We live in a nation which likes civil rights in the abstract but not in the implementation. This causes us all to lose.
A plurality exists to clamp down on many freedoms. Use cases to deny first amendment rights are popularized - heck our biggest media companies built on the back of the first amendment now wish to see it neutered. Gun rights folks want the Obama administration to pursue second amendment restrictions, yet some of those most vocal about protecting such freedoms cheered on the Bush administration when it wanted to clamp down on speech, or when gay rights pushes are defeated.
Security. Think of the children. Moral outrage. etc
The rich powerful elites have successfully divided the nation to such a degree that they can push through any invasive law they like because they can always bundle together enough of us who hate enough more of us to gain a plurality in its support. More usually they don't need that even. They have the political class in pocket and when it comes to election we have no vote outside of the gerrymandered two sides of the same party system.
I agree and have a hard time convincing friends/family, polarized on either side, this same point. The agenda of the elites is being advanced by whichever party will take the lowest bid. And cleverly enough this just keeps us pitted against each other while allowing for small victories/defeats, depending on what side your on. I wonder if Roman/British common folk had discussions like these while they watched helplessly..
Well, I know. You know. Others seem to know. We are not special people with special knowledge. So we must presume every one, or at least a majority know. Unless of course we clever people want to label them ignorant, or what ever.
So, tell me, why are "we" voting for this?
At some point, those with the vote need to take some responsibility for what we are voting for, and stop blaming those we give a mandate to.
Because everyone has a slightly different take on what rights who should have. House divided against itself and all that. It's not so much respect for freedom, or lack of it, but rather no respect for fellow citizens.
I'm guessing but I think it straddles a legal grey area, depending on what's carried out (how something's done).
In general one cannot expect any privacy while in public. That's been established many times over by the courts in the US. On the other hand, tracking recognizable people, I think without a probable cause, would be illegal. On the other hand if they just keep the footage and regressively backtrack activity after an activity was found to be illegal on the ground, then I don't see how using the generated footage would be illegal --and this would help law enforcement to some significant degree (i.e, someone was found stabbed on the sidewalk, no witnesses, let's backtrack the footage and track the attacker forward or backward).
