Cameras monitoring streets?

[Lynda/WA]

Last year at the Superbowl they had a monitoring system in effect that scanned the faces of everyone attending the game and matching them to a database looking for people with outstanding warrants. They did find some but the offenses were so minor that the police didn't bother to seek them out and arrest them. There were no arrests as a result of the scanning.
Now some cities have begun using or at least installing systems such as these that will scan the streets.(ie Tampa) Note that this isn't announced in advance or put up for a vote.
Do you feel this is a good thing or shades of Orwell? And why?

[netmechwife]

I feel that this is one step closer to worldwide monitering... Loss of privacy, first in the streets to catch criminals but who knows when they will get it in public places, homes, private property etc. They will of course bring up advantages but how much should we give up our rights for the people who cause trouble ie. criminals? I think it is wrong....

[Amy2]

It doesn't bother me at all. Perhaps people would think twice about certain behaviors if they knew they were being monitered. That said, I do think there should be notification. Like when you call Visa or something and they say "this call may be monitored for ..." They should post signs that say "Surveillence cameras here" or whatever.
Amy

[Mickey]

I've thought about this and I can't come up with a valid reason for my not wanting it to be done. I don't fear that this is the first step to the government having hidden cameras in my house (that's just a ludicrous conclusion to which to jump imo, but I know that the fear mongers would be all over it). If it helps get wanted people off the streets and makes potential criminals think twice before committing a crime, that’s fine with me.

[Cathy]

One word---privacy!!

[Amy2]

Cathy, remember the story about the two year old boy in England who was beaten, raped, and killed by those ten year old boys? Remember how they found the killers? By the surveillence video in the mall! Frankly, I would gladly give up some of my privacy for protection for me and my children. Besides, I don't go out in public to be private anyway. I have nothing to hide.

Amy

[Lynda/WA]

Mickey - You say *I don't fear that this is the first step to the government having hidden cameras in my house (that's just a ludicrous conclusion to which to jump imo, but I know that the fear mongers would be all over it). Did you realize the technology is out there to look into your house without your knowledge and that it has already been done by police? They used infared equipment to look in houses at random. Houses that they had no reason to suspect anything illegal had gone on in. They had randomly scanned a house and discovered pot. Just think - they may already have scanned your house while you were in bed with your husband or taking a shower! That case went to the supreme court and was ruled a violation of privacy. I can easily see that changing as many laws have even after making it to the supreme court.

I have a couple of worries with this. Government agencies aren't known for NOT making mistakes. They get incorrect info in their systems and keep passing it from agency to agency.

The arguement that if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about doesn't hold any water with me. My last name is Smith. That's a big reason to be worried. My medical records have already been mixed up with another person of the same name. Look at all of the people that have come out with problems with the IRS even if they did nothing wrong. My parents received a notice showing they hadn't paid their taxes. Even after they proved with a cancelled check they had and had on time they still had problems. I can easily see my parents hauled away from a ball game for federal tax evasion even though they are in the right!

Add into that hackers. A centralized system that goes through and watches people walking down the street is ripe grounds for trouble makers.

The next step from finding a known criminal is using cameras to get suspects for a crime. On the Canadian US border liscense plate numbers are taken down if they suspect the person has been to a gun show. The numbers are then tracked back to the owners and the owners monitored. The next step would be to track people that attend *high risk* or politically UN-PC activities. This was done buy authorities during the 60s. If you attend a Pro-Life meeting you can be placed on a list of possible suspects next time there is a problem. Or maybe if you attend an enviromental rally you could be tracked for possible involvment in ELF (conducts eco-terrorism). Sounds crazy? It's already been done but the technology is becoming available to make it more sophisticated and complete. This isn't a case of if you don't do anything wrong you don't need to worry.

I'm not sure if the capture of those two 10 yr olds in England was the result of a store security camera or a government security camera. I believe that England has begun government survaillance so it could be either. If we are going to enact measures no matter how evasive in order to prevent isolated cases we have other things to look forward to. Germany is debating collecting DNA of all men. Why? Because they have had cases where they have already collected samples from all men in an area to solve a crime. Maybe we should take DNA samples from every US citizen? We could solve a huge number of crimes that way! BTW - those boys have been released under new identities.

[Mickey]

I searched AP, CNN, c|net, Northern Light and the Washington Post for an article on the government's use of infra-red cameras and couldn't find anything on it.

If the government actually did indeed randomly scan a house and found pot, so what? To the best of my knowledge, smoking pot is not illegal "EXCEPT in the privacy of your own home". If it were, COPS would be a very boring show. I don't have a problem with this process being used to detect meth labs and drugs and I don't fear that they will save the distorted infra-red shower photos they got of me in the process and do something horrible with them.

