The police do NOT just go around arresting people. They must first compile evidence against you before treating you as a suspect. In the case of public video surveillance, everyone is treated as a suspect simply for being in public. Your “the government is watching you” anyway argument just goes to show how accepting people are of what should be considered a gross infraction of our collective right to privacy.

Before the government starts installing cameras to monitor me, I want cameras following every government official so that I can keep MY eyes on THEM. That might be a fair trade.

Interesting blog, Melissa. Bookmarked it!

A person is arrested when there is some evidence that he or she has committed or will soon commit a crime. There is no evidence that every single person driving into or out of Tiburon, Calif., has committed or will soon commit a crime. But, the constant video surveillance means that every single person will be treated as if there is such evidence; they will be treated as suspects of as-yet-unknown or -unforeseen crimes.

Yes, European countries have been using camera surveillance systems for years, but there is no evidence that cameras have a substantial effect on crime. In fact, reports show cameras do not have a significant effect on crime. These reports (pdf) were produced by entities such as the UK Home Office (comparable to the US departments of Justice and Homeland Security), which had every incentive to prove that camera surveillance did decrease crime. You can find out more here (pdf) and here.

I do not believe that camera surveillance systems are worth the cost in terms of money, manpower or civil liberties.

You had, as many others say, “you are innocent until proven guilty” That been the case, why is a person arrested before being proven guilty? Only guilty persons should be arrested. I believe that cameras to prevent crime in this times is acceptable. European countries have been using them for years and it has proven to be a crime deterrent. Besides, anyone that thinks the government doesn’t know your life history is been naive. I was one of those persons until I applied for SS and found out that answers to questions presented to me, were already in the computer! Answers that by the way I had forgoten about ’cause they were from situations that occurred at least 40 years ago!

Yes, I was thinking only of U.S. cities when I was being interviewed, but I don’t believe there are any international cities that have such a tracking system either. In London, there is tracking of vehicles in congestion zones, but there isn’t tracking of all vehicles as they enter into or exit out of the city limits. New York City is attempting to set up a similar system for parts of Manhattan, but not for the entire city; the NYCLU has filed suit.

Try London. They call it ‘Congestion Charging’ (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/).

Every vehicle within the congestion zone is photographed, its registration read by OCR and cross-referenced in a database. If the congestion charge (£8) has been paid for that vehicle’s tag, the number is ignored. If not, the number is held. After a day, the charge goes up to £10. A day after that, a penalty notice (PCN) for £120 is issued to the registered owner (if you pay within 14 days, you only pay half – £60). After 28 days, a Charge Certificate (£180 penalty) is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. 21 days after that, if the fee has not been satisfied, the issue is handed to the Courts and the local Bailiffs will deal with it. If a vehicle with 3 PCNs against it is photographed, it will be immobilized (booted) or towed. £70 to unboot, £200 towing fee with £40/day storage fee.

Nobody cares who was driving the vehicle. The owner is liable.

Perhaps the comment meant ‘no town in the USA’?

The police always have the right to look up a lisense plate, this technology just makes it a little more timley…ever think it could save a life?