Comparison to cell phones doesn’t fly. Me carrying a phone is my choice. I opt in. Where’s the opt out for public surveillance?
No Loaf'n
Comparison to cell phones doesn’t fly. Me carrying a phone is my choice. I opt in. Where’s the opt out for public surveillance?
Senior Member
Didn’t any of y’all watch enemy of the state? If half that movie was true every American should be up in arms. America was not to be a police state but it sure seems to be going that way in the name of safety. I can’t tote a gun where I want to protect myself but the police can monitor my movement to protect me….
cut\'em
Senior Member
Was going for unreasonable and paranoid.. figured I’d join the crowd but I digress.Originally Posted by BuckyTownsend
For starters no one is tracking you but big tech, so tip your tinfoil hat that direction. As stated prior, the smart phone you’re holding and the Alexa in your home collect and store more information about you and your location than you can imagine. And it’s all in name of exploiting your wallet, which is also likely digital. The cameras referenced in this thread are for monitoring traffic for specific vehicles determined to have been involved in prior crimes, not issuing traffic tickets or monitoring the public. And news flash, we already live in a “constantly recorded state” There are surveillance cameras absolutely everywhere, the majority being private surveillance. Your attempt to correlate DNRs abuse of open fields doctrine via remote and/or stored video monitoring is not consistent with the topic of this thread (public vs private property being monitored). You may not believe it but I’m one of the biggest constitutionalist you’ll meet.. Primarily because it’s the right thing and my job requires it, but it also protects me from criminal and civil liability. I understand the “government is tracking me” fear but it’s terribly misguided in this instance.
“Get out among the mountains and trees, friend, as soon as you can. They will do more for you than either man or woman could.” Theodore Roosevelt to John Muir after his wife's passing in 1905.
Order of Jack Miner
You seem a bit argumentative so I’ll play along. “For starters”, I don’t have a “fear” of being monitored by gov cameras in public spaces anymore than I have a “fear” of you pulling me over. Should I fear either? The former happens when I’m functioning within the law in public spaces, the latter “should” only happen when I’ve broken or suspected of having broken the law. But monitoring and recording the public in public is government over reach and if falling into the wrong hands or administration is a very slippery slope that could prove dangerous at a minimum for the public. We both admit this happens so we agree. I don’t think it should exist though. So how do I have a tinfoil hat? That’s a term used by conspiracy theorists who think something unproven exists. And as far as “monitoring only” goes, as you state, I guess you don’t know or have never heard of anyone getting a traffic ticket in the mail from a camera at an intersection or stop sign? I know that’s not what these SLED cameras were doing. But it happens in certain jurisdictions. Also, I’m not attacking you personally. So I’m not surprised but relieved you think you’re a constitutionalist given your publicly funded job. Why wouldn’t you believe in the letter of the constitution and function within same? To think otherwise would prove you’re in the wrong job in addition to not understanding the very principles that provide our freedoms. So no special consideration for that. I’d hope all officers are constitutionalist and I’m glad you are. Again we agree.. It is a fact cameras are in place on public spaces that record what people are doing while they function with in the law. With the SLED case referenced, part of the problem is that there is a recording made and held for a period of time and it includes the public which is not breaking the law. That is government over reach. Just as DNR coming on your land without a warrant or even probable cause under the Open Fields Doctrine is government over reach. I’m not saying they’re the same thing. But they are both examples of government overreach. . It’s interesting, as a constitutionalist, how do you think they’re not? Also, we don’t need cameras up and down 385 or 26 to tell anyone if the traffic is bad or where a wreck is, which is what their original explained use was. As you repetitively point out, our cell phones can do that. The problem for me is , that they’re even there. But back to your point, explain to us civilians how the cameras referenced in the article only capture the tags of the suspect cars and not others. Explain, why that recording needs to be stored and under what authority or law SLED is doing this under? THATS what the lawsuit is about. We all agree and assume if we go in a private space, store, mall etc, to being monitored. But not moving around day to day in public. THATS the difference. and now we find out through the lawsuit SLED has on their own accord , been doing this recording and storing it. Do constitutionalist agree independent law enforcement agencies, like SLED, can make up their own procedures for recording and storing surveillance, with no oversight or based on any law that allows same? That’s the issue. No fear mongering, just overreach exposed. I’m glad it makes law enforcement easier, but that doesn’t make it legal nor should it stomp on citizens’ rights to do same. If you can’t understand that, you’re not a constitutionalist at all, just jaded.
