Security camera mars Jefferson Memorial

In article ,
Charles Packer wrote:

I was at the Jefferson Memorial yesterday photographing for a Web
page I'm planning on Washington's security barriers...

http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg

and I noticed the purveyors of hysteria have outdone themselves.
There's now a security camera hanging off the memorial itself:

http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg

Hmm... a Web search indeed turns up newspaper stories indicating
that this camera plan was announced two years ago by the Park
Service.

Oh well, a little later I caught a moment that reminds us why
people ever might want to visit Washington in the first place:

Many of the physical "security" barriers that were even errected pre
September 11 are an eyesore and don't really do much. But an
unobtrusive
camera? Get a life. You are aware that DC was an unhit target 2.5
years
ago.


http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg
http://cpacker.org/a4.jpg

Do you want this on the Metro?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040311/D818EM8G1.html

Of course. Since the fools at Metro can't even stop parking lot
thieves... We're pretty much just all screwed. Your best bet is a
concealed firearm and a communication device that is not reliant on
civilian wireless networks.

--
0--------------------------------------------------------------------0
| http://www.unrealtournament2004.com | Have You Played Atari Today? |
0--------------------------------------------------------------------0
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

ORMEL (Sean Connery) wrote in message
...
Many of the physical "security" barriers that were even errected pre
September 11 are an eyesore and don't really do much. But an
unobtrusive
camera? Get a life. You are aware that DC was an unhit target 2.5
years
ago.

Actually, I'm more willing than a lot of civil libertarians to accept
cameras as a part of our culture. But the one on the Jefferson
Memorial is NOT "unobtrusive". It's the stupidest camera placement
I've seen. They could have put it on a pole nearby.

--
(Charles Packer)
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

ORMEL (Sean Connery) wrote in message
...
Many of the physical "security" barriers that were even errected pre
September 11 are an eyesore and don't really do much. But an
unobtrusive
camera? Get a life. You are aware that DC was an unhit target 2.5
years
ago.

Actually, I'm more willing than a lot of civil libertarians to accept
cameras as a part of our culture. But the one on the Jefferson
Memorial is NOT "unobtrusive". It's the stupidest camera placement
I've seen. They could have put it on a pole nearby.

--
(Charles Packer)
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

ORMEL (Sean Connery) wrote in message
...
Many of the physical "security" barriers that were even errected pre
September 11 are an eyesore and don't really do much. But an
unobtrusive
camera? Get a life. You are aware that DC was an unhit target 2.5
years
ago.

Actually, I'm more willing than a lot of civil libertarians to accept
cameras as a part of our culture. But the one on the Jefferson
Memorial is NOT "unobtrusive". It's the stupidest camera placement
I've seen. They could have put it on a pole nearby.

--
(Charles Packer)
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

ORMEL (Sean Connery) wrote in message
...
Many of the physical "security" barriers that were even errected pre
September 11 are an eyesore and don't really do much. But an
unobtrusive
camera? Get a life. You are aware that DC was an unhit target 2.5
years
ago.

Actually, I'm more willing than a lot of civil libertarians to accept
cameras as a part of our culture. But the one on the Jefferson
Memorial is NOT "unobtrusive". It's the stupidest camera placement
I've seen. They could have put it on a pole nearby.

--
(Charles Packer)
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

ORMEL (Sean Connery) wrote in message
...
Many of the physical "security" barriers that were even errected pre
September 11 are an eyesore and don't really do much. But an
unobtrusive
camera? Get a life. You are aware that DC was an unhit target 2.5
years
ago.

Actually, I'm more willing than a lot of civil libertarians to accept
cameras as a part of our culture. But the one on the Jefferson
Memorial is NOT "unobtrusive". It's the stupidest camera placement
I've seen. They could have put it on a pole nearby.

--
(Charles Packer)
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Charles Packer" wrote in message
om...
ORMEL (Sean Connery) wrote in message
...
Many of the physical "security" barriers that were even errected pre
September 11 are an eyesore and don't really do much. But an
unobtrusive
camera? Get a life. You are aware that DC was an unhit target 2.5
years
ago.

Actually, I'm more willing than a lot of civil libertarians to
accept
cameras as a part of our culture. But the one on the Jefferson
Memorial is NOT "unobtrusive". It's the stupidest camera placement
I've seen. They could have put it on a pole nearby.

--
(Charles Packer)
http://cpacker.org/whatnews

It depends on what they are looking at, and what in area in particular
they
are protecting. An added pole 'nearby' would be more obtrusive, don't
you
think - it's a pretty open area there. Again, I think the bright
orange
snow fencing is a lot worse.

Chris
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Charles Packer" wrote in message
om...
ORMEL (Sean Connery) wrote in message
...
Many of the physical "security" barriers that were even errected pre
September 11 are an eyesore and don't really do much. But an
unobtrusive
camera? Get a life. You are aware that DC was an unhit target 2.5
years
ago.

Actually, I'm more willing than a lot of civil libertarians to
accept
cameras as a part of our culture. But the one on the Jefferson
Memorial is NOT "unobtrusive". It's the stupidest camera placement
I've seen. They could have put it on a pole nearby.

--
(Charles Packer)
http://cpacker.org/whatnews

It depends on what they are looking at, and what in area in particular
they
are protecting. An added pole 'nearby' would be more obtrusive, don't
you
think - it's a pretty open area there. Again, I think the bright
orange
snow fencing is a lot worse.

Chris
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Charles Packer" wrote in message
om...
ORMEL (Sean Connery) wrote in message
...
Many of the physical "security" barriers that were even errected pre
September 11 are an eyesore and don't really do much. But an
unobtrusive
camera? Get a life. You are aware that DC was an unhit target 2.5
years
ago.

Actually, I'm more willing than a lot of civil libertarians to
accept
cameras as a part of our culture. But the one on the Jefferson
Memorial is NOT "unobtrusive". It's the stupidest camera placement
I've seen. They could have put it on a pole nearby.

--
(Charles Packer)
http://cpacker.org/whatnews

It depends on what they are looking at, and what in area in particular
they
are protecting. An added pole 'nearby' would be more obtrusive, don't
you
think - it's a pretty open area there. Again, I think the bright
orange
snow fencing is a lot worse.

Chris
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Charles Packer" wrote in message
om...
ORMEL (Sean Connery) wrote in message
...
Many of the physical "security" barriers that were even errected pre
September 11 are an eyesore and don't really do much. But an
unobtrusive
camera? Get a life. You are aware that DC was an unhit target 2.5
years
ago.

Actually, I'm more willing than a lot of civil libertarians to
accept
cameras as a part of our culture. But the one on the Jefferson
Memorial is NOT "unobtrusive". It's the stupidest camera placement
I've seen. They could have put it on a pole nearby.

--
(Charles Packer)
http://cpacker.org/whatnews

It depends on what they are looking at, and what in area in particular
they
are protecting. An added pole 'nearby' would be more obtrusive, don't
you
think - it's a pretty open area there. Again, I think the bright
orange
snow fencing is a lot worse.

Chris
--multiplaza.nl.nu--