I previously had an opinion on street cameras but chose to not post onlist because the conversation seemed to move on.
However, with the opportunity returning, I want to make two points. First, as was previously mentioned, state law would have to be changed first to allow cameras to catch traffic scofflaws. I personally pleased my State Rep. (Len Biernat) was not successful in changing state law on this. Second, and -in my opinion- more importantly, is whether we really want these cameras as much as we think we do. Yes, they will likely have a chilling effect on red-light running. My concern is they will lead to a slippery slope of more and more cameras on an already surveillance camera-happy society. First, it's the camera that catches the red-light runner. Then it's the camera that watches for other crimes. All of these cameras are argued with good intentions. However, what happens when we get to the point of cameras watching for "inappropriate behavior", i.e. protest marches that "might get out of hand and lead to subversive elements taking hold"? It's a heck of a lot harder to remove cameras already placed than prevent them in the first place. Yes, call me paranoid. Yet, we can look to many totalitarian countries that actively employ cameras for the very purposes I mention. Look at China. I know I'm not interested in living in fear of what government bureaucrat might be watching me for, especially when it's expression of thought. Gary Bowman Audubon Park --- "Barbara L. Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did the good police lieutenant say anything about > using technology to catch > traffic scofflaws? > > I love the idea of having a camera take pictures of > red-light runners and > sending them the bill + photo in the mail. Fine > with me if it gets sent to the > holder of the vehicle's registration even if they > aren't driving. They should > be held responsible for how their auto is used, > unless the vehicle is stolen, > which could be proven by having filed a police > report prior to the snapshot's > time. > > Seems to me that I heard one doesn't need to put > active cameras at every > interection -- just at some (others have dummy > cameras), and then move the > active cameras around a bit. This way people don't > know where the active > cameras really are -- and they flaut the law with > less than they otherwise > would. > > Perhaps some foundation could gift the Mpls. Public > Works Department with a > starter bunch of cameras -- how about 3M who makes a > lot of the optical > technology? Put them on a few corners and I'm sure > the city will start > agitating for some in its regular budget. > Barbara Nelson > Burnsville > Formerly of Seward > -- > Any idiot can face a crisis -- > it's this day-to-day living that > wears you out. -- Anton Chekhov > > > _______________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic > Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
