This is exactly why I keep a Richard Nixon mask in my truck at all times.

My new Dell laptop, at work, has a window that can be slid over the camera lens. Looks like SOMEONE was thinking...

Constant surveillance by the state is a violation of the 4th amendment. The idea of public is a misnomer used to violate the 4th amendment. Individuals have the right to privacy in their property, papers and persons no matter where that person may find themselves. The courts have ruled there should be not expectation of privacy in public and therefore anything you do among other people is considered automatically in their purview without need for a warrant or cause. If a private property wants to use surveillance I can avoid that, I cannot avoid government cameras on freeways and government personnel trying to determine if I might be a criminal because I use a highway too often. The database gathered by the government makes it easy for the government to control individuals that are not amicable to the rules and regulations that are promulgated by the myriad of bureaucrats interested in controlling the lives of others with violence not protecting individuals from criminals.

The legality of this is of great debate. On the one side is the argument that if something is in the "public" view, it can be surveilled without a warrant. On the other is the argument that that argument only applies to police when looking for specific evidence of wrongdoing by a specific person in a specific place and time and always-on cameras violate that provision of the Fourth Amendment.

On the one side, the public cameras do significantly assist in catching lawbreakers, but does it place an unConstitutional burden on the common citizen? In my opinion, yes. Government initiated surveillance is only permitted based on a warrant. It should be as simple as that. Do individual businesses have the right to place and maintain cameras covering their individual premises - including the public walkways leading to them? I think that yes they do - provided they notify their customers of that.

I remember warning everyone about our loss of privacy (from government snooping and meddling) when they put cameras everywhere using money for the '96 olympics in Atlanta.
Blanketed the city with government snooping.
Disgusting.

Hello Rich,

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

George Orwell...

Regards,
OA

There has been a radical shift on this issue.

15 years ago I was working on a video conferencing system for Microsoft. One requirement was the camera had to have a mechanical shutter. Even though it was much more expensive than an indicator, they said people will be creeped out by a camera on them all the time, regardless of the indicator. Now most people have a camera on their computer aimed at them all day.

20 years ago on some message board, possibly on FidoNET or something, someone said something like, "I know how to stop crime. Just put cameras on every traffic light; that'll stop it cold." I ignored it assuming it was an absurd suggestion aimed at trolling civil libertarians or it was someone sarcastically pointing out how bad the slippery slope can be. Now we do have cameras at every stop-and-go light.

I remember a controversy around the same time about facial recognition software. Now everyone can use it to find photos of themselves on FB.

I don't think the technology itself is horrible, but it does open a risk. The East German secret police had half the country spying on the other half. But there was no way to manage all that data. Now, in a time when DDR stands for Double Data Rate memory, there is. So we need rules and procedures to prevent abuse. We can't make the technology disappear. We need to keep it from being abused as much as possible.

If the cameras are there to help solve and or prevent crimes and keep citizens safe, I am all for them. The way I look at it: if I am not doing anything wrong, the I shouldn't have to worry about the cameras. After a while, many systems begin writing over the data thus erasing the old.

The presence of surveillance cameras isn't the problem, but the temptation to use that information in a way that violates the Constitution is. With the swamp creatures we see being revealed as the scum is being cleared from the Deep State, I think we're only barely scratching the surface of the many crimes they've committed.

The frightening implications of the growth of universal surveillance were dramatically played out in the TV series "Person of Interest." The idea that there could be an artificial intelligence enabling unending tracking of any person from myriad sources may not be that far off. In fact, some of the things I knew from my work with the intelligence agencies led me to believe that concept might already exist.

On the positive side, we're able to track down criminals faster. The Austin bomber should have realized that that he was likely to be caught on camera when he dropped off his package bombs at the FedEx shop. His real bonehead error was to park his truck right in front, where the license number could clearly be seen. Up to that moment, the police had no idea who the bomber was.

Use of tracking technologies is only going to grow, and it will be abused, on occasion. We have to do our best to elect good people who will prevent such abuses.

Here’s a question. Where should surveillance cameras NOT be allowed? Some choices could be, schools, jails, churches, hospitals, airports, hotels/motels, day care centers, safe spaces, parking areas, businesses, government offices, restrooms, police stations, beaches, federal banks, military bases, people’s houses, meeting places, Washington DC or none of the above?

"Now everyone can use it to find photos of themselves on FB. "

And get on a plane and go through customs!

https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/bi...

Totally predictable. Now that society has shifted from self reliance to government reliance this has become the norm. I really appreciate CG's post - he gives the back story of the cameras and technology.

Well, if it is a public place, I don't know. Of course, in a publicly owned place, such as a bathroom, I guess there should be a certain expec-tation of privacy. Also, in the public park of Richmond, there might be places, such as rock to sit on near big bush with a lot of grass, where a couple might want to rendez-vous (for decent purposes, I mean) where maybe they should expect some privacy. (But then, with all the attacks that could take place, who knows?)

On a related note, Google executive and inheritor of neocon, Eric Schmidt (whose degree from Stanford was earned for a paper on how to lock out users), woke up to realize that drones could see into his property, so he tried to get them banned.

Fan Trailer for "Alongside Night" music by No Really, "Citizen Go Back to Sleep"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6kBb...