Last edited by Palmetto Duck; 11-27-2022 at 11:09 AM.
\"We say grace and we say maam, if you ain\'t into that, we don\'t give a damn.\" HW Jr.
Senior Member
What part of the constitution is this particular system violating? LE and anyone for that matter, may be stationary or mobile in public and observe and/or record anything. This happens virtually all the time via surveillance, cell phones and in general by public and private entities. You are subject to being recorded if you are in public, it’s a fact of the world we now live in. Should laws be enacted to make recording in public unlawful/criminal?? I would assume the LPRs use software the capture/review video for tags in public discarding those not listed and flagging those established as being involved in crimes. I’m not gonna argue the oversight aspect of this system, as I’ve only used it and do not run it. And I’ll agree it deserves oversight, just as anything else (see body cameras). I was in LE during the introduction of dash and body cameras and was in favor of both. I’ll add that if anyone has ever received a ticket from a traffic camera I would assertively contest it. The analogy of a traffic stop vs being recorded in pubic is again apples and oranges.. (just as is the exploitation of open fields doctrine via video recording upon private property). A traffic stop, and definitely recording private property is far more intrusive than being viewed or recorded in public from a distance, even provided that footage is retained. What is the consensus on LPRs on LE vehicles, or prerecorded video on dash cameras or body cameras (each of which have been used to solve unrelated crimes for which the video was initially obtained), as that would be a more appropriate analogy?
“Get out among the mountains and trees, friend, as soon as you can. They will do more for you than either man or woman could.” Theodore Roosevelt to John Muir after his wife's passing in 1905.
Senior Member
You know who hasn’t complained this month about me using a tag reader? The 30+ victims from one suspect who stole their property. Not a single one. But I understand your point. However, I know what it’s currently used for and everything is good. Nobody cares if you slip downtown for hookers and blow. Unless you kill one of them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Order of Jack Miner
I’m no lawyer but let’s just say that part of the 4th Amendment about oh “the right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers and effects....”. I may be dead wrong on it, but it doesn’t mean I like the cameras up and down the highways and on every public corner and stoplight. We agree there should be oversight. Reread my prior post. I’m not saying getting pulled over is the same thing. Just using that as an example that I’m not scared of getting pulled over anymore than being videoed. You mentioned fear of getting tracked by the government and the tin foil hat. Tinfoil hat shit is based on assumptions but unproven. This recording shit is actually happening. I say it’s over reach and needs oversight. SLED got caught making up their own procedures for same which is bullshit. Why are you even arguing when you agree it needs oversight? My question for any self proclaimed constitutionalist is am I “secure in my person” if you video me coming and going lawfully on my own or in my car. Given the ridiculous crackdown our government at all levels had on people during COVID, is it really a stretch to be concerned? People were arrested, put in jail, not allowed to open their own businesses, fired, kicked out of the military at the drop of a damn hat that manifested all within a few months. Now SLED just decides to record shit for shits and giggles “ to look for bad guys” and keeps it without any express law allowing same and you wonder why someone may be a little uncomfortable with that? Is that really a stretch given where we came from the last two years? The public wouldn’t even know about this if not for the lawsuit. You think that’s OK? What else is out there we don’t know about yet? I’m not paranoid but I know the military has extensive listening capabilities and some levels of law enforcement does too. DNR has devices that detect gunshots, so they can respond to an area they think is getting poached. I’m just saying I don’t like the look nor the trajectory of this trend. And I haven’t heard a decent explanation to date why we need cameras all up and down the roads. I can explain it, but I can’t understand it for you. I’m done.
\"We say grace and we say maam, if you ain\'t into that, we don\'t give a damn.\" HW Jr.
Senior Member
There are two problems with your argument and each have already been ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court. One, there is no expectation of privacy at the point one exposes themselves to the public, and even more so at the point they place themselves in public. Additionally, being recorded in a public place, even by the government does not constitute a seizure of that person, place or thing. Nor does that recording constitute and invasion of privacy, again because there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, to what can be viewed by the public.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/tu...-united-states
These arguments will be made in this lawsuit but I’d wager these cameras, just like this lawsuit won’t be going anywhere. And I appreciate your snide personal attacks on my ability to “understand” things. Hence the link so you may read things I understand.
“Get out among the mountains and trees, friend, as soon as you can. They will do more for you than either man or woman could.” Theodore Roosevelt to John Muir after his wife's passing in 1905.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks