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.

 

Stockton Surveillance Cameras May Go Dark

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Stockton Surveillance Cameras May Go Dark


www.recordnet.com

The cameras arrived in 2005, with 32 of them installed around the city. Another 44 were installed in 2007 at a cost of $1.6 million. They are monitored by retired police officers, who have the experience to quickly size up what they are seeing and make good judgment calls, said Officer Pete Smith, a police spokesman.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
This is an article from my local newspaper today. How does one respond to this revelation other than, "WTF?"

Notice there is no mention whatsoever what these cameras are being used for, where they were installed, or anything else. All we're told is they exist (at a cost of $1.6 million), and that we're being monitored by retired police officers who can quickly "size up what they are seeing and make good judgment calls."

"Make good judgment calls?" What are they "sizing up?" I have lived in this town all my life and don't recall being advised of non-descript surveillance cameras being installed in town so the police can monitor the public...

I'm also not excited to hear that my tax dollars have been used without my knowledge to pay these police officers to spy on the community.

They have to cut them from the budget? GOOD! They shouldn't have been installed to begin with.

I guess this article is some kind of ploy to get support from the public by leading them to believe it's somehow benefiting them and keeping them safe. What a joke.



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



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
How much you want to bet, once they shut off the expensive cameras, enterprising local thieves will steal them?
Can't wait...



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
No one wants to think they are being spied on. With surveillance cameras that is what is going on. I just have to say that what you do when out is public is not private, meaning you can not stop any one from seeing you, that includes cameras. If they are used with integrity I agree they are a good tool to solve crime. If that is happening is open for debate.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
 





How much you want to bet, once they shut off the expensive cameras, enterprising local thieves will steal them?


Yeah, that would be a rather ironic turn of events ... if only the locations were known. LOL



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


I agree with you that in public you should behave yourself, and that you cannot expect anywhere to be completely private, especially in cities.

But there are far too many of these cameras around really, in the UK at least. Plenty of them are a waste of money, in terms of installation, maintenance and requiring someone to monitor them. Anyone wanting to commit a crime under the watchful eye of surveillance can still do so with relative ease, all they have to adorn is the usual attire; dark trackies, dark trainers, and the paramount, a dark hoody with hood up.

In statistical terms it requires a thousand CCTV cameras to solve one crime. If these CCTV cameras are privately owned, as in a night club. If the owner doesn't want the footage to be shown to police for whatever reason, they can easily make it disappear.

www.telegraph.co.uk...



new topics

top topics
 
4

log in

join