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.

 

City Of Dallas Installing Surveillance Cameras

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

City Of Dallas Installing Surveillance Cameras



Is this yet another police state issue?!


Source


The first of many surveillance cameras has been installed in downtown Dallas. Once the system is up and running, the Dallas Police Department will be able to monitor 30-percent of the business district.

Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle says, "It will create an environment where people know they can't do anything unlawful in the central business district, because the fact that the cameras are going to take away their anonymity."


Taking away your anonymity... isn't that purely against our 4th Amendment Right?


US Constitution

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


My God, people!! This is America.. the land founded on freedoms, liberties, and justice for all!!! This is not Nazi Germany!!! We should not and do not have to, "Show me your papers", here.

Take pride in who you are. Take pride in what our founding fore-fathers did for us. Take pride in what every US Soldier has done for us. They have all made, instilled, and protected freedoms... our liberties... our unalienable, God given Rights!



I'm almost certain that I will hear responses of, "Well, that's needed to prevent people from breaking the law."

Guess what folks... they are only protecting one thing according to the standpoint of this article... They are protecting the money... or the money makers! What about protecting the American populous from this fascist state that is so quick to our heels!?

These steps being taken to take away our rights and liberties... are a crime. They are raping our freedoms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Some cities have had cammeras for a long time. I know Orlando Fl has cameras all over downtown, when they were actually installed I don't know, but I saw the control room with the banks of monitors in '95.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
When you are out walking down a public street, you have no expectation of privacy guaranteed by the constitution.

edit:

Just to clarify, that's as to having your picture or videos taken, of course you can't be involuntarily stopped and body searched for no reason by the police.

[edit on 11/18/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Some cities have had cammeras for a long time. I know Orlando Fl has cameras all over downtown, when they were actually installed I don't know, but I saw the control room with the banks of monitors in '95.

I was not aware that that had taken place then/there/or anywhere else. This is actually the 1st article I've seen on the subject here in America...and that is wrong. This is America. We are free from "prying" eyes. Period.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
When you are out walking down a public street, you have no expectation of privacy guaranteed by the constitution.

edit:

Just to clarify, that's as to having your picture or videos taken, of course you can't be involuntarily stopped and body searched for no reason by the police.

[edit on 11/18/2006 by djohnsto77]

djohnston77... read the 4th Amendment!
And that as well means you can't have your picture taken, you (you're right) can't be involuntarily stopped and searched...

The 4th Amendment states, boldly, in black and white... that they cannot invade your personal privacy without probable cause!!!!



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Sorry, but the Supreme Court would disagree with you Infoholic.

If you're out in public view, you have chosen to expose yourself and whether it's a camera or a live police officer seeing you commit an illegal act, the police can act on that information and be able to use it as evidence in a court of law.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Sorry, but the Supreme Court would disagree with you Infoholic.

If you're out in public view, you have chosen to expose yourself and whether it's a camera or a live police officer seeing you commit an illegal act, the police can act on that information and be able to use it as evidence in a court of law.

Do you have any court findings to back that statement up? Just curious.


Public... that means you are in America in general, right? That's upholdable by the Constitution. Private, that means you can set your own regulations.

Kinda like direct and indirect affliction, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
let me get this straight if i am at the beach or public park and take someones picture they say i have broken the law even through the people are in public but the goverment can do it freely this is just wrong.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Do you have any court findings to back that statement up? Just curious.



Here's some info:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77Here's some info:
en.wikipedia.org...


Brilliant... however...


OVERVIEW: Defendant was convicted by a district court of con cealing distilled spirits. Defendant argued on appeal that the district court had erred in refusing to exclude the testimony of two witnesses and to direct a verdict for him. Defendant further argued that the district court had violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The Court found that the witnesses were revenue officers who had picked up a jug of moonshine that defendant had discarded while running. Defendant argued that the evidence was inadmissible because the officers did not have a warrant for search or arrest. The Court stated, in affirming defendant's conviction, that there was no seizure of the jug because the officers examined the contents of the jug after it had been abandoned. The fact that the examination of the jug took place on land belonging to defendant's father did not violate the Fourth Amendment
because the special pro tection accorded b y the Fourth Amendment did not extend to the op enfields.

Source...

Nice try.. that case was tried as it was on Hester's "person". When the cops came a runnin... he tossed the evidence to the wayside.. thus making it "fair game".

[Edit]This was the only court case you provided to "prove" with court findings. #1) person in question had "moonshine" (currently under prohibition) in his/her posession. #2)the person in question dropped and fleed the said evidence knowing full well they were in the wrong. #3)if the person in question was to have stood still, there was nothing they could have done - without probable cause. #4)once the person in question dropped evidence and ran - the person in question gave probable cause.[/edit]

Not going to work... I'm still not convinced.

