I'm waiting for this hysteria to attempt to ooze across the pond. We all know that the appearance of security is far better than actual security, don't we?

I was sure it had when I spotted the cameras at the Bath/Princess/Concession interesection, but an inquiry to my councillor (Kevin George) got me the explanation that they're traffic cameras only. I'm not sure whether I believe that or not.

The cameras I worry about are much more invasive. Have you read my LLM thesis on this point? It is linked from this page. Questions will be asked by Thursday at 8 pm.

John G. has more.

Expect far more of this stuff here. "Freedom" is not considered a right, from either the left or right perspective anymore. Here's someone losing their license for giving "the V" to a mobile camera.

As long as biometrics can be copied and faked (gelatin fingerprints, for instance), they should NEVER be trusted for anything remotely official.

Off to do my assigned reading ... :-)

And this is why the stalling of Canadian court recognition of "autonomy" in the right to liberty in section 7 is so troubling to me. It arose at a time that technology was arising but not in that context. The cause appears to have gotten side tracked by the Dec 2003 marijuana rulings which bugs me to no end.

Have you seen this poster, Alan? I'm moving to an uninhabited island if they start popping up in Kingston

Can you explain this a little more (or provide a readable link).

David, your link just loops back to this thread. I am not sure what you mean.

Yes, exactly. What was the autonomy ruling and what were the implications of it? In 200 words or less :-)

Drill here, here and here for starters. I have no time to write the sort passage but I know I can get it after work.

Please feel free to correct me, but Greene King is a private establishment. I see no reason whey they should not be able to impose whatever dress-code they like. As I often sport a Trilby myself, I would be reluctant to do business with them but then there is not much to Hereford once you have seen the Cathedral and the china shops so I do not expect to encounter this particular problem any time soon.

I would want comfort as to the other end of the wire from the camera before I was assured that both sides of the contract implied by my entry into the establishment were being honoured. The gravity of this need for clarification is especially true given the potential for unconscionability in the dealings due to their control of certain aspects of the market which create an inequality of bargaining power as one stands weak-kneed upon the threshold of the pub.

"We have met the enemy and he is us," as Walt Kelley would have said. Anyway, Philip K. Dick would be proud. I don't like this trend towards security or pseudo security either. It seems like a real waste of time and effort.

On the issue of shopping around and finding a less security oriented bar, someone (I can't remember who) once did some work looking at the consequences to a society of a shift from public to private when it came to gathering spaces. What I mean is, in the not too recent past everyone shopped in the public square, or met on the street on the way to church. Now, many gathering spaces are in fact private and people drive to them, i.e., malls, private pubs etc. People don't go to church or shop at the market as much and since people are gathering on private property they're subject to different laws, security guards can search your bag or kick you out etc.. It's true, that you can shop elsewhere, or go to another bar, but that's not where your neighbours are and anyway, the rules are probably the same there. I feel sorry for the guy. I think I would want to stay home if I were him.

Stephen Harper once wore a hat...