posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:33 PM
Funnily enough Grady, I agree with you. I don't frequent clubs or bars, so personally I have nothing to worry about. Indeed, the surveillance creep
is only really observable in urban areas, densely populated places I wouldn't want to live anyway.
There is no consent issue, if you go to those bars you consent to have your image recorded and possibly stored, possibly used against you in a
courtroom, possible traded, who knows what else?
Ideally, this idea would turn people off to such a degree that merchants wouldn't be able to afford the loss of business. Unfortunately, there seems
to be no real opposition to this system, or any of the other systems like it already in use, in places like Vegas and Atlantic City (as Soficrow
People are content with this new, heightened level of surveillance. They feel it makes them safer, and in reality, in the venues first to adopt it,
it probably does a great deal to protect people and their property. My worry is not where we find ourselves today, but where we will likely be in ten
or twenty years as a result.
There's no logical reason (perhaps an ethical concern) why disparate databases should not be combined in the spirit of cooperation and efficiency,
but of course the slippery slope is clear. Overtones of 1984, and so on...
There is one obvious problem with using cameras in only certain areas, it means only a certain kind (or color, as the case may be) of criminal will be
caught. I just left Chicago not too long ago, as they were putting up cameras in predominantly black neighborhoods. The reasoning is sound, in that
the areas were high crime, and required additional monitoring. But of course, if you only have cameras in black neighborhoods, the cameras are only
going to capture black criminals. There's a serious issue there, but I doubt the point needs to be belabored.