Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Big Brother debate

A borough in suburban Philadelphia is debating whether to install surveillance cameras in public places in an effort to catch lawbreakers. It brings up an interesting debate. Opponents of the move claim it could be an infringement on civil liberties, but supporters see it as a way to cut down on crime. I tend to believe that if you're a law-abiding citizen, you really have no need to fear the cameras. We already have them in stores and at ATM machines, among other places. Private citizens position them on their homes to keep an eye out for those who might do them harm or take their property. Even the O-R has them for security purposes. It's not as if the cameras proposed by Newtown Borough would be peering into people's homes. Does anybody see a problem with this that I'm not recognizing?

Labels: ,


Blogger PRIguy said...

You essentially stated the same opinion that I have regarding security cameras and other measures intended to keep us safe. I like to think that I haven't done anything that would have me on the radar of the cops or Homeland Security or the FBI or even the CIA (I hope!). Therefore, if someone wants to watch me shop for groceries, a car, or pants, have at it.

I think the whole "civil liberties" thing is taken out of context when it comes to things like these cameras. We all want out civil liberties, and we're rightfully very, very protective of them. They're one of the best things about being an American. A sometimes unpleasant byproduct of having civil liberties is our right to bitch about any perceived abuse of them. But boy oh boy, don't let anything bad happen to us that could have been prevented had there only been a discreetly placed security camera on premises.

In short...bring 'em on. I ain't skeered.

November 18, 2009 at 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheese! People are willing to have Facebook know exactly who they are online with and what they're doing, so why worry about surveillance cameras? The government knows more about you than you think it does even without them. I do wish people would stop falling in front of subways and having the surveillance footage show up on E!, though.

November 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM  
Blogger Lori said...

Just as door locks keep honest people honest they do little to keep intruders out.I don't know how much crime the cameras will cut down on, but prosecuting those responsible for crimes, on tape, would be more concrete. OR
Maybe I watch too much NCIS and CSI.

November 18, 2009 at 5:10 PM  
Anonymous x anonymous said...

There should never be a debate on your civil liberties or constitutional rights. The people that put them in place didn't watch tv 9 hours a day or watching funny clips on the web for another 2.

November 19, 2009 at 6:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The government should not be conducting surveillance unless there is probable cause. But, the private businesses who want to monitor their stores and store fronts, which may include sidewalks and streets is a reasonable response to protect their property.
Surveillance camera's set up by the government is in itself oppression.

November 22, 2009 at 10:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home