It just all seems a bit like chicken little to me--in the unlikely event that one day the sky should actually start to fall, I would then be concerned. But I'm not going to spend every day in fear waiting for it to happen--especially when I believe it's very unlikely to happen.

I just won't buy into the fear of the government thing on this or any other topic that focuses on that. There's just too much in the way of fear mongering going on (mostly on AM talk radio--I know because I've listened extensively to it, too)--and THAT, I find scary! And I just can't help but think about the degree to which Timothy McVeigh bought into it all.

[TXmom]

Sounds good to me! Here's an interesting report:
http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/

Infrared monitoring is mentioned very briefly.

[Brichard]

This is an interesting thread, and as I type this... I see pros and cons to each approach.

However, I think there are two distinct differences in what is being discussed: Public photos and Home photos.

I don't want anybody scanning my house. I have never taken an illegal drug nor do I participate in illegal activities. But... everybody has their limits for privacy and this is one of them.

I assume that my picture is taken in public daily from convenience stores, to banks, to pumping gas at the gas station, walking in a store, etc. So, I don't suppose having it taken at the Superbowl is any different. Heck, you could get on TV for that matter!

But the bottom line is this, I am sure the government can monitor every living, breathing activity of mine if they wanted. And, there is little I could do about it. I've heard that they have the technology to listen in your house without tapping your phone.

I am not a fan of them watching or listening to me, but surely they'd get bored fairly quickly and move on! ;)

[Lynda/WA]

TXmom - thanks for the link
Mickey - I have had to write this a couple of time because I felt as if you were personally attcking me with your comments yet I feel this is a very important topic. I would hate for this topic to be deleted. That would only support those who feel it isn't a problem. I will try to answer without becoming insulting to others beliefs.

First off - will a Supreme court case satisfy your skeptisim that the police did use thermal imaging to scan a house without a warrant? The first time I typed this I had about 20 links to that single case listed but will limit myself this time. If you want I can supply links for CNN and those other media agencies that you couldn't find. While this case may have dealt with someone that was breaking the law it also shows that police have done this. If they did it on a duplex where they didn't have a warrant why not yours? They may even have watched you and your husband making love. Off course you wouldn't know since you didn't get arrested! When they have to get a warrant they have to show probable cause. If its legal to without a warrant then why not drive down the street and start scanning? What's to stop police from becoming high tech peeping toms? Of course they may break onto a house were the couple mutually decided to tie one partners hands to the bedpost. Not illegal but it would look like it from the outside!

You implied that I am a chicken little. Worrying about something that may never happen. It already HAS as the supreme court case proves. This isn't a what if, but a case of it happened should it continue. Even if it hadn't happened yet - there are many what ifs that are debated prior to them happening. A good example is cloning and cell research. Discussing potential problems isn't living in fear as you implied. Sometimes prevention is better than reaction. That doesn't mean those questioning what if live in fear as you say.

You said - *There's just too much in the way of fear mongering going on (mostly on AM talk radio -- I know because I've listened extensively to it, too)--and THAT, I find scary! And I just can't help but think about the degree to which Timothy McVeigh bought into it all.*

This is the paragraph were I feel you insulted me especially. Since I have repeatedly said that I do listen to AM radio and am worried about potental problems, I assume you are implying I am a fear monger. Just because someone doesn't believe as you doesn't make them a fear monger. This is obviously a legitimate debate since it did make it to the supreme court and the 9th circuit of appeals. That means there are valid points on both sides. I would like to debate them. That comment *I just can't help but think about the degree to which Timothy McVeigh bought into it all.* was completely inappropriate! Comparing those that believe this technology can be misused to murderers is -----! I don't even know which word to use!

Here is how I see it. At one time surveilance cameras were used in a limited number of places. Places like banks. Gradually they are in more an more places as technology improves and costs go down. The places of installation have expanded from places of business to high volume/high crime public places to places with either high volume or high crime. High volume such as the super bowl and high crime such as public housing. The next step started is mid range places. Intersections are having cameras installed. Mainly to catch red light runners but at least in some cities to monitor everything. City streets in Tampa. At the same time the technology is readily availible to look into peoples houses without their knowledge. Would the next step be to install cameras on the street that monitor all the houses on that street? The technology is there and the trend is going towards more surveillance. The police have already argued that looking into your house without your knowledge isn't an invasion of privacy. Thermal imaging may evolve to camera quality images next. Will that be an invasion of privacy then? Where is the limit?

I can see other potential misuses. Let's say a spouse is cheating. The other spouse hires a company to monitor the house and find proof of infidelity. Or your company has policies against fratanization and fires you. Some places have legally begun hiring nonsmokers. Smoking could get you fired. The company scans your house and fires you since you lit up at home. An insurance company says your back musn't be hurt since you were able to pick you toddler up to change their diaper.

