| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| A Wise Decision By A Liberal, Democrat Local Government |
| 2007-10-01 |
| Tucson has told the Target Corp. thanks, but no thanks to a $100,000 plus grant to install security cameras downtown. Some council members thought that placing cameras downtown and along North Fourth Avenue was an invasion of privacy. Merchants and others said they want the cameras to combat crime and aggressive panhandling. The council "sure didn't" talk about the issue in public, said Donovan Durband, a member of the Tucson Downtown Partnership. Durband noted the grant Target gave to Fort Worth, Texas, instead of Tucson was actually $250,000, not the $100,000 originally offered. "Enough City Council members thought this was 'Big Brother,' so Target took its money to Fort Worth," Durband said. "They haven't owned up to the fact they didn't want it." "It's not fair for the decision to be made behind closed doors," said Margo Susco, owner of Hydra Leather and More clothing store. "Our representatives owe it to us to let us have a say." Susco said she had been asking around for several weeks to determine the status of the cameras, only to find out from a reporter that the grant had been declined. Tucson police Capt. Michael Gillooly also confirmed that Target's money went to another city. "We can't get a whole lot of answers," Susco said of the council decision to pass up the Target grant. The City of Tucson had identified 14 locations for the cameras, which would have been monitored from police headquarters. For example, officers would have been able to pan the cameras over an area and zoom in to capture a license-plate number or a possible suspect. Footage would potentially have been stored for 14 to 30 days and then purged unless it was going to be used for evidence, Susco said. Tucson may not be completely out of the running for a camera grant. Dana Pack, Tucson regional manager for Target, said Target is continuing to court cities for the program, and the city could have another chance for a grant. "There's always that possibility," Pack said. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #3 It also means to recognize some facts of life, such as blue-eyed, gray haired grandmothers in wheelchairs to not need to be strip searched in airports, but that groups of young Muslim males acting in an suspicious manner, certainly do, and "racial profiling" be damned. Kinda conflicts with your libertarian dogma. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-10-01 22:54 |
| #2 Some council members thought that placing cameras downtown and along North Fourth Avenue was an invasion of privacy. Privacy in public places? This is anarchy masking under 'rights'. Too many activist intentionally confuse the issue of anonymity with privacy. You have certain rights to privacy, in your home, in your car, and on your immediate person. However, you have no 'right' to anonymity in your conduct in open public venues. If you post a cop in the very same location, there is no discussion of 'rights'. What is at issue is cost effectiveness. It's cheaper to have one cop viewing ten screens than ten cops standing in ten locations. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-10-01 10:56 |
| #1 I see great potential for reform and success if the Democrat party adopts policies opposed to "reckless surveillance" by both the government and private organizations. Since Prohibition, there has been a tremendous erosion of such liberties and freedoms, many of which were surrendered for false reasons, yet never restored. By embracing real civil liberties, not just the oppressive special interest group largess they do today, the Democrats could again regain their purpose, and far greater legitimacy. Please note that this does NOT mean surrendering to hardened criminals. It means that the public as a whole should not be treated as hardened criminals because a few hardened criminals dwell among them. It also means to recognize some facts of life, such as blue-eyed, gray haired grandmothers in wheelchairs to not need to be strip searched in airports, but that groups of young Muslim males acting in an suspicious manner, certainly do, and "racial profiling" be damned. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-10-01 10:52 |