1)NOT LARGE ENOUGH POLLING BASE
2)BACHELORS ARE USUALLY YOUNGER AND PERHAPS HAVE NOT READ 1984
3)YOUNGER MEN HAVE LARGE AMOUNTS OF TESTOSTERONE AND THEREFORE HAVE MORE RADICAL THOUGHTS

I live in Hartford Ct. If bringing cameras to every street corner will make my community a safer place to live and raise a family then put 4 of them on every corner!

When they try to hit on married women they prefer not to have irate husbands track them down and whup them...

I'm 24, male, single, white. I have no issue with public CCTV. I've read 1984 and don't hit on married women.

Any better suggestions?

One cannot expect privacy when one is in public.

"Any better suggestions?"

Yeah, you're naive.

I agree - 4 on every corner. And since more people die from speeding, photo radar as well. Morality police to protect our morals from the porn sold by our internet providers. temperance police to stop us from drinking and driving,

Hyprocrisy rules.

Aside from the fact corporations will make money from the cameras and probably lobbied to put them in, (just like they profit from the red light cameras by sharing in the revenues from the fines) we might consider the lack of reliable data showing the invasion of our right to walk about without police monitoring does not mean we are safer, (its like drinking diet cola as a while you eat your cheeseburger and fries)

The British take a back seat to nobody in their zeal to control their citizens via cameras yet they have so many cameras and so few personnel to monitor them that even when crimes are captured on film they will sometimes not go back and review the film (digital media whatever) in order to identify and arrest the perpetrators. Incidentally their cameras cameras every where policies seemed to have done little to stop their recent terrorist attacks.

The hoped for protection is now partly ephemeral, but as digital image analysis moves from humans to computers, the state's control over your moves in public become efficiently unlimited. And of course given Americas obsequence to corporations who buy governments, eventually corporations will have access to the data produced by the cameras to use to determine your shopping habits, insurance companies will monitor your driving, parents will be able to spy on their kids after they leave the house (and vice versa), wives on husbands, husbands on wives, neighbors on neighbors, lovers on lovers. Oh folks this is just the beginning and congrats. on being such willing cooperators in your own totally monitored futures. And relax, because after awhile it will seem so, well, normal.

I hardly consider myself more qualified than Ben Franklin to comment on the issue. So I'll let him speak for me.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

For you cowards who live in constant fear, I don't give a darn if the surveilance cameras make us _little_ safer. I doubt that they do, but they may provide nice entertaining videos for the police. I'll take my chances rather than give up even more freedoms--this is an invasion of privacy issue.

There is a price for living in freedom; part of the cost is that bad things can happen to you. AJ quoted Ben Franklin, who was far more eloquent than I am. But, "A witty saying proves nothing." So I'll stick with what I said and add pull yourselves together. Life is full of possible mishaps and you are much more likely to be killed by your spouse or a nonfamily acquaintance than a stranger. Have a video camera at home to capture the event?

People are notoriously poor at assessing risk. A few minutes on the DC beltway demonstrates this.

I'm with Franklin on the issue. Perhaps the folks who like cameras recording public goings on, will also next be for having a chip placed in automobiles which record speed , routes, and locations next?

As to the poor ole single male comment, I'd say perhaps they live more freedom everyday than the marrieds, and possibly realize liberty to a precious thing indeed.

downright frightening how many are willing to wake up one morning soon in a police state. Ben Franklin was right.

IT FUNNY NOW BUT WAS IT MICHAEL MOORE'S MOVIE THAT SAID PEOPLE WOULD GIVE UP FREEDOM TO FEEL SAFE WELL HERE WE ARE

george orwell's future is today. while it's difficut to decry the use of surveillance cameras, surveillance itself can be dangerously subjective in kind. how many crimes have been prevented or solved due to the omnipresence of cameras. like any tool these can be misappropriated. for what intent is the rhyme and reason for installing these techno prophylactics.
one caveat: once we begin to approve enhancing the public domain with precautionary methods deemed to good for the commonweal we are acceding to,equivocating,or ambivalent to the larger issue. according to the fashion of the day(ie McCarthyism)wire tapping is considered to be an essential tool to empower governmenment agencies. opnce approved probability for abuses becomes imminent.perhaps,without realizing it, we are helping create a secret police force to operate legally. we need to think more often before we respond to challenges in knee-jerk reactionary apprehension.

