These cameras are illegal to use, here's the law: Here is what the IV Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says about them "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." My outdoor space is being violated here!
They're not for fighting crime, they're to desensitize us to seeing cameras at this particular time. At some point in the future they will be in our homes, businesses, etc.
My only problem with the cameras : Will everyone be able to depend on them ? When they capture police brutality or the mayor's kid gets into a traffic accident ?
Can we expect to hear, oh, that camera wasn't working or the tape was faulty .
Who has control of content ?
What about the voyeurs watching, who's watching them ?
does this guy talk about poison in the food and water system? does he know? if so he'd know there's some serious shit goin on that goes beyond who watches the watchers
You should post this as a video response to Liberal Viewer's latest video, "Big Brother Coming to California's Capital?". I thought of this (your video) as I was watching it.
Surveillance cameras are technology run amuck; a Stalinist, police state concept having no place in America. Because you can, doesnt mean you should. They violate free movement and exchange of citizens, confirming the Founders belief that government, if unchecked, will eliminate freedom. Airport shakedowns and spy cameras turn justice on its head; punishing the many for the actions of the few. Mayor J. Richard Gray of Lancaster is a threat to Freedom everywhere. He must resign.
How many times have people's persons been searched(not pat downs, but in their pockets,backpacks and vehicles)when they were not under arrest,and how many police officers have informed individuals that they are being recorded both by video and audio.Try telling a cop,"No, you can't search my vehicle,"or,"No, i do not want to be recorded."Last time I tried that,I spent 3 hours on the side of the road arguing with the officers over something that shouldnt have been an arguement in the first place.
In fact, I think we should take it one step further and wire dashboard cams and audio into their surveilance boards as well, so that they can report on the police officers also, and extra care should be taken to insure that they no longer violate individual rights.
"If we don't have a problem with the cop on the beat, then why do we have a problem with the cameras?"
Well, actually, we do have a problem with the cop on the beat, and we don't have a problem with the cameras. Do a search for Abuse of Authority on youtube some time, and watch some of the home videos of police. If individuals can have personal video and audio surveilance, why can't a private organization set up public surveilance?
Furthermore if you're going to make a distinction between public and private property. I would make an extensive survey of exactly what each and every camera was looking at and remove every single one that had a view of a piece of private property, no matter how small.
Well then, we don't need them in that case. What they will do is reduce the freedom of the townspeople, or at least make it easier for town hall to suppress those freedoms.
To me this constitutes a violation of the 4th Amendment. Cops are fine and necessary, an omnipresent network of cameras watching everyone all the time is way over the line of what is reasonable.
I'm a screaming liberal, completely oppose the gov't's intrusion on our PRIVATE liberties, but have NO problems with security cams in public spaces; no more than I have with private citizens videotaping activities occurring in public spaces. Ban one, and you'd need to ban the other. That WOULD lead to Orwellian intrusions into privacy. Kind of a conundrum there.
Well said. The cameras are designed to "watchdog" the public areas. Still no where near the Orwellian state of trading freedom for a sense of security.
Smmm...ile you're on public surveillance! Actually you bring in an excellent point about the difference between surveillance of public places and private places. Normally I'd be against this..but you have given food for thought. Excellent.
Yeah, I agree with a lot of your videos, but your position on this one has me OUTRAAAAGED. It's a PRIVATE corporation. It's not going to stop crime and I doubt it would lessen crime. It would only aid in the capturing of criminals which is fine, but its not worth sacrificing freedom. As much as it is a fallacy, it is a slippery slope.
Sorry dude, lets say there's some detective bribing the watchers of these cameras or hacks into the system to spy on a cheating spouse. could be done. Just a simple example of subverting this tool to something other than preventing crime.
All sorts of potential problems with these cams, the old "if you're not committing a crime you have nothing to worry about" claptrap shows you haven't thought this stuff through.
As long as the cameras are only looked at when needed. However, that is a slippery slope, give it time and they will be monitoring it every day all day... The problem, is that the government should not have too much control over its citizens. Citizens need some form of privacy in public, outside of the government eye in order to do things the government doesnt necessarily like. Such as passing of information and organizing movements...
