"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:30 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?


Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.


Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone

http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html

Keith

Did you miss the part where it explained that only less than
300 of the cameras were government owned, and that
these were security cameras on government buildings?


Ah so you believe that private surveillance cameras
by definition are non intrusive and that only 300
government cameras dont count

If I want to video the street in front of my house that is hardly
"big brother". In the UK the government maintains surveillance
on the public, the US government does not.


In the UK the police maintain surveillance of public
spaces, there are actually tighter controls on cameras
in workplaces and private locations than the US

We dont have a UK TV show called 'Busted On The Job'
showing surveillance footage of employees.

Lets get real here.

Keith