As an American who knows what an American is, I'll have to side with the constitution on this one.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." Means you have privacy... PERIOD! It doesn't say you only have privacy in your home and when you step into public you're SOL; to the contrary there is a distinction between you and your "houses".

We either live by the "rule of law" or we are just nodding along to more political hot air; and the US Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

The Soviets put troops on the streets and built databases on their citizens to "protect them from terrorists"... The camera's on our streets, the "terrorism database", and all this spying are no different. According to Ashcroft you get on the list by "shopping using a check or a credit card."

But then again, you would need to know the US Constitution and the fact that it defines "Americans" as well as our government, and you would also have to know history in order for any of this to be scary.

Of course I live in a country surrounded by scared, arrogant, ignorant, 'children' looking for someone to take care of them. I'd bet money, 90% of the people who read this, haven't touched the US Constitution since grade/high school.

Translation: We're screwed...

Orwell's 1984 seems more about the deterioration of language and meaning than the surveillance cameras (which I suspect got more play in the old B&W movie I used to watch on WOR, channel 9, in NYC). The way we discuss the matter sounds more like childhood fears than rational adult debate. The use of surveillance marks the denial of individual responsibility in a community. We have come to believe that we need big brother not to protect us from others but to protect us from ourselves. Perhaps Kafka's The Trial is a better literary allusion to what we are going through as a society.

It's funny, people equate cameras to big brother keeping a watchful eye on us... but what's the difference between that and the neighborhood watch keeping an eye on the people in the street? Or when you were a kid, and the lady down the street going to tell your dad when you were picking oranges off of her tree without permission? Get a grip, people... cameras are only there to see people who ARE doing something wrong. If you aren't stealing the old lady's oranges, the camera will also prove you innocent.

How many times a day do you see someone running stop signs? Red lights? Speeding? Too many items in the Express Lane? If integrity was a value that was embraced from the White House to the Poor House, there wouldn't be a need for cameras... but that's not the case. Let's call it what it really is, people are afraid that they can't live up to the rules, and would rather maintain their annonymity to keep from getting caught.

The difference between the US and the USSR is the laws that are written. We as citizens have the responsibility to ensure that the laws we enact are for the right reasons. I would suggest that we as a nation are currently living another George Orwell book... Animal Farm. We live in a nation where the majority are sheep, who will readily go along with the flow... and they are only as healthy as our sheperds keeps them. Yes, there are pigs who either exploit the labors of the masses or seek to scare us into allowing their will to be imposed on us. They do have their dogs who try to keep us in line, with acts of terrorism, scare tactics, and the good 'ol boy system. But it is the strength in each of us to unite and vocalize our oppinions in a system of free dialog to keep the sanctity of the farm, and then vote our conscience to enact laws that will protect. The US Constitution is not only set forth as laws to be obeyed, but it is also our responsibilities to be carried out individualy for the welfare of this union. Those posting here are doing their part, by vocalizing their viewpoints... and the rest of you who are reading this are doing your part by being involved in acquiring knowledge... but I would encourage you to make your oppinion known too. In a pot of chili, every spice is important... even the one that there's just a dash of.

Michael, there is an extreme difference between Aunt Griselda down the street keeping an eye on you as a child, and the STATE monitoring everything you do.

FYI: THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES Of AMERICA! (You fall into the "those I'm surrounded by" category)

Since you implied it, might I remind you:

The Soviet: "as long as you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" as they spirited people away to the Gulags.

The German Stazi: "as long as you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" as they took people away for crimes against the state.

The Nazi's: "as long as you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. Please just get on the train, we'll send your baggage along on the next one." At the start of the horror's that were to come.

The problem we have here is faith, faith in a system that threw the American people overboard decades ago.

Most people here pay more attention to their favorite sports hero's, than their congressman, or senators, and since they can't even name them, how are they ever to hold them to account for their shortcomings? God forbid you ask the average person about their constitutionally protected Rights, or try to engage them in conversations about legislation working through the system... Forget about it, cause the TV hasn't told them about it yet, and wont until it passes or fails. BUT! That same person can tell you their favorite player's stats from rookie year to retirement.

Sadly its people like you, who base most of your decisions NOT on historically backed comparisons or facts of any kind, but rather on this fluffy bunny pretty flower view of the world; "they would never do that to us". It is because of this mindset, that we find ourselves sliding down the hole that people like Regan, Eisenhower, the Founding Fathers and a whole litany of other leaders warned us about, and yet, you my friend, have a gawd damn smile on your face.

Great Brittan has had cameras for decades, Hungary had troops on the street (camera's are no different), the East Germans and the Soviets secretly spied on their people and kept databases on them, and now we... The Greatest Country on the Planet, are now going to allow the "Beacon of Freedom" to be extinguished, and allow freedoms last stand on earth to fall; and all so people like yourself can sleep better at night in the fluffy bunny pretty flower "safe" world; you sad excuse for an man, let alone an American.

We are either Americans as defined by our Constitution, with a Government as defined by our Constitution or we are nothing more than sheep, waiting for our masters to tell us what to fear, how to think, what to argue about and how to argue the party line, who to be afraid of and who to hate, all while they jam the gigantic shaft of "protection" where the "sun don't shine".

Keep smiling though Michael, because it's not about what is actually happening around here, or how far we have fallen already... It's all about how you feel buddy.

Ya know, I find it interesting that you referenced a book (animal farm) based on the communist model when referring to the American system.

Do I need to remind you that Americans are INNOCENT until proven guilty not the other way around like the British model? I must also bring to your attention, that now, if they so deem it, you cannot see the evidence brought against you, you cannot face your accusers, and should they so decide, you no longer have the right to even face a trail; that whole pesky Habeas Corpus thing that was recently suspended.

To once again quote that document that most know nothing about:

Article 1 Sec. 9 of the US Constitution states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

Once again, our government has completely disregarded the constitution; we HAVE NOT been invaded, nor have we had a rebellion. Yet, people like you sit there with a stupid grin on your face, telling one another that there "is nothing to worry about"...

I seem to recall someone said:

"I George W. Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States??? And you don't see any problems here?? REALLY?

(general comment, not just to "michael")
Yet again, you sit there with a STUPID grin on your face, laughing off anyone that questions these violations, and telling one another that there "is nothing to worry about"... And you DARE call yourselves Americans.

The point of my comments were that we, as Americans must bear the responsibility for watching our elected officials... but I won't assume that everyone is out to get me. We the People of the United States are the ones in charge... those in elected positions are OUR representatives, and it is our duty to hold them accountable... but I'm not going to assume that the morality police are lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce. There are too many voices of wisdom, like yours and mine that keep the wolves at bay.

We do not live in a dictatorship, and next year we will be voting for a new president... and new congressional leaders... and many other members of the representation that we authorize. Those who represent us are elected to enact the laws that we the people decree... and just because I don't think it's a problem to have cameras, you'd be hard pressed to try to take away my right to bear arms or free speech or to assemble, even if it's within a forum such as this.

My ire is reserved for those who won't live by the laws that are already set forth. You want to fix something, fix the criminal justice system so that people who break the laws are held accountable and punished fairly. I shouldn't have to give up my freedom because someone isn't really required to follow the rules, and for that we must question our elected officials. Why is it that I am not really required to drive below the speed limit, because it inhibits the flow of traffic? If you drive the posted speed limit in the Atlanta metro area, you will get run over by everyone! Including law enforcement officials! Don't be angry about the cameras, be angry about the reason the cameras are necessary! Anger about the cameras is like taking Tylenol for a broken leg... my frustration is with the root cause, not the effect.

I never said that we can sit idle and watch this nation fall apart... and I also never said that this country could NEVER fall into the pitfalls that the Russians, Germans, Italians, Pols, etc. did if voices like ours fall silent. We must stand firm on the law, and hold people accountable for their actions. We must also stand firm and ensure that the laws enacted must be made in the spirit of freedom that the constitution was written in.