What is busting criminals at the expense of your freedom?
what is with the cameras in the london underground on 7/7?
cams on hamburg reeprbahn havn`t had much impact but better news reports with video ! don`t be funny , rather look if it is worth it.i`ve not one ppl (ok1) that i would want to be able to get that view of me , about why and when i am where, and my bongo-"friends `n `hash-puppies` would undoubtetly willingly pay do get that system.serbian mafia had cams positioned in and out of town //yeah the Zemun clan!
The difference with cameras than cops, is that if cops were following you everywhere you went, recording everyone you met, we call that harassment. And if the public does it we call it stalking. Once this door is opened, it will be used for economic gain as well as political control. Privacy is not just about your own personal property, it is also your public interactions. In the end, this makes all people criminals that have yet to be caught, or dollars that have yet to be spent.
well spoken. however i fundamentally disagree with you with all due respect. security traded for freedom undercuts the very premises of freedom...
CiphersSon 1 year ago
These cameras are illegal to use, here's the law: Here is what the IV Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says about them "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." My outdoor space is being violated here!
Elinitsam 1 year ago
Reason and logic from Gil Smart... WTF is going on?
jackooboy1 2 years ago
fuck mayor richard gray
isaac2286 2 years ago 3
They're not for fighting crime, they're to desensitize us to seeing cameras at this particular time. At some point in the future they will be in our homes, businesses, etc.
craigclanof4 2 years ago
My only problem with the cameras : Will everyone be able to depend on them ? When they capture police brutality or the mayor's kid gets into a traffic accident ?
Can we expect to hear, oh, that camera wasn't working or the tape was faulty .
Who has control of content ?
What about the voyeurs watching, who's watching them ?
Just wondering ?
luchpockets 2 years ago
does this guy talk about poison in the food and water system? does he know? if so he'd know there's some serious shit goin on that goes beyond who watches the watchers
happinessinsatanmj 2 years ago
You should post this as a video response to Liberal Viewer's latest video, "Big Brother Coming to California's Capital?". I thought of this (your video) as I was watching it.
lifeinterrupted 2 years ago
Surveillance cameras are technology run amuck; a Stalinist, police state concept having no place in America. Because you can, doesnt mean you should. They violate free movement and exchange of citizens, confirming the Founders belief that government, if unchecked, will eliminate freedom. Airport shakedowns and spy cameras turn justice on its head; punishing the many for the actions of the few. Mayor J. Richard Gray of Lancaster is a threat to Freedom everywhere. He must resign.
22popuser 2 years ago
How many times have people's persons been searched(not pat downs, but in their pockets,backpacks and vehicles)when they were not under arrest,and how many police officers have informed individuals that they are being recorded both by video and audio.Try telling a cop,"No, you can't search my vehicle,"or,"No, i do not want to be recorded."Last time I tried that,I spent 3 hours on the side of the road arguing with the officers over something that shouldnt have been an arguement in the first place.
dataphreak 2 years ago
In fact, I think we should take it one step further and wire dashboard cams and audio into their surveilance boards as well, so that they can report on the police officers also, and extra care should be taken to insure that they no longer violate individual rights.
dataphreak 2 years ago
"If we don't have a problem with the cop on the beat, then why do we have a problem with the cameras?"
Well, actually, we do have a problem with the cop on the beat, and we don't have a problem with the cameras. Do a search for Abuse of Authority on youtube some time, and watch some of the home videos of police. If individuals can have personal video and audio surveilance, why can't a private organization set up public surveilance?
dataphreak 2 years ago
You fucking suck. Stick that camera up your ass nazi.
coll1976 2 years ago
Furthermore if you're going to make a distinction between public and private property. I would make an extensive survey of exactly what each and every camera was looking at and remove every single one that had a view of a piece of private property, no matter how small.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Most important thing he said in the entire video
"They're not going to prevent crime"
Well then, we don't need them in that case. What they will do is reduce the freedom of the townspeople, or at least make it easier for town hall to suppress those freedoms.
