Kentak,
I understand your point.
Its not that its illegal, its that people shouldn't accept it from their leaders. Unfortunately, it seems that most folks are willing to sacrifice freedom for security all day long.
I am not just concerned with the current state of things - I am much more concerned with the future state of things.
Its not just about governments and citizens covering public areas with video cameras...
You always have to ask, "what's next?"
As time passes, the next step may be the placing video cameras in the homes of convicts on parole, especially sex offenders and those with a history of domestic violence. Most citizens will not have strong objections.
This will be followed by cameras being placed in the homes of those criminals who were convicted of other, often less severe crimes. Most people won't care - because this SEEMS to only effect criminals.
Simultaniously, many private citizens will choose to place cameras in their homes for purposes of security and liability - especially citizens with children. Many families have already chosen to do so.
These aren't just going to be "home movies". At some point the video feed will be transmitted out of the home, perhaps on the web, or to a database.
It is only a matter of time before gov. agencies monitor these feeds for key words as they often do with cell phone transmissions. Another inevitability will be the implementation of software which will identify the folks on camera.
I know those are big jumps. It goes further, but I'm going to stop there.
IT ISN'T "IF"
IT IS "WHEN?"
"Burnsie, so if you studied Mcluhan do you think there is any hope? Isn't the idea that if we have electronic communications we'll be worse for it? I don't remember the details, maybe you do?"
Lucky,
Marshall McLuhan was the "Godfather" of modern communication theory. Its really hard to discuss someone like him on a board like this - because of the breadth and depth of his communication theories. If you want a good summary, ready The Essential McLuhan. To answer your question, McLuhan definitely moved that way towards the later part of his life - he always "sort of" believed media could be used towards ultimately constructive OR destructive ends, but he began to lose hope as time passed. He predicted what he called the "retribalizaton" of our culture - not just for the US, but (at least) the western world.
The most effective propaganda is that which influences a subject profoundly, while the subject bears no conscious understanding that he is being influenced. SO OF COURSE THE PUBLIC DOESN'T SEE PROPAGANDA FOR WHAT IT IS - THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO!
Consider Nazi Germany. The German people really believed they were defending their homeland. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry, headed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, infiltrated ALMOST every aspect of the German media. Most Germans were not aware that this propaganda altered their entire perspective of the world and of their nation and it's leaders.
Now, consider the fact that this was in the 40s, and they had 40s media technology. For example, we're talking black and white movies, with (relatively) horrible audio fidelity and video clarity, yellow newspapers, etc.
Compare that to the "tools" available today. For example big screen, hi-def, color TV w/ often hundreds of channels. We're talking about hollywood budgets and hollywood quality, or better. The average child watches 3 hours of television per day! The average person "digests" about 3000 advertising messages per day.
The results? There have been novels written on the results.
Just wait - when media "constructors" have the ability to monitor the effects of their output in an even clearer, faster way than they already can - we're in deep shiz.
Now I'm rambling. Maybe I'm just chicken little?
