But somehow, I am supposed to be fine with them doing it to me. Oh, wait, no I’m not!

That’s no distinction at all.

Sure it is. A camera watches everything or nothing. A cop watches based on suspicion of actual wrongdoing.

Yes. A cop has judgment. A camera does not.

That’s no distinction at all. If a camera takes a picture in the wilderness and no one looks at the picture, did it really take a picture? And if someone does look at the picture, what makes you think that person has any less judgment than a beat cop?

Finally, there can’t be very many cops standing out there watching the crowd, because their salaries add up. With cameras, it is possible that the government could afford enough of them, that if someone in power took a particular interest in you, they could start puttting the recordings together and trace everywhere you went.

And are they really much different, from a privacy standpoint, than a cop watching you?

Yes. A cop has judgment. A camera does not. And, as I said, just because I got nothing to hide, it’s no justification for someone to take a peak.

I’m working on a principle analysis here, and not really trying to argue the practicality of the cameras. Are they truly an invasion of our privacy or not, or to the degree that it actually violates your rights? And are they really much different, from a privacy standpoint, than a cop watching you? That’s all I’m asking.

Well, if it’s not a 4th amendment issue then don’t defend it as being like the police. Don’t defend one thing when you actually believe in another, just because . . . err what was I saying?

Nah, seriously, pointing out multiple defenses and attacks on an issue is kinda key. I mean, things like this are complex and have multiple cons and pros. I happen to hate the cons more than I dig the pros.

Don’t accuse it of one thing when you actually believe it’s done another, just because the first thing resonates better and riles people up more

It can’t be both a revenue scheme (primary purpose) and an invasion of privacy? And I also pointed out that, unlike cameras, police serve a secondary valuable service – namely responding. Whereas the cameras’ purpose is less valuable to me.

Ok, kidding aside. If the police are watching a crowd, so be it. They can respond. A camera can not. The police provide other benefits whereas a camera is likely just a revenue scheme.

Anybody who doesn’t understand why is beyond reason.

Now, the obvious differences between a cop and a video camera are the camera(s) have a much greater field of vision and recording capabilities. Is that where you draw the line, at being recorded? Or that they can see much more than one cop?

Of course, a camera can’t suddenly drag you away for no reason, so there’s that added safety feature.

Do you have the same amount of misgivings about public cameras watching a street corner as you might about a policeman standing there? I’m just curious where the boundary is between maintaining and violating your privacy.