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

reply to post by Schrecken Licht


Thank you for the detailed reply. I was talking about destroying part of the camera so it would need to be serviced. Some of the DPSS lasers I looked up were very expensive. I was wondering if these would work as well as the ones you were referring to.
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348155422&sr=8-1&keywords=dpss+laser

Any publicly funded camera feed should be available to....the public.

Furthermore, if the govt wants cameras in public places, then they should submit to the same in their PUBLIC offices, under the same pretense...in case something illegal happens.

The best argument I have against public monitoring by police is that there's no allegation of a crime, no pretense, no probable cause....no real reason for them to electronically observe private citizens going about their personal business in public.

Basically, it's none of their business. (before a crime happens)

reply to post by FlyingFox


You're right, they should only install CCTV cameras if something happens. If someone is mugged, killed, whatever - we should wind back time, and install a camera at the scene where the crime is due to take place and catch the culprit.

If the time ever comes where I feel the need to use CCTV to secure my property, to deter criminals - I'll do it with not a care about how others feel about it. I know home owners who have CCTV equipment guarding their property, just normal people with something to lose. They ain't the bad guys, the bad guys are the ones who think they're entitled to help themselves to whatever they see...people pretend to be on the side of truth, justice, etc...yet they preach the opposite.

It's simple - people do what they can/need to in order to protect themselves, their property, their family....CCTV is one such method, or we do nothing and let the criminals take over and do what they like, why are those who are apparently on the side of the greater good advocating the latter of the two options? Kinda odd - the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was conviincing the world he doesn't exist...crime does exist, and people have the right to protect their own. I care not about some idiots "right not to be filmed" because it's pathetic.

Going about destroying cameras WILL NOT HELP...if you can't win the argument without resorting to vandalism then you simply validate the need for the cameras. You ain't winning the argument against CCTV because you don't have a solid argument - the argument is essentially a petty whine - oooh, my right not to be filmed is more important thanyour right to protect your property from scum...absolute nonsense, you can't win the fight with such a weak argument so you then validate the need for CCTV by taking the law into your own hands and becoming a vandal...anarchy. If you don't want to be part of the society you live in then move on, don't try to dictate or change the rules that a silent majority have decided is for the greater good. Society isn't about the individual it's about the whole.

Many things that are merely revenue rakers are created under the guise of trying to protect the public. These speed cameras are definitely one of them. I agree with what many of the other posters in this thread has said- if the government is truly serious about enforcing the speed limit, there are much more effective ways of doing so. However, this is probably the most COST effective way for them to deal with this situation

Originally posted by samerulesapply
reply to post by FlyingFox

 

I know home owners who have CCTV equipment guarding their property, just normal people with something to lose. They ain't the bad guys, the bad guys are the ones who think they're entitled to help themselves to whatever they see...people pretend to be on the side of truth, justice, etc...yet they preach the opposite.

I don't think we're talking about homeowners... It's the indiscriminate public surveillance used by our civil authorities, paid for by our own tax dollars that most of us take umbrance with.

Kinda odd - the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was conviincing the world he doesn't exist...

Too true...

crime does exist, and people have the right to protect their own.

Nobody argues that... That's why we have our 2nd Amendment protections here in the US.

If you don't want to be part of the society you live in then move on, don't try to dictate or change the rules that a silent majority have decided is for the greater good.

Just because someone is silent doesn't mean that person thinks something is for the greater good. I'm just sayin...

Society isn't about the individual it's about the whole.

While I think I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with how you stated it.

4th Amendment to the US Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of course, I have an opinion on what this means and my assertion is that from a strict constructionist point of view, this kind of behavior by our civil authorities is unconstitutional. However, we live in an apathetic society that meekly bows its head and goes about its own business.

I've had this argument on ATS before and it goes nowhere.

Some of the things people say really anger me, essentially - it all boils down to some apparent, divine right "not to be filmed". I've never heard one sensible argument against CCTV...it's always paranoid stuff, face recognition, they're gathering footage of us...they can do evil, terrible things with it.

Like what? Name one use for footage of faceless nobodies like the majority of us going about daily, mundane, every day tasks like going to work, shopping...wow - how interesting. Naturally, all CCTV is operated by the same sinister group of people who spend all day sitting there watching the screens, all pervy and seedy -- they can see you! This, is...of course - a lot worse than being seen by other people in the street using their human eyes...being potentially looked at by someone you can't see is absolutely horrifying!

