I'm not sure how libertarains reconcile their "right" to "own" their images with the concept of property rights.

The worse that is going to happen is that they catch all you guys scratching your balls.

Fingerprinting doesn't prevent crimes either, so what's the argument again?

Also, I'm not sure I'm completely up-to-date on the libertarian argument here regarding cameras. If it would be okay to have the police watch your public behavior without a warrant, what is their problem with a camera? As long as the camera is only monitoring public behavior in public places, what's the difference? Slippery slope arguments need not apply.

One problem is cameras in semi-residential areas.

If you live above a shop on the high street, the camera can, and at some point will, be looking in your window. I recall one case, where they were working to put up a mask around the camera so if it was looking in the direction of the house, part of its view was blocked.

However, that said, I still don't buy into the loss of privacy from cameras.

As I understand it, it's that cameras can be fooled and surveillance data can be misinterpreted. So, it's not so much that libertarians want government prevented from catching them commit crimes on camera, it's that they're worried the camera will be used as inviolable proof they committed a crime (when they didn't).

Ask anyone who's ever been tagged by an automated red light or speeding camera, yet had mitigating circumstances (road was too slick to stop in time, had to speed up to avoid an accident, etc.). Without the presence of an actual human police officer there to make his or her judgment call, unfairness in execution of the law can rub people the wrong way.

Now, take the same arguments, and include the words "suspected terrorist" in the mix.

You can see how some could get ansty.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

OCBill is correct: TV cameras are a deterent to crime by providing evidence after the occurs, and privacy rights don't extend to public actions.

Of course, if the criminal is willing to kill himself to achieve his goals, then he's not really worried about being videotaped or captured. He'd like to be free to commit more crimes, but that's not a big issue. As long as he gets to fulfill his evil fantasies at least once.

Main reason I hate cameras everywhere? Creeps me out.

Dunno why.

Privacy rights are really a workaround. They help mitigate the damage caused by the unfortunate fact that every state in history will pass numerous laws that should not exist.

The idea is that a law whose enforcement is thwarted by privacy rights is more likely to be a bad law than a law whose enforcement is not hindered by privacy rights.

The big question is, is that assumption still true in the age of terrorism? If not, we'll have to come up with another answer. Killing all the terrorists and then putting privacy back in place would be a good idea. Another idea is to go whole hog the other way - let the state see everything that everybody does, without exception, and maybe some of those laws that were only being selectively enforced before will get less popular as people see just what it means for the state to punish all violations of a law that should never have existed in the first place.

It's a valid point, there just aren't enough interested eyes to spend a day looking at me.

If you ever want to see just how much coverage there it, look up at the ceiling next time you visit a Wal*Mart, Home Depot, etc. Looks like a casino (a really cheesy one, with crappy ceiling tiles).

All this worry about hypothetical invasions of privacy (while in public, mind you) and being watched performing utterly anodyne chores and commuting to work must be balanced against the fact ...

Ann Coulter is right: It's all Liberals' fault.

Year after year our privacy has been eroded. Many have now grown up with the idea that they are being watched in public and in private and it doesn't seem to bother them, at least not enough to do anything about it. We've become desensitized by the arguments that survelliance deters crime. But we wouldn't have the fucking crime in the first place if we had not had forty years of Liberal rule which altered and hindered our crime fighting resources permanently. Nor would we have terrorism in the viriluent form it is in now if the First Felon Bill Clinton had performed his duty to uphold and defend this country and had killed Osama way back in the 90's before 911 showed the whole world how powerful they were and how weak and vulnerable we were.

Now, of course, the landscape shall become dotted with cameras and we seem to think this a good thing. It would've been a far, far better soloution to kill the terrorists and the criminals before they became such a terrible threat.

Someday, in the not too distant future, someone will say: "we are the damned" and the telescreen will answer: "you are the damned."

I think the real libertarian argument shouldn't be that the cameras exist, but that the images are only available to law enforcement. There is no right to privacy in a public place, and never has been. Put as many cameras up as you want, but make them available to anyone who choses to bother to watch via the Internet. The police can watch them, if they want. And we could keep an eye on law enforcement as well. They might not be so keen on having them up if those were the conditions.

Also, I believe that most states that allow automated red-light cameras also have to drop those charges if the person is willing to show up in court and give a legal reason why they ran the red light. There's no way the state can contest the citizen's testimony, because there are no physical witnesses. Witness for the defense? Yes, your honor, um, I was fleeing from giant killer bees, and my two year old sun had just sprouted a third arm and I was headed to the emergency room. Witï”Ç for the state? Anyone? No? Case dismissed.