If you hated the the 2014 Braves, you might love the 2014 World Series. The Braves drove us to distraction and brought “termination” to Frank Wren, the general manager who built them, by swinging big, missing big and spitting the bit in September.
See Flashback Fotos on myajc.com for only 99 cents. Visit the MyAJC archives for a historic look at Atlanta from Midtown in the 70s to Auburn Avenue and even life here before traffic jams on the interstates.
12:56 p.m. — The jury that is in it’s 11th day of deliberations in the corruption trial of suspended DeKalb County CEO Burrell Ellis took it’s hour-long break of lunch, still unable to agree on verdicts for any of the 13 charges against him.
Far more provocative were Reed’s comments on surveillance and the future city of Atlanta – the contest between public safety and privacy. Listen to the exchange here:
Below is a rough transcript:
Reed: “I’m putting it on the table to have a conversation. I mean, Bill, I don’t want to scare you, but between now and 2050, if you live in a major metro….between the cameras that we will install and between your mobile phone… we would be able to put eyes on you…for about 80 percent of the time you were moving around.”
Nigut: “You say ‘we.’”
Reed: “I mean the government. And it would have to be a choice. But if you were a single person, whether man or a woman, and when you left your house, you wanted eyes on you, and you agreed to that, and you enabled us to track your phone, between our cameras and our surveillance capability, in the future, we’ll be able to know where you are 80 to 85 percent of the time.
“That has significant public safety ramifications. But it also has very serious privacy ramifications….”
Nigut: “By then you’ll be in the private sector. Are you comfortable with the fact that government will be able to track you as an individual?”
Reed: “I’m not comfortable with it if I don’t give approval for it. But I am aware that, in terms of the camera capability, I don’t believe that we’re going to be able to put that genie back in a bottle. I think that because of the risks that are associated with terrorism, an increasingly fragile international community, that we will not be able to put the surveillance capabilities back in the bottle.”