jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008 From: Somewhere Texas Status: offline
|
Electronic surveillance by Law Enforcement such as Cameras, drones, or by tracking the gps in a cell phone has some proponents and protestors. 1) Drones The only drones available to law enforcement except under special circumstance are just a little larger than a gas powered remote control helicopter, and makes the same amount of noise. Predator drones are tasked to aid law enforcement only for searching for a criminal wanted for a heinous crime. The most recent case was the ex cop in California that was shooting people. Otherwise the predators are being used along the Mexican border, which makes sense until you realize that there are not enough border patrol agents to respond to anything the drone might find. 2) Cameras I am of two minds on these. First the quality of the image is not the best, unless it is a hi def camera, so identification is not 100%. Secondly, who decides where to put them. Put them on every street in a city the size of New York would be cost prohibitive, not to mention the cost of manpower to monitor the cameras. On the plus side, in some areas where the crime rate is high, it might be a factor in reducing crime. 3) Gps tracking. Recently I saw something on the science channel that explained that unless the gps feature is set to law enforcement only, companies can track a cell phone owner's activities through out the day. Come use the information for marketing, and some use the information for researching traffic and pedestrian patterns to determine where to put various businesses. Law enforcement can use the feature to find missing persons or criminals. But I am not sure I want people to know everywhere I go.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think? You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of. Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|