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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
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.

What!!?!?!?!?! Maybe you don't understand... The cop walking the beat can do nothing without probable cause. The camera placed into public areas are in fact "doing something" without probable cause. The cameras are in fact violating the 4th, dj.



Originally posted by PapaHomer
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


plain view doctrine
n. the rule that a law enforcement officer may make a search and seizure without obtaining a search warrant if evidence of criminal activity or the product of a crime can be seen without entry or search. Example: a policeman stops a motorist for a minor traffic violation and can see in the car a pistol or a marijuana plant on the back seat, giving him "reasonable cause" to enter the vehicle to make a search.


"evidence of criminal activity or the product of a crime can be seen without entry or search"? That's your arguement!?


That is taken from the source you provided, Papahomer.

There's your sign, Homer... Reasonable cause!!!

Cheese n rice!!!
Do you people not understand your own rights?!?



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.

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?


#1-do you even share the US constitution in England?
#2-you being where they have all the cameras, should agree your privacy is raped on a daily basis. you already are a police state. I don't want the glorious US to be the same.
#3-Wonderful selling point.


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin




posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
What's the difference between a cop standing on a corner and observing the street, and a camera surveilling the street? Nothing. It's in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy from view in public. I can stare at you as you eat your dinner on a park bench or in a diner. What law am I breaking?



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
What's the difference between a cop standing on a corner and observing the street, and a camera surveilling the street? Nothing. It's in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy from view in public. I can stare at you as you eat your dinner on a park bench or in a diner. What law am I breaking?


IMO, the one and only difference is the "difference between random and constants". By putting a cop on every corner, the officer would be randomly searching around for people breaking the laws. If so and so wan't breaking the law, they would no longer be under surveillance of said officer, right? What reason would the officer have for continuing to watch every single step that the people/person makes? The camera on the other hand, placed on each corner, would actually provide the ability to constantly monitor each and every single person (dependant on number of cameras and people operating such cameras). How are the cameras to be used? Obviously, for them to work, the camera images would have to be monitored 24/7... or recorded. That in fact makes it resonable to assume that anyone/everyone would be "spied" on constantly.

What right does the government/law enforcement have to spy (insert your own terminology there) on the citizens? They don't. Period. The government cannot track your every single move. That would be essentially what the cameras are doing.

I have done multiple searches of Supreme Court Cases that deal specifically with the 4th Amendment vs. Surveillance, and I have found none. So, I will back down saying it would actually be "unconstitutional". I still have a valid arguement, just sucks for me that I don't have the court docket number to prove it.

I did however find that cameras were to be used for traffic law enforcement, and they were banned by many states. Here's the linky -> Road Rules


In 2002 the state of Hawaii experimented with photo radar vans but they were withdrawn months later due to public outcry. Arkansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin have also enacted various prohibitions on photo enforcement. In New York State, red light cameras are allowed in New York City only, but speeding photo radars are illegal (except in toll booths equipped with E-ZPass).



One issue is the potential conflict of interest when private contractors are paid a commission based on the number of tickets they are able to issue. Pictures from the San Diego red light camera systems were ruled inadmissible as court evidence in September 2001 (Judge's ruling). The judge said that the "total lack of oversight" and "method of compensation" made evidence from the cameras "so untrustworthy and unreliable that it should not be admitted".


*disclaimer*
I understand this is referring to cameras being used in traffic situations... but as you can see, the idea was squashed with something so miniscule. Do you honestly believe it would be different when the cameras are no longer looking at the vehicles, but at the individual walking on the street?


Edit - Added link

[edit on 11/19/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
It reminds me of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four in a sense...



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jwater88
It reminds me of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four in a sense...


You got it!



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
IMO, the one and only difference is the "difference between random and constants". By putting a cop on every corner, the officer would be randomly searching around for people breaking the laws. If so and so wan't breaking the law, they would no longer be under surveillance of said officer, right? What reason would the officer have for continuing to watch every single step that the people/person makes? The camera on the other hand, placed on each corner, would actually provide the ability to constantly monitor each and every single person (dependant on number of cameras and people operating such cameras). How are the cameras to be used? Obviously, for them to work, the camera images would have to be monitored 24/7... or recorded. That in fact makes it resonable to assume that anyone/everyone would be "spied" on constantly.

What right does the government/law enforcement have to spy (insert your own terminology there) on the citizens? They don't. Period. The government cannot track your every single move. That would be essentially what the cameras are doing.

For the sake of discussion, we'll use your terminology. Spying.

Do I, as a private citizen, have the right to spy on you, or the gov't? Can I set up a camera on a street corner and constantly record the passersby?