I applaud your insight and your tenacity... and I may not necessarily agree with your point of view on everything, but this disabled vet of Operation Desert Storm will stand and defend your right to have it with my final breath.

Michael,

What would a dictator or in his words "the decider" look like in America? (They sure aren't going to wear swastikas and arm bands)

Would it be someone with an absolute distain for the Constitution, as the capital hill blue reported his quote regarding it as "just a God Damn piece of paper"?

Would it be someone who blatantly ignores the system of checks and balances as defined in the constitution?

Would he prevent congressional criminal investigations by exercising "executive authority"?

Or get his criminal buddies out of jail; meanwhile leaving border guards who return fire on drug dealers in prison?

Would he mislead the population to get them into an unjustified war of aggression like Hitler? Afghanistan, and Osama, great, but Iraq?!?! What was supposed to be the capture and prosecution of Osama Bin Ladin, has now become an experiment in nation building, something our fearless leader swore he wouldn't do "like the democrats did" while campaigning; funny that no one sees this as a problem, worse yet they believe there is a difference in the parties.

Thanks to this "war on terror" (a marketing term created by Frank Luntz) we are going broke and borrowing money from CHINA, who has us by the balls now. They liquidate the worthless debt and/or nationalize manufacturing, we're screwed. But hey, most people can't balance their checkbook, let alone understand our monetary system works; it's all just sub-prime mortgages that are causing problems, not war debt, or petrodollar liquidity, etc. etc.

Would he allow the diversity of his nations media get reduced to 4 companies some with foreign ownership, who control everything you see hear and read; every cable and broadcast television channel, every radio station and news paper in every major market. Thanks, Michael Powell.

Would the information sources of that nation be doing nothing but pumping out party line propaganda? "SHUT UP! You America hater you!" or passing it off as there is nothing more important than Abortion and gay rights? Screw letting people know about the housing market before its too late, inflation, legislation and executive signing statements, etc. etc. etc. until after the fact so the masses can do nothing to stop it or prevent massive personal losses.

Or would a dictator tell congress to piss off every single time they want to talk to anyone relating to congressional investigations? Again sighting executive authority. Yet the cameras should be put on us for "having more than ten items in the express checkout lane". Yeah, we need to give them even more power and authority, because that will make us safe.

Is all of this to keep US safe, or THEM safe from us? When governments do these things (turning on their people), it's because they are acting in a criminal manner and know full well that once you catch onto what's happening, they're in deep trouble.

Would he do things like create "free speech zones"?

Would he hold secret meetings with our northern and southern neighbors regarding the creation of the North American Union (the loss of National Sovereignty), using the US military in Canada to create a perimeter to ensure everyone including congress and the media are left in the dark.

Would he sell off tax payer funded infrastructure to foreign countries, like the toll roads in Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, etc. and allow foreign countries to put toll roads in states that have no toll roads, like Arizona and Texas. Yes, we are now paying what amount to taxes to foreign governments.

Would he prevent the Congress from looking into the response programs in the event of another terrorism event, considering that it cuts congress out of the decision making process. Congress being the "voice of the people".

Would he pass laws so that after the next terrorist event here, there will be NO ELECTIONS, and they will then have total dictatorial powers, and the constitution goes out the window completely, not just with legal haggling. Keep your fingers crossed we get the chance to vote for change, and hopefully not just the other side of the same piece of toast as it has been for some time. Bi-partisan politics = two parties working as one.

Those representatives of the people, who will get around to our issues, right after they get done serving the corporations who gave them the 100's of millions of dollars they now need to run in these elections; beholden to the people my ass, beholden to the special/corporate interests that fill their coffers first and foremost.

Would he have the border patrol stand down in Arizona (Washington times May 13, 2005), then three months later have Homeland Security deploy to support the "over run" Arizona border (Washington Times Aug 24, 2005); creating problems so they can apply their solutions, like the national ID cards we will HAVE to carry starting May of 08?

Would he allow private companies to profit from warfare on a level never before seen? This is what Benito Mussolini called the first stage of fascism, corporatism; the merger of corporate and political power and we are now neck deep in it.