[edit on 11/18/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Well, I don't think this exact question has ever come before the Supreme Court, but from its precedence, I'm pretty sure if you killed someone on the street and were videotaped doing it by such a police camera and that was the only evidence you did it, it'd still be allowable in court and any conviction would stand up to appellate review.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
That is completely besides the point. It is against our 4th amendment right to have anyone/anywhere put up public surveillance. Period. Regardless of what they can get out of it.... it's wrong. No if ands or butts about it. Cameras recording in/on "private" property would be one thing... but not public.

Again, this is proof positive of the police state that is to come, full force... and I for one will not be a welcome mat for such!



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
It may be legit if sufficient notice was provided, that people were under surveilance and where, but in public I doubt notice can be given properly. Thus, people could argue that being watched was against their basic rights. Also what rights do you have to not be under surveilance within your own home now?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
It may be legit if sufficient notice was provided, that people were under surveilance and where, but in public I doubt notice can be given properly. Thus, people could argue that being watched was against their basic rights. Also what rights do you have to not be under surveilance within your own home now?

Sufficient notice or not... it's still against the 4th Amendment rights that all American Citizens share. Period.

What rights do we have not to be surveillanced within our homes?

Duh... would you like to walk into my home, against my will, and "surveillance" me? I don't think you would be quite that "ignorant".


[edit on 11/18/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
It is against our 4th amendment right to have anyone/anywhere put up public surveillance. Period.


You are reading far too much into the constitution. What about a beat cop walking down the street? They are able to "surveil" you and if you're obviously breaking the law, arrest you. There isn't much of a constitutional difference between that and a camera placed on public property.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
But they're not putting camera's in your home. They're putting them in Public places where the Authorities have an obligation to ensure public safety.

We have camera's all over the place here in the UK. In shops, in city centre's, all over. It's said you get caught on camera 300 times a day. A sign is put up advising that CCTV monitoring is taking place, so people are aware that if they commit an unlawful act, they can expect to be prosecuted. Don't commit a crime and no one is interested in what you do. Most (around 90%) are not even monitored. They only take the tape if a crime is committed in view of the camera.

It's hardly a Police State. If anything, it provides an infallible witness in the event of a crime. If no crime is committed, then why should you care? I'm sure you would be on the other side of the argument if you were mugged and there were no witnesses and no police around. How on earth would you expect them to bring the perpetrator to justice without evidence?

Think about it. How many criminals have been caught because their mugs have been seen on CCTV? Plenty.

Imagine how difficult it would be for people to help the authorites catch someone if no-one knew what he looked like?

[edit on 19/11/06 by stumason]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
But they're not putting camera's in your home. They're putting them in Public places where the Authorities have an obligation to ensure public safety.


Exactly.

In your home you have the expectation of privacy, that is the government can't surveil you or seize your property without a court warrant, and can't use any remote sensing devices not generally available to the public (see KYLLO v. UNITED STATES opinion by Antonin Scalia).

But, if you're walking down the street in the central business district of your city, you are open to being photographed by anyone, including the government.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Not sure if it's a good thing or bad thing, but...
THese cameras have been up and in place in a few "select" more dangerous areas in Chicago for a while now. They are not everywhere. The crime rate in these areas have dramatically decreased. For what it's worth.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
For what it's worth.


I still don't think its worth it. Granted it saves lives and crime drops, That's a good SELLING point isn't it?

Infoholic you are my hero for say the next 16 hrs providing you read it the fast, if not 5 mins after you read it.

Here in pgh... Pittsburgh they are planning the same thing.

www.pittsburghlive.com...
I like this quote here.


Laws, however, haven't kept up with technological advances, Sweeney and others said. The laws tend to be reactive, Sweeney explained.

"Everything's allowed until something happens on the front page of the New York Times," she said. "We do not have a comprehensive privacy rule."

Bold attalics I want to point out.

So the 4th Amendment isn't clear on privacy??? So where that old toilet paper again?

So we are going to freely give up our 4th Amendment right so we can be safer??

Those of are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither and lose both.

Deal with it.. Its an Amendment issue and that quote above proves it..



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Guys, guys the 4th Amendment does not protect against you against what you do out in public. One of the exceptions to probable cause is if the act occurs in plain view. Plain View Doctrine



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Think of this...
How many cops have been caught on cameras by the public acting in an unlawful manner?
Where their 4th amendment rights violated?
How about all of the hundreds of thousands of star pictures taken by the paparazzi?
Are they violating the 4th admendment rights of those stars?
OK, in some cases, yes, but most of the time, no.
As far as I know, unless you are one of those stars, you do not have an expectation of public privacy, which is why if you are Joe Citizen, if you do not sign a release form, you cannot have your picture used for commercial purposes.
Perhaps some one can elaborate on this..



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join