U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-30-2012, 10:39 AM
 
8,402 posts, read 20,295,801 times
Reputation: 6774

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
I think I understand where FREW is coming from.

He isn't saying - one camera, one incident, one day, one time stamp.

I think at least part of what he is saying . . . if LE decide they want to build a case against you - they can essentially do with cameras what cannot otherwise be done without a court order.

That is all he is saying, if I understand correctly.

I do agree that this could be done. In other words, if you want to put someone under surveillance without going through the courts . . . you just start tracking him/her via cameras. You start with the camera closest to their work or home, and you go from there. You track their car. You see them go into a parking lot at 11:37 pm and it so happens that a crime took place at 11:48 within a block of that parking lot. You make an assumption that this person was involved in that crime.

I am oversimplifying, of course, but trying to explain what it could mean if LE were on a witch hunt for whatever reason - and wanted to find a way to bring you in on suspicion of criminal activity. This would give them the first way to then question folks and show them photos and see if they can get anyone to identify you as the person near a crime scene.

THEN they get the warrant.

I know that most of us feel that since we are NOT engaged in any type of illegal activity, who cares if someone watches our comings and goings. And I am amazed at how many crimes CAN be solved or at least - perps narrowed down - through video and photos. I feel safer, myself, having cameras around.

But that doesn't mean FREW doesnt' have a valid point.
Assuming all those cameras are viewing public areas, I don't see the problem, or any supposed Constitutional issue. The cameras are just seeing what anyone else would see, including LEOs who happen to be around. If the system is used to catch criminals, I'm OK with that.

There are plenty of things the government should keep their noses out of. IMHO this isn't one of them.

Last edited by vmaxnc; 10-30-2012 at 10:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2012, 10:43 AM
 
3,914 posts, read 3,945,730 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Styrofoam View Post
Law Enforcement do not require a court order to conduct surveillance of an individual when they are in public though..
This is NOT the point being made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 10:46 AM
 
52 posts, read 51,615 times
Reputation: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
This is NOT the point being made.

Are you going to make your point soon?

You claimed there was a violation of "constitutionally protected rights" and alleged a violation of the 4th, yet you have not supported it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 10:49 AM
 
3,914 posts, read 3,945,730 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Styrofoam View Post
Are you going to make your point soon?.
Yes. Go back and read my posts again that you originally responded to. I'll say again, when you address the points made, instead of cherry picking a few words out of the context, then I will be glad to have a civil discussion with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 10:52 AM
 
52 posts, read 51,615 times
Reputation: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
Yes. Go back and read my posts again that you originally responded to. I'll say again, when you address the points made, instead of cherry picking a few words out of the context, then I will be glad to have a civil discussion with you.
I addressed it.....

Im trying to have a civil discussion, I have asked repeatedly for you to explain how this is a violation of constitutionally protected rights (your words) or, specifically, the police violating the 4th amendment by fishing for crimes.

I've addressed your concerns with the use of video footage released to 3rd parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 10:54 AM
 
3,914 posts, read 3,945,730 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Styrofoam View Post
I've addressed your concerns with the use of video footage released to 3rd parties.
Sure, you simply said you didn't believe it. Since I don't seek to change your beliefs or opinions or even criticize you for holding these particular beliefs, then I have no issue with this. There is nothing else to discuss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 11:04 AM
 
52 posts, read 51,615 times
Reputation: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
Sure, you simply said you didn't believe it. Since I don't seek to change your beliefs or opinions or even criticize you for holding these particular beliefs, then I have no issue with this. There is nothing else to discuss.
So... no admitting you were wrong on the constitution or no support for your stance.

Roger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 11:39 AM
 
3,914 posts, read 3,945,730 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Styrofoam View Post
So... no admitting you were wrong on the constitution or no support for your stance.
I blame the public schools for teaching kids to take tests (color the yes or no block) instead of the skills of critical thinking. I thought you should have gotten this by now, but no matter, I will try to make it as clear as possible.

No, I was not wrong. I hope this clears it up for you now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 03:15 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 6,995,987 times
Reputation: 4402
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
I blame the public schools for teaching kids to take tests (color the yes or no block) instead of the skills of critical thinking. I thought you should have gotten this by now, but no matter, I will try to make it as clear as possible.

No, I was not wrong. I hope this clears it up for you now.
Please share with us unwashed masses the nature of this evil. Perhaps you'll make an ally.

Folks have taken time to explain exactly why they are ok with it, and judging by how many times you've responded you obviously have some time. Instead of huffing and puffing about who you blame and insulting the lack of critical thinking skills posessed by everyone but you, why not try to articulate your position more clearly? It may be helpful to leverage your reasoning against the previous posts who have stated (rather clearly, I might add) their own position. It may also be helpful to invoke sound logical processes that don't rely on words like "Soviets, Himmler, and Stalin". That ought to be easy for someone as sagacious as yourself.

Personally, I don't think that criminal activity or misdeeds of any sort ought to be forgiven or overlooked just because resources aren't plentiful. A robust camera system allows one officer to do the job of many. In my book efficiency is something to strive for. There isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy in many places other than your own property. As soon as big brother proposes putting a camera in my home I will be the first in line with torches and pitchforks, until then I support the PD in their battle to fight crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 03:40 PM
NDL NDL started this thread
 
Location: Gaston County
3,151 posts, read 3,623,231 times
Reputation: 2067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Styrofoam View Post
Where is that mentioned in the constitution?
Our pre-9/11 form of government, presupposes someone's innocence, until they're proven guilty.

Post 9/11: If motive discerning software decides that someone is acting in a suspicious fashion, it automatically sets that person up in a defensive posture. In fact, the entire aim of current policing methods, seeks to discern, and thwart, criminal activity before crime actually takes place.

I suppose this might be a post-9/11 reality...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top