It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Surveilled Nation Update

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 11:54 AM
From Silent Sentries, by Richard Brooks, in the Press Enterprise today.

"Love them or hate them, police surveillance cameras likely are coming to a corner near you as the technology improves and citizens adjust to the notion, experts say.

The trend towards CCTV monitoring by police has spread from cities such as London and Jerusalem to some in the US .

In Redlands (CA), where CCTV cameras are credited with helping to eliminate burglaries and thefts at the city's airport, police plan to install hundreds more in public places to watch everything from freeway onramps and stripmalls to construction sites and the streets that border isolated orange groves."

I'm all for stopping criminals from doing crimes, and protecting lawful citizenry. My concern is what the ones employing the cameras and police will define as criminal activity in attempts to limit constitutional liberties.

The State of CA did a big study on this a while back, lots of interesting angles in it.

Public Video Surveillance

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 01:07 PM
Interesting article. I am not sure how I feel about surveillance cameras. I can think of several examples in which such a camera would be welcome, but for each positive, I am sure there is a negative.

For instance, traffic where I live can be horrible at times, so traffic cameras are great. The Traffic Cams are used in news reports, shown on the web etc. and really help to avoid congested roads. They are also used to determine who is at fault after an auto accident, or who perpetrated a crime etc. However, I would not like for the cameras to be used to 'spy' on people.

A great site for this is the Electronic Information Privacy Center:

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 01:10 PM
This is in place already in one form or another. Remember after 9/11 the networks were showing pics of the terrorists that basically tracked their movements up until they boarded the planes.

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 01:36 PM
Yes, definitely in place, and expanding.

The potential problem lies in their use as a means of tracking and targeting innocent people engaged in protected things like nonviolent political dissent.

Who knows? They could eventually link 'em to orbiting Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles. Just picture some guy who wrote an unfavorable political editorial piece to the local paper coming back from the mail box and getting a remotely actuated, high speed, laser guided piece of high-explosive ordnance by ordinance up the rear.

Just taking the idea to the inordinate extreme.

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 02:18 PM
Audio is still illegal...Or at least not admissable in court. Thats the "counter" to some privacy concerns.

Example: If you were video taping some kids breaking into a house accross the street, any audio captured cant be used against the suspects, even if it is conclusive.

I am not against cameras in public. I forget the exact statistic, but they say people on average are captured on video like 60 times a day as it is. I will always say: Good, law abiding people have nothing to worry about. Period. Just be carefull not to dig for boogies and your all set.

[edit on 12-4-2005 by skippytjc]

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:16 PM

new topics

top topics

log in