And where can't you sneak? Lancaster, Penn.
Up until this morning, you said "Lancaster" and I would say "mmmmmm pretzels." Because that is where I went on a tour of a pretzel factory, as a child.
(trust me, "mmmmmmm")
Saw this, though, and thought, "Hmmmmm....Orwell."
I can understand the appeal of faster police response and less low-level street crime. But my concern is, what happens when someone with more, um, Progressive plans for Lancaster decides that other things should be reported?
Like that chick eating a cheeseburger in her car?
Or the guy smoking a cigarette?
(When medical care is run by the state, will those things become crime?)
Are the people of Lancaster opening themselves up to harassment for, say, congregating in a public area for a political rally or a religious meeting?
Right now, the people who run the system and the government officials who contract with them are all saying they only want information on crime. But this technology must be really tempting stuff. If the officials decide they really should be more hands-on about the way citizens live, what's to stop them?
What's to stop them putting those cameras in ever more intrusive places, too?
3 comments:
How weird!!!!!!!! I've heard my guy mention numerous times that privacy as we once knew it is gone, that what's left is mostly illusion. And yet he doesn't want his face on my blog...
Dallas has those cameras. They say they help. I don't know if all the Big Brother stuff is going to happen. At the end of the day, the guy monitoring the camera is like you and me. Why bother for Jay walking? If you are in public, that's public business.
Sneakers are the best.
Post a Comment