It seems there is an error in the title of the OP.
shouldn't it read;

"Maryland Criminals Are Sick of Being Caught and Arrested And Are Tearing Down Police Cameras"?

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I absolutely condone the destruction of the cameras aka chains being placed to enslave us. Soon, we will also need to go after those people who are "just following orders". They are complicit in our enslavement and will need to be dealt with. Just following orders IS NOT an acceptable excuse.

If a tree falls in a forest when nobody is present, does it make any sound?

When there are no other cars or people on the road, do lone cars stop at the red light?

Is it illegal to break a written law, which is intended to protect people, when in fact there are no people around needing that protection?

Why do we need cameras?

Can't the people who are at the scene testify to what they witness themselves?

Should we have laws that require cameras instead of people's own eyes to act as witness?

Why do we still need protection when there is no one else around?

When I was in highschool (10 yrs ago) a cop came in and told our class the thing cops most rely on is discernment. What discernment do these cameras have, and their operators for that matter?

Am I soon gonna be like Stallone in Timecop, written a ticket every time I swear? Because that is where this seems to be heading.

I totally disagree with the stupid cameras at intersections because it causes more harm than good.

I received a ticket by one of the cameras in an intersection and now every time I go through that intersection I am so worried about the stupid camera that I have made errors in my driving. Being so concerned about getting a ticket I find myself trying to pay so much attention to where I am at when the light turns yellow that I have came close to hitting another car in the process. Plus people that drive the same route know where these are so your constantly speeding up big time to make sure you don't chance it or stopping really quickly because you know it is there and don't want the ticket.

Camera systems are about money plain and simple.

I have a serious question here: are these cameras in public places, in plain view, and can see what anyone else who was paying attention would be able to see?

If that's the case, then what's the difference between these cameras watching you and the cops watching you? They're not there to document your lives so that they can do whatever it is you're scared of them doing. It's a form of crime deterrence. With the economy in the crapper, and the police departments usually the first on the cutting board, most places have manpower issues and this is a good way to make up for that.

But, hey, I could easily be wrong and everyone's extreme paranoia is right.

Originally posted by popcornmafia

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.

Are they using facial recognition technology in Canada (Where I am from)?

I'm not doubting you it's jsut that I have not heard of any facial recognition being used in Canada, but as you said they might not be telling us, and I wouldn't hold it past our current government to use something like this with out our consent.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
In my opinion this level of surveillance and interconnectivity is inevitable.

Technological advancement not only for the purpose of crime prevention and surveillance will utilize these type of networks, but personal devices as well.

I foresee a future were social media and technological interaction will be common place everywhere we go and cameras, sensors and all kinds of other types of monitoring devices will be needed to supply us with our insatiable need for being “plugged in” as it were.

So may choose to disagree, or that I am going a bit off topic, but our relationship between technology, in this case surveillance equipment, and ourselves will grow ever more intertwined.

The future is a digital one and this kind of stuff is part of it.

My viewpoint is that this type of digital infrastructure will continue to develop and we cannot stop it, however what needs to develop is a niche industry to counter balance the increased exposure we will experience.

Anyways, this is not the stone age I am afraid to say. Groups, including the government, will exploit technological development and it is up to us to maintain the balance.

Edit: Before i get blasted from people Thinking I support government monitoring, I don’t. I am just under the impression that this kind of development will happen regardless of complaints as mentioned in the OP.

Eventually destroying the equipment wont be enough..

edit on 17-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

The funny thing to me working in IT is that once this is ubiquitous, you will only see smarter crimes…
ie…digital manipulation of video equipment (think photoshop already does this)
RFID spoofing make someone else’s ID show up
More ID theft, more viruses, more counter security

I live in SoMD. I got popped this morning on a speed camera. Ok, I shouldn't have been speeding but it sucks.
Going 58 in a 50 zone

Well, going by the replies I guess I'm one of the very few that likes cameras being everywhere. I have a problem with them when they get taken to the extreme NYC is doing and applying facial recognition to camera feeds to track people, but just regular CCTV cameras are a good thing. One way or another law enforcement is going to be carried out, I would rather it be carried out by impartial machines than by cops that might be under a quota, or having a bad day, or whatever else causes them to make life harder for you than it has to be.