Here are some facts I can state, I didn't run to google - I'm basing it on what I've experienced in my personal life - several of the premises I've worked in over the years had CCTV and NOBODY watched it! This is true in my current workplace (transport - work in a train station) the office where the CCTV monitors are is pretty much always empty, the lights are always out. It's only ever accessed when something happens and it's usually the police looking for information on a crime that has taken place - and they do take place I can assure you.

They've caught some really nasty folks over the years following some terrible crimes, some of which I and my colleagues witnessed. I don't hear any of the victims of various crimes complain about losing their god-given right not to be filmed. I know people who own their own CCTV systems to protect their homes and businesses, and as I stated, should i ever feel the need to invest in such a thing I will...why shouold I care about some strangers petty "right not to be filmed"? If a man think such a thing will protect himself, his family and his property, he's not going to care much about your right not to be filmed. When the big bad men in black start pointing cameras into your house then fair enough...but are they?

A friend of mine has worked in security for years and for a time operated CCTV in edinburgh city centre...his job consisted of mostly sitting around watching television until he was alerted that something was happening, normally by phone or by radio. I used to visit him on occasion and he and his colleagues were pretty much always watching television...they were trackers - reactive...because it was pretty much impossible for them to monitor all cameras all of the time, there are too many...more cameras than screens. They could go split-screen or large-screen and cycle between cameras. To monitor all cameras all the time would cost a fortune - but they could help track people and assist in their capture, they work closely with the police although he is employed by a private security firm.

For me, the benefits outweigh the supposed negatives - to be part of any society you need to compromise, we don't all think the same. In my eyes, a persons right to protect his family, property or even public property or the public themselves is far more important than someones right not to be filmed - a non-right. It's a petty whine, if you don't like the society you're part of and are unwilling to compromise and play the game then slide on. Go live in a cave where there is no CCTV, form your own utopia and show us all that we really are slaves in an orwellian hell. As far as I see in my personal life, I'm one of the majority with regards to this issue. Nobody whines about CCTV to me, nobody seems to care about being filmed. I've seen CCTV footage being used for nothing bad or sinister, but I've seen it be effective and help get scum off the streets so I know what side I'm on.

And with regards to the speed cameras - here in the UK when they were first introduced they were hidden, grey and stealthy. People whined, basically - people feel they weren't being given a sporting chance and what happened? The government caved in, all speed cameras are now highlighted with orange and yellow reflective banding...well so much for the orwellian hell we live in. Saving lives isn't a game of cat and mouse...they ain't effective because people see them, slow down...then speed up again when the camera is out of sight. Presumably people like the idea of maniacs on the roads...or are we really stupid enopugh to assume that all drivers are careful, considerate drivers? Get real...why give potential danger a sporting chance? Stupid...the people whined and the people won - but not all of us see it as a victory. I think they SHOULD be hidden otherwise what's the point? Stupid.

reply to post by samerulesapply


It looks like I touched on a pretty raw nerve... Definitely I offer my apologies.

reply to post by JimmyNeutron


Not at all, don't apologise. I don't mean to come across agressive or angry. I'm not pro-government or anything like that, but it's something I feel strongly about because it's something I've worked with in the past and it's something I've seen be put to such good use...and I feel there's a bandwagon that many people hop on board without actually thinking about it.

I expected perhaps an argument of some kind...my outlook on the world around me is not set in stone, and if someone shows me I'm wrong about something I'm willing to accept that - I've just never been shown by anyone why CCTV is so bad or what use the footage of me doing mundane things is to anyone or how it could be used against me.

It wasn't an apology I was looking for, it was a constructive argument - I guess there isn't one.

Samerules - you are one of the only people on here to make sense about the CCTV issue and you are 100% right. Those that bitch and moan about CCTV don't seem to be able to separate reality from fantasy. They get off on the concept that they are being watched and followed by 'the man'. Why? Because it makes them feel important.

Guess what - most people are not important. Not in that way.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


About time we need more of these good sumaritans

All you people saying "I can't wait for this to spread" and "Finally people standing up for themselves" wth where have you been

www.guardian.co.uk...
www.speedcam.co.uk...