So please Michael, tell me, what it would look like? Seems like a soft dictatorship, or decidership to me at the moment.

This faith thing educated and intelligent people like you are holding onto is a huge portion of our problem. Faith is what got the Jews to board trains for "relocation to other 'safer' towns", at the start of Hitler's madness. Hey, the Nazi's were nice about it in the beginning, smiling, acting all friendly and assured them all that "they have nothing to worry about, cause they aren't doing anything wrong." Too bad the Nazi's were.

TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF AND SEE THINGS FOR WHAT THEY ARE ALREADY!

And let's not forget Electronic voting, and the unauditable results that will come of that mess. Hell you don't even need every state to do it, just enough to throw the vote. No need to stuff ballot boxes anymore, just point, click and it's done.

But I'm sure we should just trust people we all know LIE to us CONSTANTLY on this one as well eh? I mean it was called the "help America vote act"; they are, after all, only trying to help us...

To quote a man that Illinois Senator Dick Durbin once called a "Great American Patriot"... Good ol' uncle Joe.

"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes" - Joseph Stalin.

But hey, there's nothing to worry about... I'm just being irrational and foolish. I'm sure we'll get just what we deserve... I mean, who we elected.

Well, Thomas... I certainly understand your mistrust of the man. There have been way too many questionable issues that have occured in the past several administrations. Both Bush's and Slick Willy too. We can look to damn near every leader that this country has ever had and find issues that you could point to that fall into the catagories you've listed... JFK and the Bay of Pigs... LBJ and Vietnam... Carter and his foreign policy (or lack there of)... take your pick as to who was worse. Every leader this country has ever had has placed their own spin on what they believed was the best for this nation... but I don't see that any of them have pushed for into the dictatorship side. I seem to remember that Andrew Jackson put so much of his own spin on things that congress was flat out scared of him, and he was almost impeached for it.

As for George W... how is it that he can maintain his so called "hold" on this nation with an overwhelmingly democratic congress? I've expected the lame duck title to have come out, but it seems quite the opposite from all of the credit or blame that he seems to be receiving for the whoa's of the nation.

Wasn't it Slick Willy who got the ball rolling with the Free Trade thing? If you want throw some blame around for the awful state of financial problems this country has with China and other nations, lets look at him. How many jobs since the flood gates have opened have migrated off-shore? I've laughed my tail off over the corporate stategy of off-shoring positions to all of these other countries, so that the company can save money on salaries... and then say that it opens up new markets for their products. Hmmm, how does it open up new markets when an employee in the US who loses an $80k/year job to someone in India for $20k/year? The iPod still costs the same price... the laptop still costs the same price... how is it that the person in India is expected to be able to purchase the same product on a fourth of the salary?

As for the border and illegal immigration policy, that goes right back to my previous post... we have laws already in place... they just have to be enforced... period. But what would happen if all of the illegal immigrants were rounded up and shipped home? Well, the economy would go to hell in a little red handbasket in a HUGE hurry! There wouldn't be enough laborers available to take up their slack... and the cost of goods and services would increase exponentially. Then what?

As for the electronic voting issue you mentioned, I work in the Tech Industry, and believe that with the proper failsafe's in place, an electronic voting system could and should work. I certainly agree that there MUST be a huge amount of testing and multiple parallel systems to ensure the integrity of the data and the validity of the results. Once the data can be managed, maintained, and tallied within an acceptable level of error... probably +/- .001%, we can expect that results can be literally instantaneous. Do you have concerns that your bank will lose your money? They do everything digitally, so why can't we get to an electronic voter tally system?

Personally, I'm sick to death of voting for the lesser of the 2 evils... democrat or republican... because they are the only people who actually have a prayer of receiving a majority of the votes. I made the mistake of voting for Ross Perot the first time he ran... because I believe that he was the ONLY candidate who had a prayer of fixing a broken system... and all I did was divert my vote from a republican to allow Slick Willy to get in.

I just can't see that this administration is any worse than so many others throughout the years.

