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.

 

Pa. city blankets streets with security cameras

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Surveillance system will be monitored by ordinary citizens, raising concerns


www.msnbc.msn.com

165 surveillance cameras that will keep watch over thousands of residents around the clock.
When it is complete, the surveillance system will be bigger than those in large cities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco and Boston. And the fact that it will be monitored by ordinary citizens has raised privacy concerns.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 9-9-2009 by harpsounds]




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
This is a pretty spooky story. Normally it's the UK getting criticised for having too many surveillance cameras, but this time it's the USA. Maybe this is the sign it's about to be really rolled out big time.

Of interest was the fact that some studies show it's not even very effective:



Studies differ on effectiveness
A January study by the University of California, Berkeley, found that cameras did not reduce homicide in San Francisco but did help reduce the number of burglaries and some thefts. A New York University study found that cameras did not do much to deter crime in some public housing projects.


I'm not sure where I stand on CCTV cameras everywhere, I guess in public areas we have no expectation of privacy, anyone can film, but I still don't feel good about it. Even though right now it may be used benevolently, I worry about if there was ever a Sit X or even a slip into more serious police state, that this kind of apparatus could be used in disturbing ways, especially once they bolt on facial recognition and other tech upgrades. Pretty soon every aspect of our travel, purchases, and basically the rest of our lives will be recorded.

Something to add on that makes this worrying is sometimes laws get brought in retroactively, so even if you think "I'm doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide", maybe at some point later when they change a law and make it retroactive, you will have done something wrong, and "they"'ll be able to find it all in their records.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Its called being a peepin tom..thats the wrod used when a starnger watches you through your glass window, and does sexual things with himself,w atching you. of course, this may not have sexual things attached, but it IS an invasion of personal property. and WHY ordinary citizens will be watching others is beyond me..
bunch of peeping tioms



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Well if people don't like it then they should go to their city government and demand that they are removed. The people that live there should be the ones to decide. If they are ok with it then fine. If they are not then they should demand that all cameras are removed. If they refuse then the citizens hve the right to remove them on their own.

I find a baseball bat can take care of a CCTV camera pretty easily.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Lancaster's further away than I can get on my bike. Darn. I have a 12 gauge answer to the camera problem...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


A BB gun would actually be a better tool for this job, Matt. Silent enough to be ignored by most, yet fully capible of destroying the lenses.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The thing I find creepy is the whole monitoring by a non-profit "citizens' group." I call BS on these people. No one should want this type of authority and in a town like Lancaster (which I have spent a considerable amount of time), it is completely unneccesary. Is there crime? Sure. But I think there are a lot more creepy religious zealots who could use this for all sorts of insidious nonsense.

Seriously, if I were black, brown or any color not commonly seen in the Amish country I would be paranoid about the freaks on the other end of these cameras.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I remember a time when if someone took your photograph they had to ask you for a signed release.

Even if you were in the background of a photograph but were recognizable, you would either sign a release or receive compensation if photo was released in public view.

When was that law thrown out the window?

Does anyone else remember those rules of ettiquete? Was it state statutes? Does anyone know?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join