this is surrendering a freedom.
@11, and that's how it starts.
@12 and 11
I agree with 11. The park isn't private property, it belongs to the city. A camera is no more invasive than a cop patrolling the grounds. In fact I think a camera is much less invasive than having some brooding cop looking over your shoulder.
Exactly what freedom do you think the cameras are violating? Anybody has the right to take photos and/or video in a public place whether they be government employee or a private citizen. You can set up your own video camera in the park if you want.
(hey look, i'm a Stranger Writer - I can copypasta large amounts of text and claim it without a source!!!!)
Get it right, Ben:
* Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
o This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
o Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."
Who's gonna edit the editor to make sure these kind of ideas can be communicated in 100 words or less?
Those CRAZY lawyers at the ACLU have issues with cameras too. But what do they know?
i read that, too, andrew. it's very interesting. but none of the arguments are about forfeiting a freedom. they are about abuses of authority, the same arguments that encourage people to stockpile guns and ammunition.
the cameras are there for protection. our protection. if you get murdered in the park, the video tape would be evidence for a trial and/or help the investigation.
these cameras aren't going to be monitored 24 hours. they record to tape/hard disk and are wiped after 7 days unless they're required for an investigation. it is a public park, and there is precedence for this kind of thing: cop cars have dash-cams, and some metro buses have video and audio surveillance.
trite "big brother" aside, this is pretty innocuous. if you can't put a cop in the park, put a camera. seems like a good idea to me.
but i think we can all get along on this one. you can dislike nickels for his support of potential abuses of authority, and i can dislike nickels for his current actual abuse of authority.
Those are a lot of expensive broken and smashed cameras.
Nice meteor showers this time of year, huh?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).