You stated that the infared/ thermal images are distorted. That goes on the assumption that the technology will never improve. That isn't the way technology has worked in the past. Soon they will probably be able to look into your house and know your bust size better than you do! Also, since this happened near here this has been a TV topic. They showed scans and unlike what you said, the images were amazingly clear. Not at all like what you see in the old movies like Predator.

The whole debate centers on where the rights of the individual end and are superseded by the rights of the public. Does the right to privacy end with your body? Should police be allowed to scan your face at random? How about scan your body at random? How about scan your house at random? And if at random then why not constantly?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s533pt1.html
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. ___ (2001) R069; No. 99-8508; 6/11/01

www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%252C8599%252C99979%252C00.html&pskip=&nskip=15&se=0,0,0,0,1000&index=14
www.uscaselaw.com/9th/9630333v2.html&pskip=&nskip=15&se=0,0,0,0,1000&index=11
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/19/scotus.advancer/index.html
www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0%252C2107%252C500311813%2d500501792%2d503541002%2d0%252C00.html&pskip=15&nskip=30&se=0,0,0,0,1000&index=18
www.katu.com/news/news%5fstory.asp%3fID%3d8971&pskip=15&nskip=30&se=0,0,0,0,1000&index=29

[TXmom]

2 Lynda/WA

Please take a few minutes to read the link I provided. I'd really like to know what you think after reading it.

[Lynda/WA]

2 TXmom
Some of that stuff I already knew. When I was in the military I belonged to the Electronic Security Command. My squadron (but not me) did things similar to what the spy plane that went down in China did. In fact that is exactly (to the best of my knowledge) what our sister unit on base did. We didn't have planes but did monitor phones.

Similar to what Amy brought up about informing people - all of our military phones had stickers on them reminding you that your call may be monitored. I never had a problem with that. I always knew that any call made from work could be monitored and DH and I made sure not to bring up personal stuff over the phone. Even back then ('89) I was warned about security measures and how technology was farther than what we commonly realised. From an audio standpoint certian words would trigger the call being closely monitored. For instance bomb and president would cause the call to be more closely listened to. I don't know details but was told to read the book *Puzzle Palace*. Something similar is now possible with video surveillance. The program used for the superbowl is called *faceit*. I don't know if that is the only program or if there are others. My understanding of it is that the video images are matched with a databank to find people with warrants. At first I heard it was only to match those on the FBIs most wanted list but since have heard that all of those matched were for minor warrants. That tells me they weren't only matching with most wanted people. I don't think this technology was available in 97 when this was written. I don't think it even would have been possible back then since computers were so much slower. With the speed and storage capacity of computers increasing it will be possible to scan and arrest people with outstanding parking tickets soon. Sounds great? Sure if the government didn't make so many mistakes! And if there weren't so many allegations of agencies being used to investigate political opponents. Just immagine - if you were for the imcumbent president you could have opponent placed in a data bank and track his movements. This is assuming they are installed in city streets. He can monitor how many times he visits an interns house and when. you could question his health if he goes to the doctor to frequently. If this possible without *faceit*? Yes, but not at an economically feasible level.

The report mentions how it is working in the UK. Not according to the last numbers I heard about crime. The UK had one of the largest INCREASES. If its such a deterant why the increase? Again - note the date of the report is 97. Intallation began partially in 94. Most sounds like it was in 96. That is to short of a time to draw any conclusions. I'd even go so far as to say that its still to soon. Also, I'd like to compare those numbers to an increase or decrease in crime in areas where the cameras were not installed. For example - if a crime happened inside the house how effective would street cameras be at preventing it. Or if the crime happened in a rural area? From what I've heard the increase and decrease in crime has many related factors. The better the economy the less crime. Was that taken into account? Look at the years they keep refering to. The very years that crime in general decreased. Is that proof that the cameras were effective or proof that crime reduced there the same as other places?

Mickey mentioned she wasn't worried about her image being used for anything else. Note that one of the cons to this in the UK is the selling of images. The government has no law against the government itself selling these images! They had a video made with such scenes. Couples in elevators, women undressing in changing rooms, spouses fighting. Even in a place like a public restroom/ store changing room I still expect a degree of privacy! And you know there are people out there that would even buy thermal images of unsuspecting couples in their own home. Look at our national obsession with real world. Movies, shows, and internet sites about 24 hour surveillance. We may consider it boring but there is a buying market for that stuff!

It's also worth noting that other countries have different views from the US on what is an invasion of privacy. In England they have already required all men to give DNA samples to solve a crime (same as Germany). Hasn't happened in the US yet although the DNA data base is being built. Criminals of violent crimes and military have input to a DNA database in the US so far. Similar to the origins of the fingerprint database. Now some coutries (like Mexico) require your fingerprint to vote (at least its on the new voter cards). So I'm not surprised if other countries think this is perfectly normal. Especially non-democratic countries.

