City would turn red light cams into spy cams (a blast from the past)

This is a story from last July that I had to put on the backburner.

For years I've monitored the rise of the surveillance state. With every new form of surveillance, you just can't trust that it'll only be used for noble purposes. Sure it may start out that way, but before long it gets to the point where innocents are targeted. At the very least, this Big Brother trend breeds an atmosphere of arrogance and fear.

Traffic light cameras have been touted by the media as a tool to enforce highway safety. However, no sooner did red light cams appear than they instantly started sending tickets to the wrong people. Often it was because the pictures blurred the license plate numbers of cars. People who were unfairly ticketed had little recourse.

Many folks were concerned that the cameras would be made into general spying devices. Oh gee, how can anyone be so paranoid? (That last sentence is sarcasm, people.)

Well, surprise, surprise. It's happening. Last year the city of Oakland, California, decided it wanted to turn its red light cameras into full-tilt spy cameras providing 24-hour video surveillance. Trouble was, state law prohibited using red light cams for spying. So the city decided it was going to lobby to change the law.

Right-wing Fresno mayor Alan Autry also wanted a citywide surveillance system. (Autry was an actor who appeared in several episodes of 'The Dukes Of Hazzard'. So at least he's useful for something.)

Indeed, the traffic light cams were designed at first for general snooping. Using them as stand-ins for traffic cops was just a way to get the public to accept them. By easing people into this tyranny slowly, it would seem more acceptable. I call it tyranny creep.

Gee, I'm sure feeling safer now that there's all this surveillance - not!

The only monitoring that's been successful at fighting or solving crimes has been very small-scale, like you might see in stores. Across-the-board spying systems like the kind Oakland and Fresno have sought have not been successful. They've simply driven crime to where it's even less likely to be detected at all. At least once in my area, a system like this led to a homicide. And there's also the important issue of privacy - especially when the cameras pick up activity at private residences without the residents' consent.

If the surveillance state is here to stay, I'll try to keep a better eye on it to minimize abuse. I mean it literally: If I have the chance, I may photograph spy cams just so authorities know I'm on guard in case they pull any funny business. (I have photographed signs that inform folks of surveillance.)

(Source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1886.asp)