The city of Minneapolis, in a "public/private partnership" with the Target corporation, is planning to install a downtown video-surveillance system to monitor public streets.
In the age of Ashcroft, government and other organizations need to be reminded that the result of increased �security� is often increased distrust. Any organization which does not trust the public cannot expect the public�s trust in return. While I would oppose the installation of a downtown surveillance system even if it were entirely publicly funded, what is especially troubling about the proposed project is its corporate sponsorship. I do not work for Target. I do not even shop at Target. What ethical or constitutional right does Target (or any private corporation) have to monitor me and other citizens as we use public streets? Legally and morally, privately-funded surveillance of public property is a line we must not cross. Despite the city�s actions toward the Target corporation in recent years, this is still Minneapolis, Minnesota, not Target, Minnesota. The purpose of government is to represent the public interests of many, not the private interests of few. When will government question its symbiotic relationship with corporate authoritarianism? More importantly, when will citizens? Roberta M. Beach Minneapolis Ward 7, Precinct 5 TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ 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