If I can, why can't the police? It's their job to be observant.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky


Originally posted by Infoholic
IMO, the one and only difference is the "difference between random and constants". By putting a cop on every corner, the officer would be randomly searching around for people breaking the laws. If so and so wan't breaking the law, they would no longer be under surveillance of said officer, right? What reason would the officer have for continuing to watch every single step that the people/person makes? The camera on the other hand, placed on each corner, would actually provide the ability to constantly monitor each and every single person (dependant on number of cameras and people operating such cameras). How are the cameras to be used? Obviously, for them to work, the camera images would have to be monitored 24/7... or recorded. That in fact makes it resonable to assume that anyone/everyone would be "spied" on constantly.

What right does the government/law enforcement have to spy (insert your own terminology there) on the citizens? They don't. Period. The government cannot track your every single move. That would be essentially what the cameras are doing.

For the sake of discussion, we'll use your terminology. Spying.

Do I, as a private citizen, have the right to spy on you, or the gov't? Can I set up a camera on a street corner and constantly record the passersby?

If I can, why can't the police? It's their job to be observant.


Imo, because it just leads to more "spying"... then it could lead to why cant they set up cameras in public bathrooms? And plus you cant enforce the law if you are not a officer watching with your camera.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by jwater88]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Simple fact of the matter is that every city in the US, UK and Canada have been named as terrorist targets. Cameras wont stop a suicide bomber but as been proved in London, they can help trace where the attack originated and hope to stop future attacks.

All this talk of 'rights' and 'invasion of privacy' you want to keep, just forget it dude! Your a target of some really nasty people now and they are really pissed. If your not up to no good, why worry about the cameras? In fact by having these cameras you can worry a little less. As for the 5th amendment, them laws were made up for the cowboys days. These bastards I am talking about dont care for the rules!



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Do I, as a private citizen, have the right to spy on you, or the gov't? Can I set up a camera on a street corner and constantly record the passersby?

If I can, why can't the police? It's their job to be observant.


So we have to go around feeling selfconcience about ourselves because big brother wants complete control. This is not about crime, this is about control. You ever walked down the street and give your significant other a good squeezing when no one is looking? Not anymore. Or those thousands of little things we do in public when no one is looking? Not anymore. How about that feeling of walking along the street feeling free and easy? Not anymore. Where does it stop? The people that agree to this are soft and their children are going to be softer and even more unable to think things through. they will be the ones here in the future saying. They need to put it in all the homes, I am not doing anything wrong!

Where have all the Americans gone?

[edit on 19-11-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
So we have to go around feeling selfconcience about ourselves because big brother wants complete control. This is not about crime, this is about control. You ever walked down the street and give your significant other a good squeezing when no one is looking? Not anymore. Or those thousands of little things we do in public when no one is looking? Not anymore. How about that feeling of walking along the street feeling free and easy? Not anymore. Where does it stop? The people that agree to this are soft and their children are going to be softer and even more unable to think things through. they will be the ones here in the future saying. They need to put it in all the homes, I am not doing anything wrong!

[edit on 19-11-2006 by LoneGunMan]


Why do you think that any of that needs to stop? I won't elaborate, but you'd be surprised what I do when walking down the street sometimes.... You do know that most CCTV camears are unmonitored, don't you? They only retrieve images if a crime is commited. If they are monitored, then why care anyway? Someone can easily just sit there in the street and watch you grab your partners boobs as easily as if they were sat in front of a camera!

Jeebus...You yanks are a paranoid lot.

Like I said earlier, you'd only complain if there were no cameras at all. Just how many robberies and violent crimes would be solved without any images of the perpertrator?



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   
^The cameras in Orlando are monitored. I watched a female cop sitting in front of a bank of monitors watching. There were maybe 20 monitors and each one cycled through different views of the same area.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
I can't speak about the situation in Orlando but I'd be very surprised if that City did have large numbers of of Police Officers monitoring the cameras. I have been inside the CCTV control room which is run by the local Council in my part of South London. The operator/ monitors are civilians-council employees. Although they do the occasional sweeps of areas, on most occasions they respond to Police requests to cover an area when an incident is taking place. We saw a suspected mugger followed by 8 cameras before he walked into the arms of Police Officers who had been in constant contact with the CCTV control room.
My main gripe with CCTV in the UK is that they are no longer being used primarily for crime detection and prevention but for the enforcement of parking and traffic regulations. In one local street alone this has netted The Local Council over £300k p.a.in parking fines (£55 of which was mine!)



