Privacy in Oakland: The Big Picture
Jackie Mason | June 17, 2005
[hidden by request]
Patrick Little | June 17, 2005
I think the facts in the Yahoo post are wrong. I have read a couple of articles that have different facts.
First:
(link)
"We're warning everyone: Next time, the image won't be blurred," (Oakland) City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente said. The billboards will only show images of people convicted of soliciting sex, he said."
Third: (link)
"De La Fuente said the billboards had been donated to Oakland by Clear Channel Communications Inc. and Viacom Inc."
You want to talk about costs associated with smoking.
(link)
Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.
Scott Hardie | June 16, 2005
A year and a half after our Parking Lot Privacy discussion (link) the same trend resurfaces, but this time with higher stakes. Instead of exposing pornography customers to their wives and girlfriends, the city of Oakland is putting up billboards with photographs of men who were arrested for soliciting prostitution. (link)
First thought: Arrested? Not even convicted? It could be a minor misunderstanding that puts your face up there.
Second thought: How is this not harassment, or intimidation, or defamation? How is this legal? (Now that I have asked, I'm sure I will get a response explaining how it's legal.)
Third thought: Is this worth taxpayer dollars? The names of these men are already published in newspapers. Will a decrease in the overall cost of processing and incarcerating offenders offset the cost of the billboard program? I ask because the program is already on shaky ground and could sure use something like a financial underpinning to justify it. I'd be opposed to the high government taxation of cigarettes with the intention of eliminating smoking – it interferes with citizens' lifestyle choices and with business – if the program didn't wind up saving a great deal of taxpayer dollars in the long run. Does this billboard program have a similar justification that makes it incontestible? (Hmm... Maybe the government should tax prostitution out of existence... Nah.)