xml:space="preserve">
xml:space="preserve">
Advertisement
Advertisement

Why does The Sun favor cameras to enforce driving laws but not crime surveillance?

Montgomery County's plan to use marked, roadside cameras to see if drivers are distracted by their cell phones gets a positive review from The Sun's editorial board while a plan to use spy planes in Baltimore got a negative one.
Montgomery County's plan to use marked, roadside cameras to see if drivers are distracted by their cell phones gets a positive review from The Sun's editorial board while a plan to use spy planes in Baltimore got a negative one. (Maridav/Dreamstime/TNS)

The Sun works in mysterious ways. Protecting us from distracted driving is a useful thing, and technology can help, but why is The Sun so inconsistent on these matters (“Cell phone enforcement cameras: a potentially life-saving idea worth trying,” Dec. 17)?

A camera in the sky that shows people as dots, trying to hold people accountable for shootings and robberies is a threat to everyone, but peering into their cars and tracking their vehicles is a good thing (“Aerial surveillance is not the answer to Baltimore’s crime problem,” Oct. 14).

Advertisement

Both have utility and deserve consideration, but I think you will find you are more likely to be assaulted here than hit by a distracted driver in Baltimore. Shouldn’t The Sun prioritize advocacy for technology to stop violent crime at least as much as driver safety?

Greg Boss, Baltimore

Advertisement
Advertisement

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.

Recommended on Baltimore Sun

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement