We can’t just say everybody can go everyplace and do anything they want, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 5-10-2009 @ 10:19 AM by dizzie56
www.nytimes.com...

The above was a quote from Mayor Bloomberg of NYC in regards to the new cameras going up in midtown. Now, i believe that cameras on street corners are not all that bad. They do curb some crimes when people know that they are there. I live in the Tampa Bay Area and they put them up in Ybor City which is not a place you really want to venture down the wrong road. The cameras did help in reducing some of the crime. That being said tho, with the above quote from the Mayor, how far are they going to take it? I dont mind some things like cameras on some street corners in places that are known for serious crimes, but its like a double edged sword. The same people that do this tend to feel the power that they have and push it just a little farther, then a little more, and a little more, etc.

My question is, is it worth having something that will end up helping convict people and also curbs some crime for losing more and more privacy and being told what to do? With him saying that quote, i feel that it will be pushed way farther than we could ever dream. It almost feels as if the gov doesnt trust its own citizens if they will try and deter us from doing something that we want to do. As innocent as whatever it may be they still dont trust us.


reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 10:36 AM by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by dizzie56


Crazy times we live in. We are headed for a Surveillance state in which all that we do will be recorded and a security grid created that will lead to many arrests. Not only will the increased security decrease crime but it will decrease freedom. People will feel uncomfortable living their normal lives if they know they are being watched.

To answer your question no, its not worth it to have the increased security and we must be wary of any other police state measures our government/law enforcement claim are for our best interest. These cameras don't just send a message to criminals they send a message to everyone and that message boils down to: stay in line, we're always watching. Its the old Santa Claus measure: he sees when you're sleeping so be good for goodness sake.

And yet the media will continue to make us afraid until we come on bended knee begging that our chains be tightened. We live in a world where instead of knowing our neighbors we fear them and we live our lives as scared sheeple checking under the bed, fearing whatever we are told to fear and always under the watchful eye of the PTB.



reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 10:45 AM by Alethea
Originally posted by dizzie56
www.nytimes.com...

The cameras did help in reducing some of the crime. That being said tho, with the above quote from the Mayor, how far are they going to take it? I dont mind some things like cameras on some street corners in places that are known for serious crimes, but its like a double edged sword. The same people that do this tend to feel the power that they have and push it just a little farther, then a little more, and a little more, etc.



When crime gets bad enough (because they have orchestrated the homeless situation) , TPTB will say "see? the cameras are for your protection against the needy, thieving, riff raff. " then everyone will go along with the new beast system. When the "haves" realize that these cameras will protect them from the "have nots" everyone will succumb to the power of the Beast system.

Those who will give the beast it's power will later find that power turned against them also, as time goes on.


If those with survival skills would go among the homeless or near homeless and teach them a little independence, maybe we could help head this off. It will be the bottom rank who succumb to the Beast first...they will sign away their allegiance for bread and housing.




[edit on 5-10-2009 by Alethea]


reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 11:10 AM by crimvelvet
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic




Could this idea be taken advantage of? Yes. But that's where we must draw the line, not at the installations of the cameras to keep crime down.


You draw the line when the government starts doing things that could lead to abuse. You check the first signs of "bad behavior" you do not wait until the kid who tortures kittens turns into a mass murder to deal with the problem. This is the government "torturing" kittens and telling us we do not have to worry because they are not a mass murder yet...

Oh thats right our government IS a mass murder, responsible for the genocide of native Americans and using its own citizens for experiments. My mom was one of the casualties www.thetalkingdrum.com...





reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 11:53 AM by A Fortiori
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Is that not short-term thinking? Realizing that technology is progressive and we currently have biometric technology and will reinforce it with PASS ID, do you not see that if we say "yes" to this now that years from now we may very well feel the repercussions from it in ways we did not intend? What happens after another terror attack? Increased functionality of these systems will be appropriated. What happens when the government goes sour like every government in history? Everyone could be suspect

We are in trouble as a nation because we are poor long term planners. Everything is short term. Our economy is a prime example of short-term thinking.


reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 11:55 AM by XXXN3O
reply to post by dizzie56


I live in the UK and there are cameras absolutely everywhere. There are even cameras that shout at you if you drop litter etc.

Crimes still happen but if anything it might help police catch someone, what good is that if your stabbed in the back on the way home?

I guess that is a question people need to think about.

I guess at least you will end up on one of the cop programs on tv about cctv catching murderers on a saturday night?

In my opinion they are a waste of money when it comes to serious crime but they do increase government revenues for things such as litter offences or speeding.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by XXXN3O]


reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 12:24 PM by A Fortiori
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Actually, it is abuse of Constitutional privilege, in my opinion. According to our Constitution and my state Constitution they do not have the privilege to "spy" on individuals not committing crimes, which is exactly how this appears to me.

Moreover, if they are willing to abuse the Constitution with items like "sneak and peek" (see Patriot Act) why should we trust their cameras?


reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 12:30 PM by jd140
reply to post by A Fortiori



You have probably been video taped or had your picture taken without your knowledge hundreds of times.

Whats the differance now, besides the fact that you know the cameras are there?


reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 12:33 PM by A Fortiori
Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by A Fortiori



You have probably been video taped or had your picture taken without your knowledge hundreds of times.

Whats the differance now, besides the fact that you know the cameras are there?



I've never liked it. Didn't like it then, don't like it now. I have no problem with a private store videotaping customers to prevent theft because you have the option of not going to the store. I don't like my tax dollars funding cameras that I do not want. They do not prevent crime, they only support the case made against you after the crime is committed (or not committed).
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^