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


reply posted on 20-11-2006 @ 01:47 PM by 7Pan7cho7
As much as i'm against the system and fascism, i do have to say that it is a public place, and they can do it. On the other hand though, this could very well lead to things that are much worse (1984 situation). I could understand how you would be mad if you owned the entire city and it was your private property, but the truth of the matter is that it's the government's or "public". The only difference between a cop standing on a corner and a camera is that the camera will have a perfect memory of what it saw versus the cop who will have a slightly distorted one.


Originally posted by Mcphisto

......;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!


I think it's funny when people talk about "terrorists". They don't even realize who the real terrorists are. It's kinda funny how America had one "attack" five years ago, and not a peep since. It bewilders me how nobody thinks that if there really were terrorists that wanted to destroy our countries, they would have done it by now.

Ever notice how there hasn't been a terrorist attack on any chemical or petroleum plants? That's because the real terrorists would lose money if they had to blow up their own money makers. The WTC didn't cost them anything, in fact it made a lot of people money. The people who put in the put options, the owners of the buildings (from insurance), all of the home security people, the company that's going to build the "freedom" tower, etc. If you really want to stop the terrorists, stop making them rich, refuse to do things their way, and tell them what we want.


reply posted on 20-11-2006 @ 02:35 PM by 7Pan7cho7
Originally posted by The time lord

I live in the UK or YUCK place where they have cameras up your ---- too but what can we do? Get used to it.


Get used to it is what they want you to do. They want you to just accept the fact that they rule over you, but that's not true. When you think about the people in power these days, it's usually the people with money also. They are powerful because of their money. Without their money they have no power, without us working for them and buying their products they have no money, so without us their is no power. We hold the power, but they don't want you to start thinking like that again, after all that might cause people to start another free country like the US originally was. We almost destroyed their plans, but now we are letting them right back where they want to be.

In America, there is no written law that says that you have to pay income tax, but will they take your things away and bring you to a court where they own the judges, yes sir. Money isn't even worth anything, they print it from out of thin air, don't you think that if there really was gold backing up the money (which was created to be a receipt for gold, you used to be able to exchange your money for gold) then why can't I go and trade it in for that gold? They have us so brainwashed and willing to give up everything because we are "powerless".

We might have to go through some hard times in the future, but things will be better. People are starting to realize what the "leaders" are up to and will no longer be a part of it. We don't need them or their money, we were fine before they came along, and we will be fine again after their demise. It's only a matter of time now.

Take care, and remember that fear enslaves and love liberates.


reply posted on 21-11-2006 @ 10:50 AM by LoneGunMan
Originally posted by jsobecky

In one of your sources by the ACLU, they state that Detroit stopped using cameras in the mid-nineties. Well, maybe they stopped too soon because they ranked

www.morganquitno.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">second in the number of violent crimes in 2005.



They used to be number one. Growing up in Michigan they were always called the murder capitol of the world, so since 1995 things have improved there. The problem with places like Detriot is not lack of security but the fact that they have a nearly 50% literacy rate.


reply posted on 21-11-2006 @ 05:58 PM by SmallMindsBigIdeas
Originally posted by Infoholic
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!


According the the US Supreme court there is no protection from the 4th ammendment because in public there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Here's a quote from a SF Chronicle article on public security cameras around the US:

It pits the right to privacy, including anonymity in a crowd, against the potent fears of crime and, particularly these days, terrorism. The U.S. Supreme Court generally has ruled the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures doesn't apply to surveillance of public spaces, where people have no "reasonable expectation of privacy." Even the American Civil Liberties Union doesn't object to video surveillance at national monuments and other potential al Qaeda targets.


SF Chronicle Article

My understanding of the issue is that the public security cameras are allowed since they are recording video only and not audio and therefore not subject to the warrant requirements of wire tapping.

Also, there are many privately owned cameras (at banks/gas stations/etc) that record not only the private property but areas of the public around their businesses. Many homeowners these days have installed cameras that capture parts of the public property around their residence. Should all theses cameras be prohibited, if they're recording public property areas, or just cameras owned and controlled by the government?

I can agree with the Supreme Court on this issue ... if I'm walking down a street in Anytown, USA I don't really feel like I am in a location where I would have an expectation of privacy. It's not a place I would discuss something that I wouldn't expect strangers to overhear.


reply posted on 23-11-2006 @ 01:05 PM by Infoholic
For Christ's Sake, people... the Big Brother issue is very very real, whether you would like to admit it or not. We shouldn't worry if we do not having anything to hide... I am so sick of this mentality. Of course the government will fill you full of BS saying, "We're using the cameras to insure crime stops." They can't stop crime. They will only displace it.

No, I do not encourage crime, nor do I partake in it.

I think everyone should view the following videos before replying to the issue of "Big Brother is Watching".

View these videos

As I've stated in other posts, the government has the "ability" or the "option" to impose their "supposed right" to "spy" or "track" civilians... ILLEGALLY! One person does not ruin it for the rest of us. That is the wrong track of thinking.

Keeping my anonymity is my right. You have no right to know me, what I look like, what I think, what I do... anything... "until" I make it your business.

[edit on 11/23/2006 by Infoholic]


reply posted on 11-12-2006 @ 03:07 AM by PapaHomer
Originally posted 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.


That would be good if "reasonable cause" and "probable cause" were the same thing, but as far as legal definitions go they are not. Reasonable Cause Definition Probable Cause Ddefinition Take your time and try to do a little reading then maybe you'll not look so silly next time.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Poland Beekeepers Win Ban on Monsanto\'s GMO!
  Posted 11 days ago with 74 member flags
Girl, 16, Kills Herself After Researching 2012 Doomsday Threads...
  Posted 8 days ago with 49 member flags
AP IMPACT: Evacs and drills pared near nuke plants
  Posted 10 days ago with 31 member flags
Plane Crash!
  Posted 17 days ago with 27 member flags