Surveillance video grows despite lack of evidence »
Posted By SunnyDays 3 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsAfter the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, local governments across the country set aside concerns over privacy and installed surveillance cameras in public streets and plazas.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
Submitted By:
SunnyDays
Hello ! Thanks for visiting my profile page . I like to stay on top of whats happening in the world, will try to submit interesting stories ...
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 67
-
-
0%
Will13133 months, 2 weeks ago
i'm going to agree with you on this one.. and i go out of my way to guard what little privacy we still can achieve...
a camera at a car wash.. i believe in Sarasota, FL helped them catch and convict a guy who abducted a 14 year old girl and killed her.. unfortunately it didn't save her.. but it got him identified.. before he could strike again..
Reply -
0%
joey-evans3 months, 2 weeks ago
Why should you be against being surveillance in public places? Gee, I guess because who knows who's doing the watching and what exactly are they doing with that video and what will they do with that video?
When I can watch those who are watching me..then maybe I will feel better....maybe not.
The old saying of who is watching those who are watching me?
Sorry, but this smacks of "well, if you have nothing to hide, why do you care?"
Nope, sorry not for me..thanks anyway.
JOEY EVANS
Reply-
0%
Tcaros3 months, 2 weeks ago
Good point Joey.
Here's the more on that:
You see the folks who push the surveillance thing say "well, if you are doing nothing wrong than there's nothing to hide." This is flawed logic and we've been down this road many times before.
Here's why; the poeple doing the watching will use the information- no matter how mundane- for other purposes.
Imagine seeing yourself accidently pick your nose, scratch your butt, or forget where you parked your car. Pretty soon you will not feel free to "do anything," but walk in bee lines from point A to point B.
Imagine you talked to a female and it was taped and sent to your wife or fiancee. It causes you tremendous tormoil and you never find out who sent the e-mail clip.
The top reason: nobody will be watching those who watch you && people will abuse the power for other reasons.
Reply
-
-
0%
nikkibabe3 months, 2 weeks ago
It is copycat syndrome. Here is a list.
. Shoe bomber on flight. UK said take off your shoes at airports, USA says we too.
. After underground bombings in London, UK installed video cameras and checked backpacks in train stations, USA says we too.
. There was speculation that some nuts in UK wanted to use to bottled water & shampoo to blow up an aircraft, so ban all liquids from flights, USA says we too.
Reply -
-
0%
NeoCon3 months, 2 weeks ago
There is no expectation of privacy in public and criminals should have no expectation of it either. No one is giving up any freedoms.
Reply-
0%
Will13133 months, 2 weeks ago
while i agree that cameras MIGHT be a good idea.. and you have no right to expect privacy in public....
does it stop there.. how about microphones... to record voices..
and is the information going to be subpoenable into court for say a civil matter...
such as possible evidence in a divorce case.. you go to lunch at a street cafe on the other side of town with your girl friend.. can your wife subpoena the tape into court...
if you took a toll road and used a prepaid sunpass or such to get there.. that info IS subpoenable into court..
where does it stop..
Reply
-
0%
onlyonesecret3 months, 2 weeks ago
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Reply -
-
0%
earthlingerer3 months, 2 weeks ago
And when is it NOT in the public interest to keep public property free from vandalism, theft, and other crimes?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
NeoCon3 months, 2 weeks ago
"The real issue for us is that once you put cameras in one area, what happens is crime doesn't stop, it just moves a little bit," said Rebecca Burnhart, policy director for the ACLU in Texas. "That creates an incentive to put cameras on the next street and the next street and the next street."
Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, who has tangled with Burnhart over the city's cameras, doesn't understand why some would consider that a problem. If cameras chase criminals around, he said, "so be it."
Chief Acevedo has it right!
Reply -
-
0%
Will13133 months, 2 weeks ago
there were SEVERAL.. all confiscated by the FBI within MINUTES of the attack, never to be seen again.. only 3 or 4 frames from a pentagon camera...
and who is naive enough to believe that the PENTAGON of all places had no cameras of their own...
of all the buildings in the WORLD that i would expect EXTENSIVE security, including cameras... it would be the Pentagon...
Reply-
0%
newbie04203 months, 2 weeks ago
"and who is naive enough to believe that the PENTAGON of all places had no cameras of their own..."
A simple google image of "pentagon 9/11"
http://lawn.1accesshost.com/_webimages/untitled...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility...
http://bp3.blogger.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/R1A-5k-HjmI...
None of which shows cameras on or around the building.
Security for getting INTO the building is extremely tight but before 9/11 we weren't worried about planes being flown into buildings.
9/11 was not an inside job PERIOD, do not let Bush Derangement Syndrome fool you into thinking otherwise.
Reply
-
-
0%
onlyonesecret3 months, 2 weeks ago
"This 9/11 was all planned. This was a government ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder."
-Stanley Hilton
Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677...
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091204hilton.htm
Reply
-
-
0%
jumpmaster3 months, 2 weeks ago
I love the public surveillance cameras. I have nothing to hide. I don't commit crimes so I don't care about the cameras.
