(17-12-2012 11:18 PM)Hughsie Wrote:
(15-12-2012 05:02 AM)Leela Wrote: This is about principle.
It seems that most of your post can be summed up by that sentence and I'm sorry but it is the single worst argument ever in these situations and it's also the single most used one.
When people start talking about the 'principle' of an idea it generally means they don't like the idea but can't thing of any rational legitimate concerns to fight it with so this becomes the default position, and it doesn't really mean anything at all.
(15-12-2012 11:37 PM)Humanist11 Wrote: As a law abiding citizen, I don't want to feel like I'm always being watched. I don't deserve it.
Sorry but another terrible criticism. You might know you're law abiding but how does anyone else? How do you know I am? You can't. The point is these sort of devices are partly for differentiating between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens. It's impossible to only use them against law breakers.
I'd also like to ask that, as a law abiding citizen, exactly what detriment is it to you to have these sort of devices in public places?
So, the government must *assume* that all of its citizens are criminals who want to get away with stuff, then forcibly *prevent* them by monitoring their every move. If there's no good argument against it as you claim, advance me an argument for it ? You will prevent... terrorist attacks. By allowing people you don't know from Adam access to every part and particle of your life ? No thanks. How do you know to trust the man behind the camera ?