#1 what DOESN'T cost money? I'll tell you what cost LESS money..video cameras. If I can't have a cop monitor an intersection 24/7, then I am fine with a red light camera.

#2 Well getting caught in your own traps is just your own problem. Has nothing to do with changing rules or slipper slopes. I think I understand what you mean by rules being added allowing the govt to add more rules un-opposed, but this MAINLY has to do with the publics becoming more lazy and not bothering themselves with politics, ie people not involving themselves with the rule making process anymore.

#3 CCTV Does it's job. It helps identify and catch spur of the moment crimes (Abuse, attacks, robbery) and at least causes planned crimes like drug trafficking to be moved elsewhere. You can't really STOP this with public CCTV coverage but at least you can prevent it from happening in front of your house or on the playground near the kids.

#4 While I think shatter went the extreme, I know what you mean. We have lots of old laws we break all the time now. This is not the CCTV's problem though. %99 of the time these laws are also ignore by the police, and we only find out about them when that %1 gets charged with one of those laws. This is just something else that needs to be fixed by the people and really has nothing to do with CCTV.

I understand people are afraid of loosing freedoms, but I also understand that we are not earning it either. Broken economy systems, failing healthcare, and lax education systems are causing chaos and hardship which leads to increased crime. If you want your freedoms back, you are going to have to become involved with politics more and make sure the right people are making your laws.

Lower taxation? Much like people who say it's against their so-called privacy to run red lights without a camera taking their picture? Because I'm pretty sure spending 20k is cheaper than 50k it'd cost to hire just 1 officer to stand at an intersection and chase people down.

Cameras aren't some big evil. It's improper use of the cameras that's evil. It's illegal wire tapping that's evil. It's the recording of all text messages without any safe guards in place that's evil. You're worried about a camera? Seriously, what are you doing that makes you so terrified of a little camera?

Why do police cars have cameras? I doubt it's so they can be all big brother on you. It's to keep the officer honest. It's a non-biased witness to a crime. In most cases a camera isn't going to prevent a crime, but it certainly helps when it's a he-said/she-said incident.

I think I vaguely recall some discussion about guns not killing people. Or something along those lines. If guns are perfectly okay despite the massive evidence of the rampant gun use and rampant gun sales to foreign entities that use them to suppress and murder, I don't see the same argument being applied to CCTV. Why is the gun ok but the owner bad, but the camera bad and the owner is never talked about?

Maybe instead of cheering on the destruction of tax payer property we should discuss the rules and regulations of handling the data from these cameras. After all, I for some reason see tons of idiot criminals on here due to these things. Obviously that benefit outweighs any lame excuses listed above.

1. CCTV is a lot cheaper than an armed guard at every intersection, every school blah blah. Not to mention, armed security hasn't really been all that effective. Hell, someone just shot a few cops the other day. I'm pretty sure the cops had guns. But who's counting.

2. First they make us drive on roads. Next they're going to make us get LICENSED! OMG! Pretty soon they're going to require us not to run over babies, or run red lights, or shoot people who are going too slow! Jesus we're becoming such a nanny state! Why can't I just hire a doctor who went to Joe Bob's School or 3 Day Medical Training?

3. Aside from all the evidence pointing to the fact that CCTV does deter crime. If 1 out of 5 crimes don't take place because of a camera, that's called a Deterrent. But I could be thinking of statistics and not emotion. The reason why these cameras catch idiots is because they're stupid enough to do them in the first place. Locks don't stop criminals. Locks determine your level of honesty. If you're determined enough, you will get in no matter what. If I reaaaaally want in your car, I will find a way, even if you lock it. So why bother locking it? Oh, right, because 1 out of 10 will be super desperate while 9 out of 10 will be ok with just opening the unlocked door.

4. Yeeeeaaaaaaaaah. That's such a good reason. Hey, I don't really like these whole murder laws. I say I should dissent. Or I don't like financial regulation, let's just crash the entire countries economy . . . or sell futures for a product that doesn't exist. See your number 2. Slippery slope here . . . so while I agree with you that some laws should be broken, ignored, fought etc, it's not exactly a "one good reason".

1. Lower taxation, these things cost money (initial outlay and ongoing costs) to keep an eye on a populace that, by and large, aren't doing anything wrong. Most of us don't want em, don't need em and don't want to pay for them.

