It'd still be better than calling Comcast
I'm pretty sure a significant number of people would put Comcast in the same category as criminals.
"I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid.
Would you touch my bum one last time?"
Dave: I'm sorry, HAL. I'm afraid I cannot do that....
"...City councilman Johnny Khamis dismissed such criticism: "This is a public street. You're not expecting privacy on a public street."
So you won't mind if I just set up this webcam on the public street outside of your home and feed that stream to the internet, right?
Or perhaps we'll find some volunteers to follow you and your family around day and night as you drive around. That won't seem creepy or invasive at all, I'm sure. And after all, we're just driving around on public streets, right?
Sometimes I really wonder what the hell it would take to get these morons to wake about privacy and how it feels to be monitored day and night.
Firstly, I am all for privacy. That said, I agree with "Johnny" Khamis. The idea that someone could possibly learn something about any particular individual if they wanted to has always been feasible even without scanners. As for the suggestion that volunteers follow an individual around -- that sounds a bit like stalking to me (for which there is legal recourse).
So, if fighting car theft is the reason, will they agree up front to abandon the effort if a significant drop in car theft is not realized? I betcha not.
No, if there is a significant drop then the more likely conclusion is that the method is effective in preventing car theft. This would only strengthen the argument in favor of such devices.
"Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can* you believe?!" -- Bullwinkle J. Moose