Um, 198... nevermind...

[Jon P. Inghram]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=405477&in_page_id=1770

Wow, I guess George Orwell should have included a large, impossible to miss disclaimer on ever other page saying "THE EVENTS PORTRAYED IN THIS STORY ARE INTENDED TO DISPLAY A FUTURE THAT SHOULD BE AVOIDED AND IN NO CASE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO RUN A GOVERNMENT!"

[KvHagedorn]

Thank God we have access to dynamite in the US.

[Nowhere]

I don't see big problems with this...after all this is restrcited to public places. KvH, you surelly don't have a problem with presence of police officers on the streets? (that could even persuade you to conclusion that owning guns for own safety becomes unnecessery). Or...wouldn't you be happy if people (tresspassers) would react to "bad"/antisocial behavior? How are camera that much different?

[KvHagedorn]

Here's how it's different. If you were a cop walking a beat, you would have to be a human being.. a part of the community. That, unfortunately for our decimated current culture, only works in a homogenous society. With this crap, now some PC bureaucrat can bark orders from a secure location without having to be a human being. What's next? Stun guns mounted to the things?

Oh, revolution.. I can taste it coming.

[Fat Tone]

Talk about an over-reaction!

Cameras have been around for a long time and you don't see many complaints about those. They do increase safety and deter some anti-social behaviour, but some just ignore them. This is just a small extension of that, and if it means situations are diffused, people are 'embarrassed' in to behaving properly etc then great!

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't still have beat-bobbies, but they can only be in one place at a time.

Bring it on!

[VJ]

I wonder if people will keep listening to the speakers.

I mean, if one knows the command comes from speakers, he also knows that no interention is possible at that time.


Jörg

[NetSnake]

comment on the same web page

I don't think this would work in Atlanta. Nobody cares. They would steal the cameras.

- David, Atlanta, USA

ROFL

Oh, revolution.. I can taste it coming.

"V" for Vendeta?

[Dr Mordrid]

.50 Desert Eagle Mark XIX: $1,000

.50 hollow point: $0.50

Sight of a CCTV spycam turning into dust: priceless

[Fat Tone]

I thought you were going to suggest remote triggering, aimed at litter-louts!

[Dr Mordrid]

Naahhh.... I'd use the 9mm Beretta for them.

The DE would be overkill

[ZokesPro]

.50 Desert Eagle Mark XIX: $1,000

.50 hollow point: $0.50

Sight of a CCTV spycam turning into dust: priceless

No need for guns. A can of spray paint will also do the trick. Not as expensive to disable and your not destroying anything either, plus it makes a lot less noise than a gun and it's available anywhere.

[Dr Mordrid]

But Dr. wants BOOM

[ZokesPro]

LOL

They do seem to be pretty high, I might not have as much luck as you would with your Desert Eagle.

Fine, you take the East side and use your gun and I'll take the West side and spray them. Best of both worlds.

[Nowhere]

OK, joking aside - isn't this somehow connected to generally much higher level of government conspiracy theories in US than elsewhere? (and higher level of fear that government/secret service is spying on people) (my impression only, no solid data to back it up) And if you're so opposed to cameras...why not to talking of some of liberties that happened after 9/11? Why don't you fight that with guns/dynamite/paint sprays?
Simply because this isn't immediatelly apparent on personal level? "Out of sight, out of mind"?
If there would be constantly visible presence of police officers on streets you'd want to fight it too?
And I imagine that use of such camera is quite regulated. Of course KvH points here that it depends on who is watching on the other end...but this is just as well true to policeman on streets