City Of Dallas Installing Surveillance Cameras

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.

I read somewhere that the UK has something like 23% of the worlds CCTV cameras.

People using the Oyster card can be followed around the capitol, your credit cards show where you been and what you bought and when.
The congestion cameras can identify your car and whether you paid the charge or not. They can follw you into the city and back out.

Now they want ID cards. Government databases are not secure. There will always be a greedy or week person to do as you want. The DVLA were once notorious for licence cleaning. It has been accepted that high profile / vip records will not be kept on the database incase of security breach....hat tells me something.

This is enough but there is more. No wonder people are paranoid...conspiracies in every corner.

Still I don't get depressed about it. I just tell myself that it is for my own good. Its there to protect my freedom

I honestly thought that USA already had cameras installed in the cities. I'm so used to seeing them over here in Britain that I thought it was just the norm for UK and USA.

It is a bit weird walking down the street and thinking that you are always being watched by cameras, but it does help catch criminals.

I have been totally unfazed by cameras in the streets in Towns-yes towns not cities like the USA over the last 12 years and it's the norm. I have forgetton the fact about certain rights, I have been brainwashed and children who are 12 will no no different. What is the debate about like you should be amazed? Is the rest of the world not like that? I guess I have been living in this environment too long it seems like the Trueman Show you are born with cameras around you.

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

Originally posted by The time lord
...too but what can we do? Get used to it.

There is plenty you can do, don't be so defeatist, get active! This is why things don't change for the better and we just except more intrusions into our lives, do nothing and 'get used to it'... Like the frog in the boiling water...

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.

Originally posted by The time lord
I have been totally unfazed by cameras in the streets in Towns-yes towns not cities like the USA over the last 12 years and it's the norm. I have forgetton the fact about certain rights, I have been brainwashed and children who are 12 will no no different. What is the debate about like you should be amazed? Is the rest of the world not like that? I guess I have been living in this environment too long it seems like the Trueman Show you are born with cameras around you.

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you encouraging people to be apathetic? Apethy is our worst enemy, next to ingnorance, of course.

Nobody cares any more because they've got their MTV and Survivor. I pray on a daily basis that everyone wakes up sooner than later. It doesn't affect just me, or America, but the world as a whole.

I believe I read awhile back that Manhatten alone has over 2,000 street level cameras* Gives literal meaning to the "eye" on the pyramid

Originally posted by Spores From Space
I believe I read awhile back that Manhatten alone has over 2,000 street level cameras* Gives literal meaning to the "eye" on the pyramid

I don't believe there are any government-installed cameras (except around gov't buildings), but there are so many private security cameras, the city is pretty well surveiled. The police have no problem getting copies of the tapes if they think they recorded a crime.

Chicago has had cameras in the high crime areas for quite a while now. They are one of the, if not the first large city to implement this. There is a mixed view on it here in Chicago. They had Mayor Daley on TV doing his dog and pony show on all the local news stations, smiling and saying how great it is and how it will help fight crime. I seem to recall that they were bragging about how high tech it was and that other cities are coming here to learn from us. Luckily, I live outside the city, but I visit friends and family often and have seen the cameras.

Originally posted by stumason

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?

How many crimes wont be caught on camera, but some shmo is in the wrong place at the wrong time. you then have some creep prosecutor moving up the polical ladder solves the crime by nailing the innocent shmo for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Its the reason we shouldnt be allowing this, it will lead to the sytem abusing its powers.

I would rather not have my "public privacy" invaded. I certainly dont do nything wrong, but I know a corrupt system of governemnt when I see one.

Where did all of you "bootlickers" come from?

Surveillance cameras are preventing crime. OK.
Surveillance cameras are helping to catch traffic violators. OK.

But, when something fishy happens they are broken, pointed in the wrong direction, the tapes are lost or too grainy or they just became a matter of national security.

So again, why are they being installed ?

[edit on 21-11-2006 by yanchek]

Originally posted by Infoholic
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.

Exactly what are the cameras doing without probable cause? Monitoring? Since when is that a crime? How can they tell if a crime is being committed unless you use them?

You're so against using surveillance cameras to assist law enforcement. Might I remind you of 11 year-old Carlie Brucia, who was raped and murdered by that pervert in Sarasota in 2004? Here's a picture of her being led away by the perv, in case you forgot.




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.

You have mixed up the 4th and 5th Amendments and a vague claim of a "right to public privacy" with a notion of a police state and lost rights. Do some research. You will be surprised at how little "privacy" is defined by the Constitution, and how very little guarantee you have of it while in public view. You are not being seized or searched. The 4th does not apply. And how the 5th Amendment fits in here, I'm still not clear.

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.

Putting cameras everywhere, even if it appears to reduce crime, is not the answer to preventing crime. It's a band aid, bailing out the basement while there's holes in the roof.

We need to get to the root cause of crime, which is imo arguably and not in all cases, poverty, dissatisfaction, and dare I say it an unfair biased system. That's my opinion, so I won't go of topic to explain.

We'd be better off putting public cameras in places like say, the white house, the pentagoon, corporate boardrooms etc... Then we'd get to see where they plan the real crimes against humanity.

And in the end, no man will be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast.

You can run, but you won't be able to hide.

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.

I don't get the part where cameras are supposedly robbing you of your anonymity. How is that? Anonymity means I don't know who you are, not what you look like. Not knowing what you look like is what Michael Jackson does with his children when he takes them out in public - he puts disguises on their faces.

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]

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.