Even within our own country I can see more problems ahead. Did you read the part about suing it along with stats to profile? The GIS system? Big no no in todays politically correct climate! That reeks of racial profiling!

One thing to note - nearly all new law is based on the interpretation of prior related laws. Just look at all the references to prior cases in the site you found. In fact some of the cases mentioned (US v Torres) were also being used in the thermal imaging case. Prior to the supreme court case this issue had also come up in other states. Pennsylvania for sure. I don't think this is the end by any means. Merely one step in deciding where the line between private and public rights is. The line changes everytime technology increases. It also changes as people become more comfortable with surveillance.

Another thing to note - this was written in 97. The Kyllo vs US case began with his arrest in 92. Was at the 9th circuit of appeals in 99 and went before the supreme court in 01. Basically, I think the site is very well done. Not current but well done taking that into account.

My feelings on surveillance. Yes, it has its place. I think it needs greater restictions though. When the police say that it isn't an invasion of privacy to monitor the inside of your home if they are physically outside and you don't realise it - I thin that is a huge potential problem. I can see monitoring areas that are high crime. It would bother me if there was a camera monitoring me everytime I stepped out of the house (or even in it!). I think we need more regulation of this. Not only of the surveillance done by the government but also that done by individuals and private companies. The potential for misuse is huge. And thats coming from someone that believes in less government and less laws. Where I think the line between private and public rights should be drawn isn't fast and firm. I do think we need substantially more evidence before installing more cameras. In theory you can say there will be less crime with a camera at every corner. Does that make it right? In theory you could say there wouldn't be any crime at all if there were cameras in every house. Does that make it right? If some is good wouldn't more be better? If you aren't breaking laws in your home what's the argument against having cameras in your home? Privacy! What's the argument against thermal imaging in your home? Privacy! It's when you start walking around in public that the lines blur. Police can't come up and ask for your ID without a reason but they can scan your face and ID you?

[Mickey]

Donna, that is a very interesting site! Thank you for posting it. I feel that it provided very valuable information. The Fourth Amendment Implications section was especially interesting.

Lynda--nope, no personal attacks from me. Surprised you read what I wrote as such.

No, I don't need to read about a Supreme Court case in order to be convinced that the police did use thermal imaging to scan a house without a warrant. I wasn't questioning if it actually happened, I was simply saying that I would be very interested in reading an article or two about it but couldn't find anything. And thanks anyway, but I don't need links to the sites I mentioned as those were the sites I searched and could find nothing on the topic.

I still say that monitoring public places and streets is a far cry from videotaping inside people's houses. You said it yourself--someone tried it, it went to court and was deemed illegal. End of story.

I never said you were a fear monger and I don't see you as such. What I said was that I, too, have listened to AM talk radio--I consider Rush Limbaugh, Rusty Humphries, Mike Reagan and the like to be fear mongers. They often take an unlikely "what if" scenario or an exaggeration or a phrase out of context and run with it--consuming an entire show full of calls from people who are scared and outraged and angry over something that isn't even true or extremely unlikely to ever happen.

I never looked at you in that light. I think you are a bright girl and can come to your own conclusions after seeking information from many sources (not just AM talk radio). You took what I wrote personally for no reason whatsoever, unless you consider yourself a fear monger. You post topics from talk radio and leave it open for interesting debate and discussion. If you came here and posted phrases out of context, lies or exaggerations and tried to get everyone worked up in order to get them to jump on the bandwagon for your cause, then I'd consider you a fear monger--but you don't, so I don't.

My Timothy McVeigh comment was about how I find it scary that he bought into all the negative government propaganda and fear mongering to a very scary limit. I was NOT "comparing those that believe this technology can be misused to murderers". I'm very surprised that you would jump to such a conclusion.

As a little side note, I feel that the root of this whole "fear" thing is politics. I just think it's interesting that the rich Republican right-wing radio talk show hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, can suck people into voting their way by instilling fear into them. It's very scary to me. But, hey…I guess whatever it takes to get a vote?

Back on topic…NO, I'm not afraid of the government videotaping the streets for security purposes. The article Donna posted really is very interesting. I didn't know that Sacramento has been doing it for 20 years successfully. I think every town should do it.

[Mickey]

Lynda, you stated, "In England they have already required all men to give DNA samples to solve a crime..." Where did you get that info? Dh is from England and my fil, step-fil and bils haven't mentioned being forced to give DNA samples and the only news story I could find at the BBC News website was from mid-January of this year and it discussed a proposed bill to allow DNA samples collected during major police investigations in England and Wales to be kept for use in other criminal inquiries.

