Spike Jones wrote:
>
> Ruthanna R Gordon wrote:
>
> > (It also says, if I'm going to be honest, that perhaps I think
> > Lockheed-Martin ought to buy their surveilance photos from private Russian
> > satelite owners, same as the rest of us...
>
> LM has its own commercial imaging satellites. We need not buy
> them from the commies... {8^D
>
> > However, I am against the public
> > surveilance that is already in place as well, with the exception of very
> > limited things like the cameras that focus on ATM keypads.
>
> Can you think of *any* other places where you *want* cameras?
> Just having cameras at the ATM prevents or greatly reduces the
> probability of someone from robbing you, does it not? spike
It is also:
a) on private property
b) privately owned
c) the camera signal is not broadcast all over the world for anyone to
see.
d) not very effective. Even Secretary Donna Shalala has been robbed at
an ATM with a camera. She wasn't armed, and dropped to the ground and
screamed like a banshee. Thats a quite 'impressive' way for a US Cabinet
Secretary to have to behave in order to deter a criminal attack.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:55 MDT