Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

page: 3
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
This could potentially fall under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, just saying. With an updated PATRIOT act, and the new NDAA who knows what's left our privacy rights?




posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentNoise
 


Thanks SilentNoise, excellent reply. Star for that one.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I'm becoming increasingly surprised at people's reaction to this. What did you expect from the Supreme Court? What do you think these guys are going to do? They're corporate shills just like the rest of them. We're talking about a body of people that ruled slavery "constitutional". How is anyone surprised by these people?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
I'm reminded of the George Bush quote about the constitution...
"...It's just a goddamn piece of paper!...It's just a goddamn piece of paper!"

I'm tired of it.....I DO NOT pledge allegiance to the flag....I DO NOT pledge allegiance to
the government for which it stands.....

I, instead, pledge allegiance to the constitution....I pledge allegiance to the principles that it defines.

And by doing so, I am not a guilty party, I am not a BAD guy. I am an American citizen who
is fed up with his government over-stepping its bounds and attempting to rewrite the
Constitution as it sees fit. That document created and sustained one of the greatest
republics in all of human history....and I am sick of watching it being subverted and trampled.

edit on 31-10-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)


My good goddess gaia you hit it on the head there with is .. i have felt this way for a long time



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras


news.cnet.com

Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge said yesterday.
CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission -- and without a warrant -- to install multiple "covert digital surveillance cameras" in hopes of uncovering evidence that (something illegal was going on)
(visit the link for the full news article)



As a professional electricain of 30 years Im pretty sure goverment just created a new business. Wana make sure you have no cameras call me
After all anything installed on private property becomes your property =P
edit on 1-11-2012 by chapterhouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck
 


If one of those trespassers step into say a bear trap, could I be held responsible for that?


Is the bear trap placed legally? There are usually laws governing the use of traps.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by chapterhouse

Originally posted by boncho

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras


news.cnet.com

Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge said yesterday.
CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission -- and without a warrant -- to install multiple "covert digital surveillance cameras" in hopes of uncovering evidence that (something illegal was going on)
(visit the link for the full news article)



As a professional electricain of 30 years Im pretty sure goverment just created a new business. Wana make sure you have no cameras call me
After all anything installed on private property becomes your property =P
edit on 1-11-2012 by chapterhouse because: (no reason given)


Guaranteed the police get the property back, whether it is legal or not. Police don't play around when the budget is concerned.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I guess it's kind of a moot point really. If it came to that, I have far better traps than bear traps. Treefall and rockslide traps are pretty fun. Not sure on the bear trap regulations. I know they are all over in certain places in the woods here, where people grow their plants that cannot be named, those people are obviously not all that concerned about legalities



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


You have a legal right to privacy. This only extends so far, where there is an expectation of privacy. I actually do not see why this is such a problem. If in your yard you create a platform, surround it with spotlights shining on it, and post signs saying free show just look up, you have no expectation of privacy there any more. This is common sense stuff. Your privacy in the places that should be private has not been infringed. Don't commit crimes, especially not in places that are out in the open.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


My house is surrounded by woods, for privacy. The only open space on my property, is the the back yard, cleared out for our wood pile, shooting range, and crops. I would say I have the expectation of privacy in my own back yard, it would be a mistake for someone to think they have a right to invade that privacy.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


The court agrees. The wooded lands that you have not cleared out I am not so sure about.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
What is so hard about getting a warrant anyway? Type it up, sign it, call on the judge & get his siggy too. This is CYA, the most basic rule of police work. Why take the risk? Get the warrant, then the judge is the one responsible for authorizing it. I don't see why this is even an issue. PD need to take a step back and pause. You main goal is go home safe; goal two is NOT to have brand new case-law named after you!!



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOtter
What is so hard about getting a warrant anyway? Type it up, sign it, call on the judge & get his siggy too. This is CYA, the most basic rule of police work. Why take the risk? Get the warrant, then the judge is the one responsible for authorizing it. I don't see why this is even an issue. PD need to take a step back and pause. You main goal is go home safe; goal two is NOT to have brand new case-law named after you!!


I agree. This is not new case law though, the case law in question is old.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I agree with your analysis.

Sad to report, the rule of law in the US is dead-in-the-water. The Executive and Legislative branches routinely violate constitutional principles, and the Judiciary hears no evil, sees no evil, and says nothing about these blatant violations.

Much of the impetus for this situation has been the drug prohibition, as is the case here, but the GWOT today has incredible impact in that area.

Privacy? That's a word in the dictionary.






top topics



 
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join