Individual cops are unpredictable and don't enforce the law equally, some of them will flat out lie in order to throw you in jail. Cameras don't do that, they're neutral and they record all the facts. In short, cameras get bad cops off of the streets. That's a good thing for public safety.

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
The funny part is that they were speed cameras.
Having a regular camera to watch you seems to be ok but when they are getting caught breaking the law....now they are mad??

Quit speeding...problem solved.
I am against cctv cameras I will admit.
I find it funny they are pissed because they are getting caught breaking the law.


They should be outraged at cctv cameras and destroy those instead.

The problem is these towns and counties artificially lower the speed limit. One minute you are doing 40 and the next minute it goes down 10-15 miles per hour. To say these cameras were put in to reduce accidents is a complete joke. They were put in for revenue purposes. Some roads are 25 mph for a reason - they are long, winding, and narrow with no shoulder. Some were clearly built for 40-45-50 mph.

The state also has cameras mounted on Jeeps and these Jeeps travel around the Beltway and I95 in work zones trying to catch people going over 50. FIFTY (Speed Limit signs say 65 mph). And the problem is nearly all of 95 running through central MD is a work zone as is most of the east and west side of the Beltway. Again, they are not increasing safety. Quite the opposite. When you have hundreds of cars moving along at 60-65 and this entire group slams on their breaks because they see the speed camera, this is actually causing accidents. My father got a ticket in a work zone at 12:45 am on a Sunday night - the problem is there was no work going on, so why the speed trap?

It's easy to say "don't speed and you won't get caught" but you don't live in this area and see the sneaky ways they are entrapping people.

Originally posted by phroziac
How about going down a hill in an 80000 pound truck getting busted doing 70 in a 65? I was paying attention to moron drivers, much more important than my speedometer.

Am i just supposed to watch the speedometer and ignore the idiots in front of me?

The "american trucking association" (aka 4 wheelers against 18 wheelers) wants all trucks governed at 65. A couple years ago they claimed 40% of all accidents happen above 65 mph. By their own statistics, they showed going over 65 is safer. Lets think about why for a minute here. Where are we exceeding 60 at? Wide open freeways generally, in good weather. Where are we doing less? Congested areas, places with lots of traffic, cities with stop lights, highways in bad weather.....

Going faster does not cause accidents. Dumb driving, dumb parking are the main causes of accidents.

Texas has a stretch of i10 thats set at 85. Utah has a section of i15 thats set at 85. These are places where there really arent police resources to even enforce that. Ive cranked my fully loaded 80000 pound semi up to 105 for 30 miles or so in the 85 zones in utah. Felt totally comfortable at that speed. Didnt really encounter...anything....at all..... Maybe two cars.

I94 in montana, doesnt have a big speed limit. But ive driven there in the middle of the night. Didnt see any headlights for hours at a time.

And how come everytime i see a speed trap, i see all sorts of people driving like morons, but its the speeders that matter?

speed doesnt kill. At all.

Your logic is flawed, speed does kill. That term doesn't mean that someone going faster is more likely to crash. It means that they are more likely to die if they crash at a higher speed. 18 wheelers should never be hauling a full load at the speeds you suggest, or even an empty load for that matter. If I knew who you were and who you worked for, I would gladly report you for the obvious dangerous driving you talk about in your posts. Over 100MPH with a full load? That is dangerous and irresponsible.

You also most definately deserved the ticket for 70 in a 65, and I can't believe you think watching your speedometer is more important than paying attention to who's in front of you. Here (in California) trucks with trailers are required to go 55 (even in 65 &70 MPH zones). I can only hope that you get pulled off the road and get your trucking license revoked; you are an unsafe operator.