Also, you say that crime in England has increased since they started using public surveillance cameras. Could the crime increase have anything to do with the increase in population? Is there a direct correlation between surveillance camera use and crime increase or could there be other factors involved? What about the percentage of crimes solved as a result of the surveillance cameras? I'd be interested in reading more about that, too.

[netmechwife]

Since this is a debate I will give a little more of mho.... Just a thought... I think shoplifting is wrong and should be stopped but would I want video cameras in changing rooms where I may be undressing and dressing? Privacy? I don't have a problem with stores having surveilence cameras with signs posted stating this. However if I found out they had them in areas where I would expect privacy I wouldn't shop there much... Gee if they are going to put them in the changing rooms why have changing rooms why not just have people change in the middle of the store... lol. I agree that surveilence can help catch criminals. I do think there needs to be rules enforced on how it is carried out and used. I would not want anyone scanning my house. To me that is a total breach of privacy. If they can't come in without a warrant, why should they be able to "look in" without one? This is a good debate. It really gets you thinking...

My other question about this is... as far as using your image for sale or profit being illegal, how can you stop them if you don't even know they had the image. And if you found out how many people will have seen you interesting video before you can press charges?

As far as the McVeigh thing. Even if he didn't have a problem with the government he probably would have done something else. I think he was pretty messed up in general. I'm sure there are people on the other side who are just as messed up. The fact is that there are people in the world who are really messed up. Not all of them are anti-government whatever you want to call them types....

Sorry if my post doesn't make sense... I couldn't quite think of how to phrase it....

The thing I like about debates is that it is always an opinion... Just because some people are on the other side of the debate doesn't mean they have bought into anything... And just because someone feels strongly about something doesn't mean they are fearful.

[Lynda/WA]

Mickey - DNA samples in England and Germany have been limited to local areas around a crime. I haven't read of a case in England but saw at least one case on one of the learning channels. The true crime show (DSC channel has several such as Medical Detectives) spoke of a rape in which all men in that town were required to give DNA. I don't rmember the name of that specific town. One of the men had a buddy go in in place of him. When a female friend overheard the buddy mention it at a pub while playing darts she informed the police. Turned out he was the one. Police had already disqualified him on the basis of the DNA.
Germany has had similar cases. DNA taken from thousand of men after a crime. In a rape and murder of an 11 yr old in 1998, Germany took DNA from 16,400 men. I don't think the DNA has ever been retained to form a database of all 41 million men for continual use yet. Nor do I think it is routinely done simply because of the cost. For that reason Germany has been debating forming a national database. It has met with reistance from privacy rights groups and many say its Orwellian and unlikey. Still under debate to my knowledge as that has just been this last year. I haven't heard any mention of a national database in England or any other country except Germany to date.

Crime data is generally given per capita. The only cases I know if where they don't do that is with gun deaths to compare our country to others that have vastly fewer people! Otherwise they compare how many crimes/ deaths per 1,000 people. That makes an increase in population fairly irrelevant. The data on the site given by TXmom is pre-1997. I haven't double checked but from memory crime in general was going down then. At least in the U.S. it was. Keep in mind that different ountries use different criteria. The US considers a 19 yr old a child when it compiles its death data. Schools have run into the same problem. One school will consider a push worth reporting as a fight and another school won't. Again, last I heard, and I haven't double checked it for this debate, crime was increasing per capita in England recently. I didn't say since the installation of cameras either. From what TXmom's site said the crime decreased then (mid 90's). I question whether the decrease had anything to do with cameras but rather because of other factors. Our crime decreased at the same time wihtout cameras. The best direct correlation between crime and a single factor is between crime and the economy. Makes sense too. I know of no post 97 data on surveillance cameras and crime in England.

I find the info about Sacramento surprising. We lived near there (Fairfield, CA). Our TV stations all came from Sacramento or San Fransisco. DH frequently worked there. We never heard about this nor saw any evidence of this. I wonder if they are including surveillence cameras at such things at ATMs? Maybe cameras around the capitol? If they were so successful wouldn't those of us in the area have heard kudos for the program?

