City Of Dallas Installing Surveillance Cameras, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 19-11-2006 @ 05:33 AM by Infoholic
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


reply posted on 19-11-2006 @ 08:16 PM by Infoholic
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]



reply posted on 19-11-2006 @ 10:09 PM by jwater88
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]


reply posted on 20-11-2006 @ 07:27 AM by Hermann
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!!


reply posted on 20-11-2006 @ 12:56 PM by Infoholic
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]
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 2 days ago with 111 member flags
Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 15 days ago with 81 member flags
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 2 days ago with 68 member flags
Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags
She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags
Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 12 days ago with 42 member flags
Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 7 days ago with 33 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 14 hours ago, 68 replies