Not the only thing forgotten.
Our fundamental disagrement is over the significance of a program of increasing presence of video cameras everywhere. You appear to deem this a small (?) escalation over the numbers of such devices as are already at ATMs, stoplights (allegedly triggered Only on a moving car + red signal state), airports and such.
No, Ashton.
Our fundamental disagreement is over the fact that I speaka English.
You no speaka English, you speaka emotion.
I have fundamental, basic PROBLEMS with cameras being everywhere.
I don't *like* them everywhere. But they're NOT ILLEGAL. And I *realise* this. Nor, can I realistically point to any given case law and scream "THIS IS WRONG". I don't LIKE cops having databases. But I accept the realistic fact that they DO, and WILL. *I* want laws governing *access* and *logs* to said data, and accountability.
I've said this many times.
allegedly OK because "they mean well",
Allegedly who? I never said that. I've disabused you twice of that notion.
Are you illiterate or just stupid? (Sorry for the insult there, but I didn't know how else to *ask* that, since its *been covered*, and its what you said, not I).
I didn't say that it was OK because they 'meant well'. I said that they weren't any different from any other public safety equipment. I still stand by that.
Now, stop telling me what I "said" and stick to what I did say. I know its harder - a lot. But either that, or I have to presume that you're doing it *intentionally*. And intention deception - how do you classify that?
I also deem your public/private precise dichotomy a Red Herring.
You can deem the law of Gravity to be a crock of butter. It doesn't change it.
That *is* the issue at hand. You ignoring it is *your* problem, not mine. Your focus is at issue, not mine. You wanting to redefine it away is.. well, you get the picture.
In fact, that's the problem with your argument - you don't LIKE the actual issue, so you change it. "Red Herring?" No.. changing it away from that (or attempting to) is a red herring....
This because: it simply Is Not Enough for there to be merely and *only* a private locked door.. ... while *everywhere else*, all shall be taped, and results indexed, saved and shared.
That's *how it is*. If you're in a public place, its public. If you are in a private place, its private.
If you don't like the concept of a permanent record - then you'll have to get a law passed FOR THAT PURPOSE.
This isn't (merely) *my opinion*, its the *law*. And right now, the law doesn't cover what you do *in public*.
Do what you will. Its your ignorance showing there.
Unless many munis follow the lead of the mayor (Not his own c. council) of the Fla backwater
Ya know.
For all your insults, all your derisions, you've yet to provide one really tangible piece of evidence why this sort of thing is bad.
Just one.
I know its easier to insult, and to toss straw onto me. But c'mon, Ash. Just one.
If they do, well, hell, why wouldn't they? Why *not*?
When you're at the meeting frothing and declaring that things done in public is a red herring, and everybody looks at you and asks "What kind of mushroom did he have on his salad?" well, I don't think you'll do very well.
I can tell you reasons I don't *like* the idea. I can come up with likely abuses of the system(s).
But those are not legal reasons that they aren't allowed to put them up.
Addison
