Rivercard

The city of Chicago installed more sensitive surveillance cameras to monitor suspicious individual behavior, including loitering, abandoning a package, and pulling off onto the side of the road. Officials cite the need for more security against terrorism and criminals. Opponents fear a loss of personal privacy. Do you support wide-spread electronic surveillance for public safety?

CardLogic

This type of electronic surveillance is generally good for only one purpose: to aid in identifying and capturing a perpetrator after a crime has already been committed. By-in-large there is NO preventative benefit due to electronic surveillance.

If they had to hire someone to monitor all of the cameras, they might just as well (actually it would be even better) hire additional patrol officers. Recorded data is typically only scanned following an occurrance.

I am not really bothered by the surveillance, but I think it has little to no benefit. I am down for "I don't give a crap!"

__________________

"...fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain)

40yearfan

Ditto.

__________________
Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative.