Surveillance SquareOffs

Yes

4

No

5

Yes

Max DeYoung
2
Max DeYoung

And then aggressively prosecute the offenders. Like that will ever happen.

Reply

No

William
1
William

Big brother already is intrusive enough

Reply

Yes

0

No

0

Yes

No one has commented yet

No

No one has commented yet

Yes

1

No

5

Yes

No one has commented yet

No

Frank Jung
1
Frank Jung

These businesses that agree could still turn their video over to police so what's the big deal.

Reply
Max DeYoung
Max DeYoung

I agree, but the government putting in their own cameras stinks of a Police State. The government could then pick and choose who they want to prosecute. Currently they prosecute, sentence, and then parole, all in one operation. That doesn't curb crime either.

Once_Upon_a_Tiger
0
Once_Upon_a_Tiger

Policy doesn't define crime, that's the job of legislature. Businesses set up what level of agreeance they have to law enforcement accessing cameras through FUSUS. Trust comes from the community side as well; stop believing the "police are bogeyman all the time" fairytale.

Reply
Young Paper Chaser
0
Young Paper Chaser

No because if they accepted the Fusus video system, businesses that aren't for it could choose to opt out of the program.

Reply
Young Paper Chaser
Young Paper Chaser

The businesses that are for the Fusus video system would not have to worry if the accepted the Fusus video system

About Surveillance

Debates and polls on Surveillance from the SquareOffs community. Vote on real questions, see how the public is split, and back your side with a defense.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best possible experience on our website. Learn more OK, GOT IT