Big Brother takes another step in it's roll towards complete control and the sheep just stand and watch.

Sent by Jim Carpenter | 4:56 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I'm not one to view the government as the boogey man, but count me in the minority of Republicans who oppose the proliferation of surveillance cameras. This isn't Big Brother, but it is a slippery slope in that direction. I simply do not see why they are necessary.

Sent by Andrew | 5:26 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I don't feel threatened by having surveillance cameras perched above us. I mean these cameras have apparently done very well in the UK with regards to crime and potential terrorist attacks (catching people not necessarily thwarting attacks). Until the moment a dedicated agency is developed to constantly monitor video footage, my "right" to not be videotaped by a surveillance camera shouldn't be in jeopardy.

Sent by E.L. Gulbranson | 5:59 PM ET | 07-30-2007

Surveillance really doesn't bother me. Gathering a large amount of data now might help future scientific/historical pursuits, and I don't have anything to hide.

So long as the authorities do not use this resource to abuse their power, and so long as the laws preserve our constitutional rights I am not bothered.

I'm more worried about us becoming "A Brave New World" than "1984"

Sent by Jody Sol | 6:12 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I have heard that this is an "Invasion of Privacy." I disagree; when you are out in the public sector you do not have a cloak of invisability that protects you from any surveillance. If there were a police officer on every corner watching what everyone was doing, no one would complain about lack of privacy. They would feel safe. So what's wrong with ONE cop watching many people? NOTHING

Sent by Tom Neu | 6:32 PM ET | 07-30-2007

I think it's a swell idea! NOTHING in our country's history or current existence makes me want to stop for even a split second to question the ever increasing surveillance of our society.

Sent by Ady | 8:16 PM ET | 07-30-2007

Yeah, ABC didn't ask me about thier poll, (not that anyone ever asks!)
They used to tell me that character could be judged by a persons' actions when no other was present. And because I believe that I have strong character and a true moral bearing, I refuse the notion that my government needs to watch me or any other American citizen for that matter. I also believe that we each, are responsible for our own personal safety and well being.
Of course, there is immense and obvious value to a Britian style of video surveilance, but could we not invest in ourselves? Could we not educate ourselves, if ever so slowly, to become less needful of being watched? Like children, or sheep.

Sent by D Cook | 10:35 PM ET | 07-30-2007

As said by Ady: "NOTHING in our country's history or current existence makes me want to stop for even a split second to question the ever increasing surveillance of our society.".

I think surveillance may be a necessary path to take (how many people question surveillance in convenience stores), but to NEVER question it is problematic. We should always question our governments actions, we should also stimulate and participate in debates. If you disagree then take a look at what ignorance did for the war in Iraq, ignorance does not absolve you from the responsibility to direct what our government does both at home and abroad. Ignorance, in this case, is being complicit.

Sent by E.L. Gulbranson | 10:49 AM ET | 07-31-2007

"Surveillance really doesn't bother me. Gathering a large amount of data now might help future scientific/historical pursuits, and I don't have anything to hide.

So long as the authorities do not use this resource to abuse their power, and so long as the laws preserve our constitutional rights I am not bothered.

I'm more worried about us becoming "A Brave New World" than "1984""

Recommended reading for Ady, Tom Neu and all others who share their opinions: George Orwell, 1984. It's a warning about this very thing. Also, Franz Kafka's The Trial, a warning about willingly giving up your rights for a false feeling of security. BTW, just in case someone is thinking this, 1984 was not intended as a prediction of what would actually happen in that year. Orwell wrote it in 1948 and just turned the last two years around to set it sometime in the future. Both books were inspired by the Nazis and/or Stalin's Soviet Union. In 1984, a war without end leads the populace to give up personal liberties entirely and allow every movement they make to be recorded by the government. The promise is that someday it will end, but it never does. In The Trial, a man willingly gives up his rights and is imprisoned by officials who use precisely the same logic that Jody Sol used here. "If ya got nothing to hide, don't worry". The point that all three of these people miss lies in the second part of Sol's post. The message that Orwell and Kafka were trying to get across, based on real life, not fantasy, is that ALL AUTHORITIES WILL abuse this kind of power if the people give it to them, eventually. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" will always be true. It will never change. As for Ady's comment about our country's history, may I remind him of the Americans of Japanese descent who were imprisoned in camps and their property confiscated during WWII. The constitution did not protect them. Also, as I write this, there are camps all across the country sitting empty, waiting for the day when someone declares martial law and they start rounding up citizens. These are real, not fiction. I'm sure German and Soviet citizens probably thought such ideas were far fetched too, before they happened. A final point, how much do you trust the present administration to respect your rights and NOT abuse whatever power they get?

Sent by John R. Otten | 2:37 PM ET | 07-31-2007

The camera that your wife saw was much more likely part of the Video Imaging Detection System (VIDS) as described on p. 4 of the Virginia State Route 7 Video Detection System Performance Assessment report (1.2-MB PDF).

A MoDOT article Video Cameras at Signalized Intersections Frequently Asked Questions expands on the information in the FHwA report, mentioning that the traffic signal cameras are a cost-effective replacement for the old in-pavement loops and do not record anything.

Sent by DI | 5:03 PM ET | 07-31-2007

I absolutely cannot believe my ears. I don't think that any of the """"Americans"""" in this poll have read Orwell or even heard of Foucault's panopticon. This just blows my mind. For a followup, there must now be a poll to see how many Americans would ""be ok with it"" if Bush suspended the 2008 election.

Sent by Future Halliburton Detention Center Inmate | 8:42 PM ET | 08-12-2007

To you people who say it doesn't bother me "I don't have anything to hide!" Ever talked to your accountant about stretching an exemption? Ever told a friend you drove home tipsy? Ever told a friend you really really did not like the Vice-President? That you opposed a war and were thinking of organizing a rally against it? How can you say you don't have anything to hide when you don't even know what they are looking for.

Sent by Christian | 8:17 AM ET | 08-19-2007

It's comfortable to believe that our government would never abuse its powers over us. Is that belief historically accurate? Does it conform to your understanding of human nature?
When you give someone an inch, do they then want a mile?

I have nothing to hide from anyone; I obey laws, etc. However, there may come at time in the near future when people want to protect such civil liberties as property rights, gun rights, a right to a fair trial, freedom of religion (or freedom from religion) from such forces as those leading us into a North American Union.

Will the people be able to organize, communicate, and peacefully assemble to protect these civil liberties from government intrusion AFTER we have surrendered our privacy, AFTER we have submitted ourselves to surveillance?

Watch out, folks. Those who seek to defend our Constitutional rights are on the verge of being labelled "terrorists" by those legislators who recently supported HR 1955 in the House of Representatives.

Sent by Austin James | 9:12 PM ET | 10-26-2007

There is nothing wrong with video surveillance. The police and the government should be able to watch anyone and everyone all the time, everywhere they go. There should be no privacy anywhere. Privacy is evil. Privacy allows evil people to do evil deeds. Only evil people desire privacy, so they can do evil things and not get caught. If you desire privacy you are an evil person with something to hide.

Sent by Rick Canyon | 1:46 PM ET | 02-09-2008