To me this constitutes a violation of the 4th Amendment. Cops are fine and necessary, an omnipresent network of cameras watching everyone all the time is way over the line of what is reasonable.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I don't mind the cameras. What I do mind is that anyone can go see the "happenings" in Lancaster. What if it's someones stalker or a sicko? Scary
Maricza 2 years ago
I also have no problem at all with cameras in public areas. Heck they even have warning signs telling you the place is monitored.
Gnomesmusher 2 years ago
I'm a screaming liberal, completely oppose the gov't's intrusion on our PRIVATE liberties, but have NO problems with security cams in public spaces; no more than I have with private citizens videotaping activities occurring in public spaces. Ban one, and you'd need to ban the other. That WOULD lead to Orwellian intrusions into privacy. Kind of a conundrum there.
skelotan 2 years ago
i agree with this vid. apparently London has some extreme amount of camera's and it sounds like it works pretty well there
jmsimpson11 2 years ago
Well said. The cameras are designed to "watchdog" the public areas. Still no where near the Orwellian state of trading freedom for a sense of security.
IMDRanged 2 years ago
Smmm...ile you're on public surveillance! Actually you bring in an excellent point about the difference between surveillance of public places and private places. Normally I'd be against this..but you have given food for thought. Excellent.
seamoremonster 2 years ago
I agree with you. I like the camera so long as they are in public places. What is the big deal?
badmuffy 2 years ago
Yeah, I agree with a lot of your videos, but your position on this one has me OUTRAAAAGED. It's a PRIVATE corporation. It's not going to stop crime and I doubt it would lessen crime. It would only aid in the capturing of criminals which is fine, but its not worth sacrificing freedom. As much as it is a fallacy, it is a slippery slope.
1337kamikaze 2 years ago
This is soooo wrong!
Cops cant see everything all the time.
and cops cant recall every face.
Information is power, power corrups.
this sort of thing can only be permited in places i would call "Super public"
I.e Turist spots, proven high crime areas and only with the consent of local buissnis and noware near recidential areas
Each camera added must be aproved by the people (like a vote at a town council meeting for similar)
and subject for removal under an apeals process
Integrety first!
ZerqTM 2 years ago
Sorry dude, lets say there's some detective bribing the watchers of these cameras or hacks into the system to spy on a cheating spouse. could be done. Just a simple example of subverting this tool to something other than preventing crime.
All sorts of potential problems with these cams, the old "if you're not committing a crime you have nothing to worry about" claptrap shows you haven't thought this stuff through.
robertmike57 2 years ago
As long as the cameras are only looked at when needed. However, that is a slippery slope, give it time and they will be monitoring it every day all day... The problem, is that the government should not have too much control over its citizens. Citizens need some form of privacy in public, outside of the government eye in order to do things the government doesnt necessarily like. Such as passing of information and organizing movements...
What is busting criminals at the expense of your freedom?
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
Does the opening means you are a Mac user?
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Not quite. The company still runs on PCs (unfortunately for the producer who edits the videos.)
gsmartremarks 2 years ago
what is with the cameras in the london underground on 7/7?
cams on hamburg reeprbahn havn`t had much impact but better news reports with video ! don`t be funny , rather look if it is worth it.i`ve not one ppl (ok1) that i would want to be able to get that view of me , about why and when i am where, and my bongo-"friends `n `hash-puppies` would undoubtetly willingly pay do get that system.serbian mafia had cams positioned in and out of town //yeah the Zemun clan!
Realizalize 2 years ago
The problem I have with cameras, they will make police lazy.
OhioDemocrat 2 years ago
I have to disagree. It's like having an unidentified observer on every corner 24/7. It's nothing like having a policeman walking a beat.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago 6
The difference with cameras than cops, is that if cops were following you everywhere you went, recording everyone you met, we call that harassment. And if the public does it we call it stalking. Once this door is opened, it will be used for economic gain as well as political control. Privacy is not just about your own personal property, it is also your public interactions. In the end, this makes all people criminals that have yet to be caught, or dollars that have yet to be spent.
darktoadthesticky 2 years ago