2. Changing rules aka slippery slope. The people who agree to big brother on the first day might become victims of it later down the track. Once you establish a state where the citizens are constantly under surveillance and have accepted that onus, you can implement worse measures. Look at post 911 USA... Land of the free? As long as you don't mind the government setting up camp in your rectum 24/7.

3. There is no such thing as "safe". CCTV doesn't deter crime, it just catches the idiots too stupid to take it in to account (ie. people who cut down poles sans facial coverings for example...). Much like any other precaution, criminals find ways around CCTV. That is not an argument for more surveillance, it's an argument about the futility of it in the first place.

4. Sometimes the rules should be broken. How many things were illegal 100 years ago that are perfectly legal now? Worse, think of the things that were legal 100 years ago that are outlawed now (*hint: most of them are self harm crimes such as drug use etc) How often have nanny states tried to decree what you can and can't do only to find that people do not want to live under that rule? The camera is the start, if they can see what you are doing constantly, they can stop you. Why do you think organisations like Anonymous exist? To quote a memorable cutscene from Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri, "We must dissent...".

Send 10 bucks to the charity of your choice.

Hurray for destruction of cctv!

But lawls at idiots cutting metal without protection and getting sparks in the face.

Why cctv cameras in neighborhoods? How about an armed community watch?

The British network of CCTV cameras only provides national coverage. The NSA, however, has no restrictions on their foreign intelligence gathering. If you're a US citizen, you might complain about the increase in domestic surveillance without warrants. But if you're one of the remaining 6.7 billion people, you're boned, and you have been for decades.

We've seen the files the East German intelligence compiled on people. As impressive and scary as those might be, they never had anywhere near as much access to data as the NSA has nowadays.

If you want to see the "surveillance state" in full swing, just jump on a plane
to the U.K.

Not much of a parody here, might as well have been CCTV footage.

>> ^renatojj:

That's how the media, left and right, treated him for the entirety of his campaign. Any respect and coverage he got was inversely proportional to his perceived chance of winning.


...And so it goes, each election more absurd than the next until who knows? Maybe some new, "New Deal" after all the cocka-roaches are gone, calling up the depressed Roosevelt-styley to help rebuild the infrastructure? I for one, hope it includes a beautification of the entire United States in the form of razing every strip-center and billboard for starters.
This includes my first act in office, criminalizing inherently evil entities too big for their britches like Walmart and Monsanto, and razing THEIR improvements on real estate assets while demanding the offspring of their CEO's to walk naked with sandwich board signs on a remote mangrove swamp with mock city streets resembling their home-towns, filled with CCTV cameras with a live feed for folks around the world to deride them for all eternity, amen.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

All that effort faking something, and the boom barriar is overlayed on top of the fake cctv date display. (watch the 6 in "Mon 11:36")


You win!

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

All that effort faking something, and the boom barriar is overlayed on top of the fake cctv date display. (watch the 6 in "Mon 11:36")


His insurance company didn't believe him. They said he drove under a trailer.

You are correct, sir! Totally fake.
>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

All that effort faking something, and the boom barriar is overlayed on top of the fake cctv date display. (watch the 6 in "Mon 11:36")

All that effort faking something, and the boom barriar is overlayed on top of the fake cctv date display. (watch the 6 in "Mon 11:36")

I have a bit of an issue with Dr.Naku and his musings about biology, especially after seeing him butcher and mangle the theory of evolution and say that humans have "by-and-large" stopped evolving. Which is bullshit. (http://bigthink.com/ideas/26647)

I'm sure Dr.Naku is an excellent theoretical physicist, but he has shown that he doesnt really master biology all that well. I have a feeling he does the same thing here. There are all sorts of problems that might not be solvable here. Animals are more, biologically speaking, than a DNA "recipe" that you can simply "put into an egg", there are all sorts of evo-devo that comes in to complicate this tremendously. It is not at all clear that simply sequencing a genome (assumming its a complete and 100% accurate sequencing, which I'm pretty sure it isnt for the neanderthal and mammoth) that comes into play here. In other words, the limitation might not be our technology. Its a bit like the zoom-in-and-enhance-it problem you have in Hollywood movies. it doesnt matter if you have a billion-dollar computer from the year 4350 if the original recording is an old VHS tape of a CCTV recording.