BTW - I frequently listen to Rush and as a rule take the complete opposite view from you. Many times I have listened to what he has said. Then went to his site and followed the web links to sites such as NASA or newspaper articles. Then I'll listen to the same topic on a liberal talk show or even the local media (Portland is a liberal area!). Amazing how the liberal show will not include details that I can get verified from other sites after hearing them on Rush's show! Sometimes I have been able to verify facts from personal experiences of myself or those I know. I wouldn't simply believe he is telling the truth just because he says so. But after so many times of following up on something he said - I haven't yet caught him in a lie. I have caught some of the local liberal talk shows outright lying. That blows their credability right out of the water. I can't trust a word they say and therefor give their opinion on the matter less weight.
Can Rush give extreme examples sometimes? Yes and that is a great way to show what the potential problems of a situation are. For example - the not hiring smokers. If you just ask people if they should be allowed to not hire smokers because of increased medical costs many people will say yes. Why? Because smoking isn't PC. Ask them if they should be allowed to not hire women or HIV-positive people because of increased medical costs and you'll have a riot on your hands. It's the same argument but for emotional reasons some feel you should only apply this logic to un-PC habits.
Ask people of you should allow cameras everywhere but the home and some will say yes. After all that's were they are now the only question is how many. Others will say what's the next step? Where else will this lead?
Guess its all the math and science I've had. I can't help but look at the curve of what's happened and extrapolate it past current parameters to the next step. And then the next.
No I don't think cameras will be in the home in my lifetime but the prescident is being set. Surveillance has expanded so ONLY the home is left and even that line has been crossed with thermal imaging. End of story (as you said)? Probably not given our history. Just because something has reached the Supreme Court one time doesn't mean it never will again. At one time personal privacy included both your person and your property. A cop needed to ask for ID if they wanted to know who you where going into the superbowl. Now they can just scan you as you go into the superbowl and ID you in that manner. A cop needed to ask for ID while walking down the street. Not anymore if there is a surveillance camera with faceit software. Can they thermal scan your house without a warrant? Not today. Who knows about the next time the law is challanged or new technology is available.

Part of the question to me is how much is freedom worth? Is it worth some risks? Obviously given my history I have to say yes. Others would rather lose more freedoms to diminish the risks.

You say you have heard Rush lie? I'd like to know what? Never heard of the other two people you mentioned. Are they locals?

It's ironic you link the Republicans with a criminal. And say *the rich Republican right-wing radio talk show hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, can suck people into voting their way by instilling fear into them* After the last election there were many breaksdowns of who voted which way. Did you know that 75% of prison inmates were Democrats (at least in Florida)? Did you that the more education you have the more likely you are to vote Republican? That isn't saying that Democrats are stupid criminals. It does mean that more stupid criminals vote Democrat than Republican! It doesn't mean someone such as yourself voting Democrat doesn't research things. You've just reached a different conclusion than most of Rush's listening audience. You hear someone agree with him and assume they must blindly be following him because you have reached a different conclusion. I don't label most of the listeners like you do because my own research generally substantiates what he has said. Your generalization about people being sucked into voting Republican by a radio host isn't in tune with the facts. After all the smarter you are the less likely you are to be a sucker!

[Lynda/WA]

Mickey - I just re-read the part you said about England, the BBC and DNA testing. That sounds remarkably like what is going on in Germany. Proposed saving of DNA for future crimes. The policies are probably similar right now. Testing in an area only for a specific crime such as those I mentioned. Then destroying the DNA. Sounds like both countries now want to maintain a database for future crimes.
Your in-laws probably didn't live in an area that ever had mandatory testing for a crime. DH lived in England and there was never any testing in his area either. I lived in Germany and never heard of mandatory testing in my area either. The 98 case I mentioned happened in northwest Germany. I was towards the south near Kaiserslauten.

[Mickey]

Firstly, I'd like to ask you to please stop coming to inaccurate conclusions about what I write and trying to interpret what you think I might be implying--I'm getting tired of clarifying myself. I have never "linked the Republicans with a criminal". I was talking about the FEAR factor and people FEARING the government and taking it to EXTREMES. If that fear is strictly a Republican thing, I can see how you may have concluded what you did, but I didn't write or intend to imply that.

I do feel that the source of much of the fear appears to be conservative talk radio shows, but I'm not sure which came first--is there a group of fearful, over-the-top people out there who get the fear going and the hosts of talk radio programs take that fear and use it for their agenda? Or does the fear initiate at the talk show radio level? How does it get to such extremes? I don't know. But my concern and focus throughout this thread is meant to be the fear and not a political party.

Anyway, I didn't mean for this to get off topic and go on and on and on, but I'll address one more thing and that's your question about the talk radio people.

Mike Reagan is Ronald Reagan's son and his show is syndicated. While Rusty Humphries is based in Las Vegas, I believe his show is also syndicated (or at least it was at one time) and he has worked with Rush Limbaugh. I have not had the opportunity to hear any liberal talk shows (have yet to find one here), so I can't comment on them.

However, what this boils down to is what each individual considers to be a reliable news source. It's very important to have faith in the source of the information you acquire--especially regarding statistics, polls, political issues, etc. I consider AP, Reuters, NBC, CBS and ABC to be reliable news sources. Rush Limbaugh, I do not. I have yet to listen to one of Rush Limbaugh's programs that wasn't full of half-truths, extreme exaggerations, comments taken out of context and interpreted with his slant, etc. I do not consider Rush Limbaugh to be a reliable news source. If you do, that's fine. I'm stating my opinion. As you know, Rush Limbaugh thinks the news sources I value all lie and are anti-Republican. I think that's a bunch of crap. Again, JMHO.

