Press "Enter" to skip to content

Why doesn't surveillance work better as a preventative to crime?

Share

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lieberman-calls-for-wider-use-of-surveillance-cameras-2007-07-01.html

Would you advocate the use of something similar to Orwell’s "telescreens"? You would need to relinquish ALL privacy (bathroom habits, bedroom activities, etc.).

Would you be willing to accept the telescreens into your home?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen

Share

5 Comments

  1. TheOrangeEvil TheOrangeEvil

    In the absence of proof, liberty should always be the default. So, no, law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be monitored.

  2. New Dad New Dad

    *Nope*, but it is human nature to meddle into others affairs and to control the freewill of the populace through other means than moral education

  3. Maxx P Maxx P

    No one thinks they will ever be caught, regardless of the level of surveillance.

    No I would not give up any more freedom then I already have.

  4. russell m russell m

    surveillabce dont prevent crime they watch crime happen then catch the culprits!

    the fear of God and the love for people prevents crime.

    telescreens at home? think about the money used for them. put them for better used, eg; airports train stations, streets. at home duhhhhh!

  5. wild-man of Borneo wild-man of Borneo

    Surveillance can only tell what had happened.
    Not what is going to happen.
    Preventative teach living human kind not to create the fault and pay the price.
    When the little children learn about preventative with time they will not break the law because of the price the have to pay in getting caught with it.
    Ever wonder how the Robocops were having a tough time chasing the I-Robots?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.