Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Maryland Residents Are Sick of Being Spied On And Are Tearing Down Police Cameras

page: 6
87
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


A paintball rifle will fix any camera.




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


My opinion, as a cop, is this.... Vandalizing anything is a bad move but with that being said....get rid of speed cameras....it is physically impossible to drive perfect. If I pulled in behind any single person I could easily find something you did wrong driving. The point of traffic control I believe is to really weed out the aggressive drivers and the ones that are clearly not safe...not to harass the general public.

In reference to just random cameras watching the public in public locations or private locations. I am not really for or against this because...half the time the cameras dont work. It is not like someone is actually sitting there and watching every camera...it is a visual security to make you think "they" are watching.

So even as I cop...I hate these cameras, I still don't think it is right to vandalize property.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
it would be neat if some clever hackers could disable entire cctv networks at will. that would be cool.


It's only a matter of time before someone comes out with a portable EMP generator to take care of the pesky all seeing eyes that are surveillance cameras.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
You people who are saying don't break the law are unbelievable. Any person who is watched 24hours a day for any length of time will be found to break innumerable laws. Every single person. There are so many laws and ordinances that it's impossible to keep your nose clean.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I drive through Baltimore every day and the only thing these cameras did was teach me where not to speed and which lights to be cautious of when its still green (they will get you randomly it seems like) ... costly lessons, nut I learned exactly where they all are.


IMO the secret/moving speed camera vans in DC are far worse, they could be anywhere ... usually illegally parked too, I might add



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


I think 'speed cams' are fine as they are there so people will slow down at busy areas so as not to cause crashes but Surveillance cams aren't needed IMO.

But having said this, its only going to get worse.... I read the other week that x-ray machines will be at train stations in the years to come "TO PREVENT ANY TERRORIST ATTACK" but actually I feel they will be there just to be more nosy than they are already.

So yeah, it is going too far.... we don't need all this Security!!



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Well I can tell you I am sick of it myself. I live in Maryland and when you have anywhere from 2 to 6 cameras at every traffic stop and every block on the side of building, in the Mall,in your own neighborhood, etc. Then it would be blatantly obvious that Big Brother has run amok with paranoia. They have put up cameras in my residential rural area for what? Traffic? I think not. As the OP said...I do not condone destruction of Government property at all, but I completely understand where this frustration is coming from. George Orwell "1984" to a tee.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
They spy on us and spy on us and spy on us and just when you think they're done spying on us, that's when the real spying begins................but take one pic of the royals on their private time and the whole craphouse gets their panties in a knot !?!?!



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


I agree with the OP in that if you fight fire with fire you will get burned, there is always a diplomatic option and particularly when it comes to something like this, the effect of using violence will likely be something like this:

Some people who disagree with police surveillance of the public have committed destructive acts

Therefore, all people who disagree with police surveillance of the public are likely to use violence

Terrorists use violence

Therefore, all those who disagree with police surveillance of the public are terrorists

These laws have been put in place by the american government

all terrorists are anti-american

therefore anyone who disagrees with laws put in place by the american government are anti-american

and therefore, are terrorists

and therefore, are certain to use violence


mix this together in a big cauldron of deceit and what do you get?

: Anyone who disagrees with laws put in place by the american government is a terrorist, and likely to use violence, therefore deadly force is permitted to be used against anyone who disagrees with laws put in place by the american government.

But I understand that it can just get too much sometimes, and then youre not using youre head, completely understand that, but you never know, could have been bilderberg approved destruction of police property to further the above end?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by cosmicexplorer
 


Thank you for your honest opinion as a member of law enforcement. This may not be the general consensus among your peers, but experience speaks volumes above education, esp. in areas like law enforcement. My question about what exactly these cameras are for was more rhetorical than anything. I know full well that many of these cameras don't work and are there to foster paranoia. On the other hand what I said about CGI is also a very real possibility. My grandfather was a member of elite black ops during the Korean war and CGI was available even back then, but not to the general public. (That's another thread in itself!) Take care and don't let the slimy cliques in your unit get you down.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I can't tell you how many times I had the urge to walk out in the middle of an intersection wearing a Janet Napolitano mask, and take out every camera with my 12 Ga. Doing so would only bring more cameras and more surveillance though. Big Brother is happening right before our eyes.
edit on 9/18/2012 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   


Overall, vehicles "traveling too fast for conditions" accounted for only five percent of the critical pre-crash events (page 23)


Report

The focus on speeders is clearly for collecting revenue. The above study was conducted from 7/05 till 12/07 and found that speed wasn't a major cause of accidents.

And that quote is just that. "Speed too fast for conditions." That means someone could be going well under the posted speed limit, but the road may be icy and they're still going a little too fast considering the conditions.

It is saddening that the large portion of an entity designed to "protect and serve" has become little more than a revenue enforcement scam.

IMO, there's better investments than $30,000 speed cameras for public safety. I don't condone the destruction of those cameras, but I am surprised it took this long to start happening.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
In crime-ridden cities, I can understand CCTV, but I'm totally against it in any other place. Especially for speedtrap money. One of the funniest stories I ever heard was how a guy got a ticket in the mail along with a picture of him in his car. He sent back a picture of the money that they charged him.
But mark my words, if people keep shooting them down, the gov. will make them bullet-proof or virtually indestructable. There's only one way to make the U.S. government get it, and that is for millions of people to show up on their doorsteps.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Not to upset the hornets nest - but I'd like to know if anyone is a opposed cameras in general or is it just traffic cameras that you disagree with? Surly everyone is for a camera that helps catches thieves, right?
Crooks Tube MD

Also, how many of us have cameras on our property or even on the public area/street in front of our homes?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 


Pretty much exactly what you said there. Correlation doesn't always justify causality - be it speeding, smoking or use of weapons. The government pulls the same stuff here in Australia. Same deal with speeding, same deal with cameras and speed cameras.
Our citizens often provide a similar response also; destroy. Most of our speed cameras are fixed in little neat parts under bridges between the ribs, they're only visible if you're already past the camera. Figured they do it to prevent damage after the post cameras got their cords handed back to them. Otherwise every other speed camera I've seen is put on the side of the road on a tripod, attended to by 1 or 2 patrol vehicles.

I also condone Maryland's residents' actions, wonder what your country's pioneers would think of the stuff that's happening to the land that they forged to be free? Spray-paint (if in reach of the lens), mud or something to cover the cameras lens should do a good job for those who don't want to destroy $30 000 worth of hardware.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by gypsychology909
They spy on us and spy on us and spy on us and just when you think they're done spying on us, that's when the real spying begins................but take one pic of the royals on their private time and the whole craphouse gets their panties in a knot !?!?!


Very food point you made here.... I totally forgot about that when I posted!!

Star for your Post!



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed


If and when they stat installing the facial recognition cameras I might have to join the party.



Well, your late, because these are it, whether
they are letting you know it or not.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


Thanks for the post. I like the sci-fo/looking ahead view that you take. You said that destroying them isn't enough... At the moment it seems like there are not many great options for taking them out.

Guns would be good, but you would need to be sure you aren't firing in the LOS of that camera or any others nearby. Same goes for beting/torching them.

I was just wonderingif there were some sort of focused emp or anything like that which could be used to destroy them?

What better options would we have to destroy them either at a distance or close-up but undetectable without collateral damage?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Speed Cameras in the Back of Vans behind Tinted Windows over here...



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Our little camera on wheels was destroyed a few weeks ago but nobody saw what happened but somebody hit it real hard.






top topics



 
87
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join