After speaking with a friend of mine over the phone, I started to lament about a piece of information he told me about red light cameras. He mentioned that at two different intersections in the Sacramento, CA area around Greenback and Auburn, red light cameras are apparently installed and ready to click. This is in addition to several other intersections in the Sacramento area, not to mention around the country.

My loathing for any overbearing government is limitless. I find red light cameras to be completely unconstitutional, irrespective of any court decision made about the issue. The constant argument is public safety. We are doing this for public safety. The last time I checked, drivers are still able to safely traverse intersections without causing a wreck and/or a fatality without the presence of a camera. Also, the last time I checked, there is not an epidemic of t-bones at intersections because cameras are not there.

First off, cameras do nothing to actually stop someone from running a red light or safely driving for that matter. They are there for one thing, revenue. Public safety is used as a pretext to generate this revenue because states and cities are unable and unwilling to control their budgets.

And second, red light cameras have demonstrated themselves to be unreliable, at best, and just as costly as putting another officer on the street in terms of maintenance and court costs for processing these red light tickets. A former local talk show host Phil Cowan brought these issues up several times on his show.

I would much rather have another officer on the street, hence a job for someone, than have cameras that don't actually do anything to make people safer.

Although, if you think this is bad, go to Great Britain where they have cameras all over the place. They are essentially living in a surveillance society and we are not too far behind, if we are not there already.

I know that many people do not want government watching them for any reason. Others say, I have nothing to hide, so who cares? The latter argument is an anathema to anyone who claims to cherish freedoms, liberties and rights. No one should ever want the government to be intrusive in their lives for any reason. Public safety easily translates into public oversight. It does not take much to cross that line, nor others down that same road.

The only exception to government run cameras I am willing to accept are those operated at government buildings and institutions for specific internal security purposes. However, once you are outside said establishment, government oversight should cease. Because, at that point, you are no longer subject to specific security procedures and you are in the public domain. One should be able to get away from government oversight for at least a little while.

Another issue related to the red light camera issue are DUI checkpoints. I also find these to be unconstitutional. These checkpoints presume guilt before innocence. It ties up traffic for no reason. And it does not really focus the attention onto more obvious places of drunkeness, like bars and clubs for example. If the police want to stop drunk drivers, get them before they get in their cars and leave the rest of us alone. From my point of view, being someone who rarely drinks and has never been drunk, it is an unreasonable search and seizure. It's the assumption that I am drunk until it is proved that I am sober.

Some of you believe these actions of red light cameras and DUI checkpoints are nothing more than inocuous government actions. They are, for now. However, as you read throughout history, public safety is always used as a pretext for more oppressive and overbearing government.

I know I prefer the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to that of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. How about you?

Alan W.