Being more of a liberal (although I'm not radical by any stretch of the imagination and I have some friends who think I'm pretty conservative), I wouldn't listen to a liberal talk radio show and take what they say as gospel either. I prefer a less biased source.

[Mickey]

Thank you for clarifying the DNA thing--I find it all very interesting. My bils and fil are in Oxford and my step-fil is in Wales. I'll ask them what they know about it next time we talk.

[Lynda/WA]

You said at various parts *I consider Rush Limbaugh, Rusty Humphries, Mike Reagan and the like to be fear mongers.
I just won't buy into the fear of the government thing on this or any other topic that
focuses on that. There's just too much in the way of fear mongering going on (mostly on AM talk radio--I know because I've listened extensively to it, too)--and THAT, I find scary! And I just can't help but think about the degree to which Timothy McVeigh bought into it all.
I just think it's interesting that the rich Republican right-wing radio talk show hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, can suck people into voting their way by instilling fear into them. It's very scary to me. But, hey…I guess whatever it takes to get a vote?*

That is where I interperated you linking Republican's to criminals. Paraphrasing - McVeigh bought into fear mongers. Rush et al (conservatives) are fear mongers. Implication I read is that if one agrees with Rush et al, one has bought into fear mongers the same as McVeigh did. Guilt by association. Part of the same group as McVeigh. Why bring him up otherwise? I know of no reason to bring up an extremist that had no expressed views on camera surviellance. I didn't link Republicans with the fear factor either. Saying voters were sucked into voting (republican) by rich Republican right-wing radio talk show hosts by instilling fear did that. If you really meant to say something else - then I'm sorry. I have no idea why McVeigh, Rush, Humphries, Reagan, or fear mongers were even brought up in that case. Especially together.

BTW - Reagan isn't on here. Never ever heard him. We have other syndicated shows on. I don't remember the name Humphries but may have heard him. Everytime Rush has had a standin it has been a black conservative professor. Williams? I fluctuate whom I listen to frequently, trying to get the most complete mix of views.

Rush is no more conservative than Imus (TV and Radio), Albom or a host of others are liberal. Rush is more statistically orientated than any other host that I can name. To me that is a good thing. Stats can be verified and analyzed. You can dispute stats. Everyone else uses statements that you are supposed to accept and believe. They present opinions as facts. Like the old it's a no brainer argument I've heard used before. Presented as fact. Nothing to back it up. Not a shred of evidence. I'd still be interested in details about the lies you say Rush has told? I haven't found any yet so I'd be interest in seeing your evidence.

I'm sure you can find many bad tactics for both sides. Hardly fair to grant fear to one side only. Personally I see plenty of fear tactics coming from the liberal side too. Libs have frequently used fear as a ploy (Republican's want to poison your children). Another is mocking beliefs they disagree with (living in fear, it's a vast right wing conspiracy). Or mocking the person themselves (jokes about Rush's weight, Monica was obsessed with Bill until the dress surfaced). Another tactic is to just discount, not report, or exclude information.

Now I wonder if info was withheld or misreported about surveillance in Sacramento.
Sacramento has had surveillance for years according to Donna's site. I quized DH since we lived near there until Nov 98. He says he remembers them starting to put in cameras on one hwy (680?). They said it was for traffic reasons. I don't even remember hearing about that. We got the Sacramento TV stations and never heard a single word about surveillance going on otherwise. Where's the error? Is the report on the website faulty? Is it correct and the news agencies were incorrect? Did the city workers fudge the truth by only saying part of the purpose?

The same thing has been happening around here. They've installed cameras that the city says are only to help the flow of traffic. To trigger off when traffic is backed up due to an accident and such. More knowledge has left me with even more questions. This time in my own backyard. Ironically, you could almost say it was happening in my back yard in CA as well! I wonder how much straight talk is coming out about the various cameras. Some to catch speeders (take picture only if car passes on red). Some are to monitor traffic (not for catching criminals). Some are to catch ciminals (like at superbowl with faceit installed). Some are to be used actively or passively to monitor people and catch criminals. Are some of these cameras set up for one reason then used for another after installed? Possibly those in Sacramento? So far I haven't heard any evidence to reasure me only bring up more questions.

BTW - DH also saw the show about the mandatory DNA testing case in England. He's not positive but thinks it was a town near Manchester.

[Mickey]

I gave my opinion about fear. I then expressed my opinion that many am talk show radio programs focus on instilling fear. I expressed my concern about how fear can be taken to extremes. EXTREME ANYTHING (be it religion, politics, fear, sex, feelings about a person--you fill in the blank) is not good in my opinion.