Personally, I think we need to define a government managed and funded forum for elections. If a person wants to run for office, they must meet the requirements for the office they aspire to, and then they compete in a level playing field. No need for campaign funds... no campaign funds from corporate sponsors, no favors to repay. That way every candidate has the same chance to compete.

Outlaw lobbying while we're at it too.

Generally, when considering issues of this nature government is an uncontrolled monster. The clearest, most recent example is the government promise to only use the FBI warrantless searches in those rare cases of national security, only to discover later that some 15,000 were executed for almost every reason except national security.

Michael,

I'll get back to you in a bit, been busy.

At that time we can get into that other recent P.O.S., the man Bush 41 called his long lost son; I am of course referring to Bill Clinton. Doesn't your knowledge and understanding go beyond talking point politics and a whopping two presidents?

Is it all just one party or the other? You don't see how they are all one now?

They openly talk about Bi-partisan politics = Two parties working as one.

The talk of NAFTA started under Bush41, was signed by Clinton42, and KAFTA the FTAA and SPP were all signed under Bush43; and now he's working on the North American Union. Did I miss something there?

"We wont nation build" like the democrats. Yet that's exactly what they are doing, and those plans were drawn up long before he lied to us that time too.

The list goes on and on... It's not the left vs. right, it's the STATE vs You.

Oh, yes, and do away with the lobby?!? Do you have any clue how this government functions? My guess would be that you wouldn't know it if you got run over by it.

Your thoughts on computerized voting are frightening indeed. Tell you what, we'll all vote on paper, and you can trust your little box.

WE KNOW ELECTIONS GET RIGGED. IT HAPPENS ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!!!

Oh but not here, yeah... ok... Even if it hasn't happened recently, how long do you think it will be before the ambitious S.O.B's of this world decide to rig it... FROM HOME?

Paper makes it physically difficult to quietly rig an election... Now why do you suppose they would want to do away with that safeguard?

OH WAIT! we live in the land of **FLUFFY BUNNIES AND PRETTY FLOWERS** and "that type of thing would never happen here. They did it because they love us oh so much. I mean they are just trying to 'help america vote'"

Amazing, you really are 1 step from your TV as far as knowledge or original concepts.

Give me a couple of days.

I'm sorry Michael, I hate to sound so abrasive, but I really am starting to tire of this crap from people.

ROME IS BURNING AND WE HAVE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU, WALKING AROUND LIKE DOPES, LOOKING FOR STICKS AND MARSHMELLOWS. All the while talking about how nice it is that they would host a cookout for all of us.

Amazing... Simply amazing.

Let's settle this issue once and for all; Michael, go and get the arms that you bare and shoot Thomas once and for all...but, you'd better hope that he dies so he won't be able to get back up and kick your azz any further, lol...

KSLA TV
SHREVEPORT, LA
Aug 15, 2007 06:07 PM CDT
Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared.

And why would they suspend Posse Comitatus act?

"...U.S. Troops also arrived, something far easier to do now, thanks to last year's elimination of the 1878 Posse Comitatus act, which had forbid regular U.S. Army troops from policing on American soil." - More love?

Your right Michael, there is nothing to worry about.

Training the Clergy to use Romans 13 to calm the population into following along.

"For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13."

Romans 13:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Ohhhh we are just doin ducky here at home.

Glad to see you and your brother gave their lifes blood for this crap.

Thank you for that, and I'm sorry we have let things get this far. It is a slap in the face to your sacrifice.

Are the cameras really worth it if our country just becomes a police state that monitors and controls everything you do?

Speaking as a person who actually lived in a Communist state, you people seem not to know what you are getting in. Cameras don't enhance security, they enhance the power of the police to solve crimes by giving them more information. The problem is that if someone wants to get your psychological profile, he or she can access your web traffic, all camera recordings of your face, your phone conversations, not just your public identity. Then, if you happen to run for public office or the secret services need you for something, that information will become very useful in determining how to persuade you, uncovering any shameful activities you might have done etc. Of course, it does not seem that extraordinary at a macro level, but freedom is about every individual, not only society as a whole. Moreover, what do you think Stalin said when he killed and tortured ? He invoked security and protection of the family. Think twice about giving-up freedom, it's hard to get it back.