Reply-
0%
Will13133 months, 2 weeks ago
but answer my question above..
i too don't commit crimes.. or at least I feel that I don't commit crimes... jaywalking maybe..
south Florida is now installing cameras at traffic lights and sending tickets to people that run red lights.. which is a major problem here.. what next.. camera on radar units issuing speeding tickets...
by the way.. nicer avatar...
Reply-
0%
Will13133 months, 2 weeks ago
this one..
while i agree that cameras MIGHT be a good idea.. and you have no right to expect privacy in public....
does it stop there.. how about microphones... to record voices..
and is the information going to be subpoenable into court for say a civil matter...
such as possible evidence in a divorce case.. you go to lunch at a street cafe on the other side of town with your girl friend.. can your wife subpoena the tape into court...
if you took a toll road and used a prepaid sunpass or such to get there.. that info IS subpoenable into court..
where does it stop..
Reply -
0%
saintetienne3 months, 2 weeks ago
"south Florida is now installing cameras at traffic lights and sending tickets to people that run red lights.."
You're just getting those NOW? Los Angeles has had cameras at traffic lights for YEARS. Not that I care since I ride public transportation.
Face it, Will. You've been under surveillance for longer than you think. And you - with SUCH an ugly face and repulsive attitude. Tsk tsk tsk.... You know, Los Angeles leads the rest of the country in plastic surgeons, as well. JUST in case you were interested....
Reply
-
-
0%
markmawn23 months, 2 weeks ago
This is a good idea for the protection of assets and property.
This is a good idea for seeing those ball of fire events that occur once in awhile in the night sky.
This is a good idea for seeing who just stole your car.
Overall this is a BAD precedent for the future, when the powers that be decide to target a group, individual or population for anything more than catching criminals. The tapes need to be made public record at any time during an investigation as to allow interpretation and jurisdiction.
Law enforcement should be just that.
Reply -
0%
Tcaros3 months, 2 weeks ago
It's an aweful idea and it goes against our history and law. There are good reasons to stop this kind of thing.
Here's the more on that:
You see the folks who push the surveillance thing say "well, if you are doing nothing wrong than there's nothing to hide." This is flawed logic and we've been down this road many times before.
Here's why; the poeple doing the watching will use the information- no matter how mundane- for other purposes.
Imagine seeing yourself accidently pick your nose, scratch your butt, or forget where you parked your car. Pretty soon you will not feel free to "do anything," but walk in bee lines from point A to point B.
Imagine you talked to a female and it was taped and sent to your wife or fiancee. It causes you tremendous tormoil and you never find out who sent the e-mail clip.
The top reason: nobody will be watching those who watch you && the bstards will abuse the power for other reasons.
Reply-
0%
markmawn23 months, 2 weeks ago
Exactly. If someone is going to broadcast me scratching my butt to the world, I want a cut of it! There's no way I can sign a release for something posted on YouTube.
I think we're more in danger of someone using this for vengeance or blackmail than law enforcement tailing you in black cars for scratching your butt in public.
Reply
-
-
0%
willottica3 months, 2 weeks ago
There are 2 sides to this argument that I think are both quite compelling.
1) There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, nor should there be. At any point in time, anyone could be watching you (or anyone else) and could be listening, if they're close enough. There is especially no reasonable expectation of privacy when cameras are visible. Duh! You're on tape.
2) The federal government does not have the right to do this kind of surveillance (it is not granted by the constitution). Nor should any local government for the sole reason that it concentrates power in the hands of a few. If those few are corrupted, then so can the power be.
Reply-
0%
willottica3 months, 2 weeks ago
So, my conclusion is that surveillance should be permitted, but by individuals rather than governments. The government should not have the right to subpoena these videos, but they should always be admissible as evidence, should the owner of the tape wish to share them.
As far as traffic cameras go, I don't really have a problem with them. Laws are not to be obeyed "just when someone is watching" so having someone watching all the time should not be an issue. If the law is flawed, that's a separate issue and it should be the law that is contested rather than the enforcement of it.
Reply
-
-
0%
Gransater3 months, 2 weeks ago
I agree with Tcaros above.
Whatever happened to "inocent untill proven guilty"?
On the face of it, there are undoubtely many good reasons for public surveillance, but A: I don't believe they outweigh the negatives, B: What guaranty do I have, as an individual that those images of me won't be altered using an ever increasing technology, or delivered to private enterprise to be used for ??????? purposes. C: What will happen when all clothing gets imbeded RFI tags? Couple computers to the camera, and someone will have my complete life in digital format.
That's not freedom. I don't mind policemem looking at me, for brief moments untill they decide I'm of no interest. To have my whole life available to someone beyond public control is something else entirely.
Ever notice how our freedoms are slowly being taken away, in the name of the good for all. Well, I have nothing to hide, and I DO mind public surveillance.
Reply -
0%
unome23 months, 2 weeks ago
There is only one place that America needs Surveillance video, and that would be in the dark corners of government where the corporate neo con elite make their evil war profiteering deals and come up with the lies that have dragged us into this false war.
The war on terror is not real.
Reply -
-
0%
foksipayne3 months, 2 weeks ago
Maybe he would have realized that the jews weren't out to get him...?
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.