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by jwater88
Imo, because it just leads to more "spying"

So what? When the technology advances, you can be sure they will take advantage of it then, also.


... then it could lead to why cant they set up cameras in public bathrooms?

Baloney. Does not follow.


And plus you cant enforce the law if you are not a officer watching with your camera.

I can intervene in an assault. I can make a citizens arrest. Even if I could not do those things, whether or not I can enforce the law is not relavent.


Originally posted by LoneGunMan
So we have to go around feeling selfconcience about ourselves because big brother wants complete control. This is not about crime, this is about control. You ever walked down the street and give your significant other a good squeezing when no one is looking?

Well, how about if some pervert wants to give your SO a good squeezing?


The people that agree to this are soft and their children are going to be softer and even more unable to think things through.

Think things through, eh? Let's see: do I want my loved ones to be protected? No, because I want to be able to tiptoe thru the tulips, feelin groovy, right?


Where have all the Americans gone?

Where they've always been. Right here.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Have you been to Nazi Germany latelyNazi Germany, did you have to show your papers? People like you wind me up!!



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
My main gripe with CCTV in the UK is that they are no longer being used primarily for crime detection and prevention but for the enforcement of parking and traffic regulations.


Case in point... where is it going to stop? They say it would be for one thing, but you know darn well it will be for more once the new wears off and the public outcry has subsided.


Originally posted by Hermann
Have you been to Nazi Germany latelyNazi Germany, did you have to show your papers? People like you wind me up!!


Nope. Never been there. Nope. Won't "show my papers" here either. The US government is taking the step to have the "show me your papers" issue here already. That is taken place with H.R. 1268 (the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005). Read about it here -> H.R. 1268 (select #6 then go to the license and ID section)

(not trying to get off topic but this is relevant)
I, for one, will refuse the National ID Card. America was not intended to be this way.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Itss a pity they did not have them in the sixties, it might of helped in clearing up that little shooting.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Ok, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the 4th ammendment about search and seizure? What do cameras in public places have to do with search and seizure? And in case you haven't noticed, cameras have been in stores and companies for ages! I'm not saying I like it, but when in a public place, there is no expectation of privacy, therefore no breaking the 4th ammendment. Guess you'll have to wait to pick your nose until you're in your own home, huh?



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The 4th is about "being secure in your person", as well as what you mentioned.

Read the rest of the posts... I admitted, since I started the topic, that it actually does not violate the 4th... but it's more of a pre-emptive strike on it.


Big Brother watching is bad news. It's not about stopping crime. It's about control.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Big Brother watching is bad news.


No it is not. They installed surveillance cameras in a area that prostitutes hung out and overnight they disappeared.

In another area where they had high crime rates near a mall after installation of cameras the crime rate dropped over 70 percent. Similar reduction of crime rates were achieved in other areas also around bars and clubs but not as high a reduction, but the crime rate did drop.

Also you have to keep in mind that the private sector has been using hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of CCTVs for surveillance for years, so where is the big deal here

Some people are too paranoid if you ask me; they do have a good side to them well unless you tend to want to commit crimes that is.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by Infoholic
Big Brother watching is bad news.


No it is not. They installed surveillance cameras in a area that prostitutes hung out and overnight they disappeared.

In another area where they had high crime rates near a mall after installation of cameras the crime rate dropped over 70 percent. Similar reduction of crime rates were achieved in other areas also around bars and clubs but not as high a reduction, but the crime rate did drop.

Also you have to keep in mind that the private sector has been using hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of CCTVs for surveillance for years, so where is the big deal here

Some people are too paranoid if you ask me; they do have a good side to them well unless you tend to want to commit crimes that is.


I stongly disagree.

I'm certain the prostitutes and other "wrong doers" simply moved, not quit. Again, it's not an issue with fighting crime, it's control.





The American Civil Liberties Union today told Congress that the implementation of a surveillance camera system in the District of Columbia would undermine individual privacy while doing nothing to prevent terrorism or crime, and would sap resources from other proven law enforcement measures.

Reason No. 1: Surveillance Camera Systems Are Not Effective Crime-Fighters
Reason No. 2: Surveillance Cameras Displace More Effective Public Safety Measures
Reason No. 3: Surveillance Cameras Undermine Individual Privacy
Reason No. 4: Permission to Establish Surveillance Cameras in the District Has Not Been Given
Reason No. 5: Surveillance Cameras are Subject to Great Abuse

Source

These were reasons/examples given to Congress to argue against the same camera idea to be put in place in D.C. What makes anywhere else different?

[edit]Sorry, forgot to add the linky[/edit]

[edit on 11/20/2006 by Infoholic]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join