Toralf Lund wrote:
Malcolm Smith wrote:
[ ... ]
In many ways it's all a nonsense; chances are in a small town you are
appearing on CCTV somewhere and in a big city maybe 50, 100, 200 cameras?
Not that I have any objection to that - I welcome it today - but the
principle should be both ways. If you objecting to being in a photo,
chances
are it's already too late, your image has been recorded.
Good point.
Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up all
over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my personal
freedom...
Restricting your personal freedom? In what way? To do what?
... as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false
sense of security,
I recall reading several times, several places where numerous nefarious
people were stopped, felons caught, illegal acts thwarted, etc. That's a
reasonable sense of security. Proven, as it were...
...and I object to both.
Yes, and you're certainly entitled to voice your opinion.
Isn't it a great world, where you can say any darned thing you want,
without fear of retaliation from any quarter?
However, if a hobby
photographers/artist/newsreporter wants to take my picture in public, I
don't object one bit. I guess I prefer being seen by Little Brother, if
you know what I mean...
- Toralf
Yessir, I do.
However, I see no danger from being "watched" by remote cameras, as I
don't plan to ever do anything illegal!
If they catch me scratching my butt, i hope they have a good laugh! ;-)
keith whaley
