It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Well, Ferguson was just now used as an excuse to add more cameras

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Well now. I support police officers having cameras but i just realized that this issue was used as an excuse for the government to add surveillance to the system.

Here we go, more databases, more metadata.

Someone please jump in and tell me im over analyzing this. If this were to be true it would make more sense as to why the MSM was all in on it from the beginning.

Do you think this was part of the plan?
edit on 12/1/2014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

The government doesn't need an excuse to add more surveillance cameras, they can add them wherever, whenever.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Yeah but the difference is we are begging for more cameras.

They dont want to force on us they want to create situations where we are begging for more.

Problem, reaction, solution.

Damn this one was good.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

...On cops.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
You'l use to it, been that way over here in u.k for years, if you're not up to no good, nothing to worry about!, but recently my car had tyres slashed and graffiti spray on the bonnet(hood!), when i asked them to check the camera footage, i was told theres no recording or live monitoring of that camera!, so if thats the case, not a thing to even think about!.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

What do I think?

I think no matter what, some people are just geared to think negatively about everything.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Kali74

Yeah but the difference is we are begging for more cameras.

They dont want to force on us they want to create situations where we are begging for more.

Problem, reaction, solution.

Damn this one was good.

If we were begging for them, why did Obama need an executive order to fund it?



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Ok.

problem, reaction solution.

ferguson used to foster civil unrest, civil unrest, government response, cameras on everyone recording all the time.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
And you know that when someone is caught red handed, they'l cry "its all c.g.i i tell ya"!!

edit on 1/12/14 by billyvonhelvete because: Crap spelling, its late!



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a total surveillance state is the ultimate goal of a traitourous government.

cctv generally provides notsomuch crime prevention as views on liveleak.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
You're bang on the ball with that statement, show me a government that isnt, our countrys government has always been corrupt, no matter whos the ruling party, with power comes money, with money comes corruption, whats the camera situation like where you are?a reply to: RoScoLaz4



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Actually the EO isn't for the cameras. All Obama said was he wold allot whatever dollar figure it was to buy the cameras if Congress approves.


Obama plans to issue an executive order before the end of February 2015, directing federal agencies to improve the way in which local law enforcement agencies procure, audit and manage a giant stockpile loaned and purchased from the Pentagon. However, the White House said the programs would remain in place.



Obama is also separately calling for a $263m, three-year spending package to reform police departments across the country which, if approved by Congress, could lead to the purchase of an additional 50,000 lapel-mounted cameras to record police officers on the job.


The Guardian



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you. I just got done explaining that to another member.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

What was I saying on the show.... :p



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

Must have went over my head. Ill have to relisten.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I am guessing they will be on the fritz unless the support the LEO

I think Police In General should have cameras on them at all times. Maybe it'll cause them to protect and serve rather than harass and abuse.

I wonder what this will do to the "widows and orphans" fund? It'll probably get collected during off duty hours now



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
I am guessing they will be on the fritz unless the support the LEO

I think Police In General should have cameras on them at all times. Maybe it'll cause them to protect and serve rather than harass and abuse.

I wonder what this will do to the "widows and orphans" fund? It'll probably get collected during off duty hours now


In the cases cameras have been placed on LEO's so far they have been wildly successful. Police brutality is way down, complaints of excessive force are way down, people (officers and citizens) are generally more polite to each other. It has been a widespread success.

The next step is taking steps to ensure their cameras don't just turn off at inconvenient times.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
I agre with that.

Trust me I support accountability.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I don't look at it that way.

It's actually VERY important that police have cameras attached to them in the 21st century.

VERY important.

It's been proven to drop violent incidents by police and by offenders.


But Rialto's randomised controlled study has seized attention because it offers scientific – and encouraging – findings: after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers' use of force fell by 60%.


Source

And that was ONE town.

My only problem is that there's not yet a mechanism in place to allow civilians access to this information, or a means of review.

~Tenth

edit on 12/2/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   
So let me see if i get this right....

Cops are the devil, they need cameras to help keep them accountable.

Cops will get cameras which just adds to the surveillance police state..



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join