Some advocacy groups seem to be more interested in fighting corporations and government than in enacting meaningful privacy laws.
Caught on Camera: The Inconsistency of Privacy Advocates on Surveillance Technology
ITIF Senior Analyst Daniel Castro notes that privacy advocates who have opposed the use of surveillance cameras have tried to change their talking points in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. For years these advocates have lobbied for stricter rules on the use of surveillance cameras that limit their effectiveness, and then later try to claim that this means these systems are not useful. Moreover, until now, these privacy advocates have consistently denied any public value from surveillance cameras, and now that this argument has been lost, they are retreating to other tired claims. In this article, Castro refutes those claims and calls out privacy groups like ACLU, EPIC, and EFF for their attempts to disguise ideological opposition to surveillance cameras as a rational debate about cost and effectiveness.