After you took what I wrote about am talk show radio hosts personally, I then, in a separate reply, wrote about the am talk show radio hosts I've listened to, all of which happen to be right-wing Republicans, and how, in my opinion, they use fear for their agenda. I haven't heard a liberal talk show, but I wouldn't doubt for a minute that liberal talk show hosts do the same thing--whatever it takes for their cause.

The "fear and it being taken to extremes" and the "fear and right-wing talk show hosts" were two different conversations to me, but I can see how you would link them and come to the conclusion to which you came. But, regardless of all the deduction, I did not intend for what I wrote to be interpreted the way you interpreted it.

I've tried to clarify myself and correct your incorrect assumptions about what I've written to the best of my ability. Take from this what you will, but know that what you've deduced was not correct.

Once again, I'll state my views on the things discussed in this thread as clearly and concisely as I possibly can:

1. I don't have a problem with public surveillance.
2. I am very concerned about fear mongering.
3. I don't consider Rush Limbaugh (or any other extreme talk show radio host, be he or she liberal or conservative) a reliable source of information.

I've voiced my thoughts and opinions (more than once) and quite frankly, this has become too time consuming and a bit tiresome for me. Wrap it all up, take parts of it and lump them together, switch it around and deduce from these statements what you will. I don't think I could possibly be any clearer.

[Amy2]

Lynda/Wa, you have said a lot in this thread, but there was one comment I wanted to address. You said something comparing not hiring smokers to not hiring women or people with HIV. This doesn't wash for me because working next to a woman or a person with HIV doesn't affect me personally, while working next to a smoker does. They (smokers) smell really, really bad, and that would affect my work. But a woman or HIV person minding their own business doesn't affect me one way or another. Amy

[Lynda/WA]

Amy - How about if the person has a stomache disorder that causes bad breath? Or has a medical condition that causes bad body odor? I worked with a guy that took garlic capsules for health reasons. He smelled. Another coworker was married to a Korean and ate lots of Kimchi. That really stinks when it goes through the pores! My BIL has Crones. Its one of a number of disorders that may cause excessive gas. Not only does he fit the criteria given legally to disqualify smokers (keep medical costs down) but he'd also fit the criteria of affecting fellow workers by smelling. Should he be banned from applying? If you smell you can't apply?

And how about the person that smokes on rare occasions? When I'm PMSing I can smell anything! If you ate onions I couldn't stand to be in the desk next to you. DH could have had a single cigarette that morning and I wouldn't know. It takes him a couple of months to go through a single pack. He doesn't smell yet would be banned from working. He's also in MUCH better shape then I am yet I could apply! I person that smokes a single cigar every Friday night would be banned from working.

So - if the reason for not allowing smokers (even rare smokers) to work is smell then what other people should be banned using the same criteria?

Again - the actual legal argument was increased medical costs incured by smokers. That's why I used HIV-positive and women as comparable examples.

Update on the surveillance camera thing - I just now saw a report on t.v.s ANC (All News Channel). They report that Tampa is the first police department on the country to use these cameras. My understanding is that the difference here is the scanning software that IDs every face. The protestors said they shouldn't be forced to participate in a computer lineup against their will. The report said 36 cameras were installed in the city center along 7th ave. The city counsel had approved this but is now reconsidering. Probably because people are protesting by wearing masks and bandanas. The ACLU and the Tampa Bay Action Group are heading the protest (not sure if they have taken the protest to the courts yet). I don't know how long the cameras have been installed or the cost but so far there have been no arrests as a result of the cameras.

[Amy2]

Lynda, good point about all the other kinds of smelly people. I guess I would only say that smoking is a choice, whereas having a medical condition is not. If someone worked with me who had chronic bad breath or body odor, I would hope that the supervisor would take them aside and deal with the problem. I too am hyper-sensitive to smells. (Geez, I hope I don't smell and don't know it!)

Amy

[Lynda/WA]

Amy - I agree I'd rather not work next to someone that smelled wether it was by their own choice or not. As for smoking - if you go with the current billion/million dollar awards given to smokers you could say it isn't their choice anymore either. What I mean is the suits claim they can't stop so it isn't a personnal choice anymore. Not like bathing or eating garlic.

IMHO -I think employers should be allowed to hire and not hire whomever they wish. Sometimes my gut just tells me not to trust someone. The law doesn't allow you to do that.

BTW - My DH was on ritalin as a child. With him (and his dad and my DD) I think its something on the order of Spirited Kids. They have heightened senses all the time. I only do when PMSing. Add to that he's been having allergy problems. I can't tell you the number of times he has started sniffing and I get worried that I stink!