Tasers? Surveillance cameras on our streets? Automated license plate readers? Government spying on innocent residents going about their business in our quiet little suburb?

Sounds more like East Germany under the Stasi.

Remember our Constitutional protections, and what they were intended to protect us from, i.e. tyrannical government!

Surveillance cameras. Red light cameras. License plate readers.

For those that argue that the above are legal, and seek the alleged security they may provide, I ask: where is the line? The line YOU draw that says big government intrusion has gone too far for you, or too far for the constitutionally protected right to privacy?

Funny thing about those that think bi intrusive governments get to get away with all this - they never offer an explanation of what is "too much".

Is it too much if the government points a camera from the street, points it onto your 'property'? Drones flying overhead and recording everything, including your back yard? Wall piercing vision devices on a drone?

If you think massive collection and storage of license plate data is okay, then please tell me where you draw the line.

Pending your rational answer, I'll stick with the ACLU.

The line is The Constitution.

The security over civil liberty meme seems pretty dumb when you look at that post in PA online: more Americans have died this year from gun toting toddlers, than for terrorists.

This is a serious infringement of our privacy. We know from past experience that not all law enforcement personnel can be relied upon to respect or protect the information that police officers collect. This is the thin end of the wedge.

Just say, "No!"

We know from experience that not all people that buy binoculars respect the privacy of those around them. Let's ban binoculars!

In addition to banning binoculars maybe we should not hire any police officers who can remember what that saw more than 24 hours ago.