I'd be 50/50 on this point if the camera didn't just up and disappear after an official journalistic entity inquired about their existence...
Then when you consider the (bullshit) form style response from a branch of our own government and the fact that managers at the post office we not alerted to the camera's existence...
As alluded to in the report when they brought up the recent congressional hearings where it was found out that address information on packages had been/is being recorded and stored.... I think the problem has much more to do with the quickly growing trend of extremely subversive surveillance than it has to do with this particular incident or surveillance in general. If its merits were being openly debated by the entities putting it in place then this would be an entirely different story. But when journalistic inquires are met with secrecy and form letters? Go and ask your local police about the cameras on certain corners and I'd bet you're more likely to get a more personable/human answer than was obtained here in this story. Just my take.
Also... I think most people can plainly see the merit in having cameras mounted on street corners if they have ever been involved in a he said/she said style accident at one of those street corners. Not saying it makes it right or wrong but I think it's easier for people to see the merit in something like that where it might actually protect them personally from someone doing something reckless. How often are people genuinely afraid of dangerous packages outside of ticking boxes in movies or ricin scares in the media? I think it's far more likely that the cameras you speak of at intersections would take a dangerous man off the streets (drunk drivers, criminals on the run) before a post office camera. Again, doesn't make it right or wrong in my mind, but it does make it a bigger deal.
Then when you consider the (bullshit) form style response from a branch of our own government and the fact that managers at the post office we not alerted to the camera's existence...
As alluded to in the report when they brought up the recent congressional hearings where it was found out that address information on packages had been/is being recorded and stored.... I think the problem has much more to do with the quickly growing trend of extremely subversive surveillance than it has to do with this particular incident or surveillance in general. If its merits were being openly debated by the entities putting it in place then this would be an entirely different story. But when journalistic inquires are met with secrecy and form letters? Go and ask your local police about the cameras on certain corners and I'd bet you're more likely to get a more personable/human answer than was obtained here in this story. Just my take.
Also... I think most people can plainly see the merit in having cameras mounted on street corners if they have ever been involved in a he said/she said style accident at one of those street corners. Not saying it makes it right or wrong but I think it's easier for people to see the merit in something like that where it might actually protect them personally from someone doing something reckless. How often are people genuinely afraid of dangerous packages outside of ticking boxes in movies or ricin scares in the media? I think it's far more likely that the cameras you speak of at intersections would take a dangerous man off the streets (drunk drivers, criminals on the run) before a post office camera. Again, doesn't make it right or wrong in my mind, but it does make it a bigger deal.