On Oct 1, 12:45 am, quasi wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:57:01 -0000, Proginoskes
gmail.com>
> wrote:>>On Sep 30, 8:07 pm, "gb6...@
yahoo.com"
yahoo.com> wrote:>>> On Sep 30, 12:37 pm, "Dave L. Renfro"
cmich.edu> wrote:>
>>>> I didn't know much about this so I googled for the
>>>> site. As far as I can tell, it's only in 9 locations
>>>> in the U.S. (and all but 2 are in coastal areas) and
>>>> nowhere outside the U.S. I'd hardly say this is
>>>> "all streets", or even more than a very extremely tiny
>>>> fraction of all streets (even in the U.S.). And even
>>>> if it were all streets in the U.S., if the cameras
>>>> are only confined to street locations, no one is
>>>> going to be able to see into your home window unless
>>>> your house is right up on the street (or pretty close,
>>>> with a very short driveway).
>
>>> Violates basic constitutional rights.
>
>>Fortunately, there is a defense, available at every home decorating
>>store, called a "shade".
>
> However if there were video cameras on every building and on every
> street light, I think we would all recognize a substantial loss of
> privacy.
I agree that there would be a loss of something. Anonymity, maybe?
Definitely not privacy, though. And whatever it is, it may well turn
out to be important.
It seems to me that with more and more aspects of our lives
being regulated, anonymity has had the coincidental effect
of insuring our rights. With gov'ts greater ability to see in to
our lives comes a greater importance of making sure that
gov't only intervenes where it needs to. Murder, robbery,
etc. are rightfully suppressed; skateboarding, marijuana,
and use of unapproved architectural styles are not things
that should invoke police powers.
Sorry to be so OT.
Marshall
