Hi Mark,
Good points, but gov'ts have a tendency to disallow citizen use of
cameras, or to suppress the evidence, often for "secrecy" (or 'methods
protection') reasons. For example it is illegal to tape your own phone
calls in many states.
Also, gov't cameras seem to malfunction when embarrassing/evil stuff
happens. 911?
I don't trust governments enough to allow them to have cameras
everywhere. Now if we could stream all the camera data to a secure
place then I might be less concerned. Secure is currently defined as
outside the country, with a neutral nation that the US government can't
'roll'. Read china.
It may not be in the constitution one way or another, but I don't want
to pay for those cameras in any case.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Regards
Grant
mark robert wrote:
>Of course forcing a camera into one's home is - well, "force".
>But cameras on the street do not violate any libertarian
>principles that I know. This is where Orwell was a little off, as
>are the ACLU and lots of libertarians. It's where "privacy
>rights" meet property rights. I'm afraid the constitution gives
>dominion to property rights. I think the whole camera fear by the
>people is a little unwarranted. You know, the gov fears cameras
>too; but their fear is warranted. Police hate them, obviously.
>Improving video recording technologies and the number of little
>cameras in the hands of people will be (is) hell for the gov. Be
>careful asking to limit the number of surveillance video cameras
>in society - you may get what you ask for. The way to fight this
>kind of Big Brother is to become one your self in reverse. Get a
>small camcorder and carry it everywhere you go. If you want proof
>of effectiveness, just turn it on the officer that pulls you over
>the next time.
>
>
>
>
>
>************
>{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
>"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
>case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
>There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
>unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
>its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
>unjust lawsuits.
>See www.fija.org
>[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>Lets start with his. And with any idiots who would
>support the idea.
>
>For life and liberty,
>David Macko
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Yours in Liberty,
Grant Rostig
(432) 265 7349 {only takes messages}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.Grant4Congress.com - come join us, the momentum is building!
Please Consider Supporting Our Campaign and Donating Time or Money. :)
Paid for by the Grant Rostig For Congress Committee.
100 Reata Ranch Road
Lockhart, TX 78644
Copyright (c) 2006
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
