BF2S Forums Cameras everywhere like UK, but requires Warrant to View?

Harmor wrote:

I was just thinking about the all CCTV cameras in the UK while I was going though the drive through at Jack-In-The-Box with a very visible camera staring at me.


What if there were cameras EVERYWHERE, but to view the footage you need a court-ordered warrant to view the footage for a specific event/time period?


Would that satisfy the 4th amendment of the constitution?

Amendment IV

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

The next question is could you have a police officer view through the camera and speak through it without a warrant?

What are you talking about here, the US or the UK?

If you're talking about this within the UK remember we don't have  the US constitution.

The UK does have a load of CCTV cameras but its not like they have one in the street pointing at your house. Its just in areas where there are lots of people like shopping centres and stuff, helps loads in getting shop lifters and drug dealers.

Edit: Understand now. Why would you need a warrant though?

"specific type of authorization; a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or magistrate, which commands an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights and affords the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is performed. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits search or arrest without a warrant, unless there is probable cause."

Im guessing probable cause is the CCTV evidence?

Last edited by buLLet_t00th (2007-07-01 10:43:11)

For some reason, this is striking me more and more of 1984.

Big Brother is watching you.

Harmor wrote:

but now that you are in the 'public' we now should require a court-ordered Warrant to view the footage.

Where are you getting that bit from?

Harmor wrote:

What I'm saying is bring those cameras outside, but now that you are in the 'public' we now should require a court-ordered Warrant to view the footage.

Public place = plain sight

why would you need a warrant ???

And most CCTV circuit aren't monitored, but recorded '' in case of ''

Milk.org wrote:

They actually are phasing in cameras where the controller can speak to you here in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5353538.stm

They have them at the railway station near where I live. I got bitched at by a controller when I left an irn bru bottle on a bench when my train arrived.

Milk.org wrote:

They actually are phasing in cameras where the controller can speak to you here in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5353538.stm

That sounds disturbing...

"Bend over and touch your toes. I'm gonna show you where the wild goose goes."

Well, not being american, I can only tell you what I would think is going to be problematic:

In the US, there's currently NO laws against the use of survailance cameras, well, there may be individual states that prohibit monitoring of public space, but in general, anyone can set up a camera, and regardless of who "owns" the camera private or public company the police may get a warrant to review the material, or the owner can voluntarily surrender the material in question.

So in essence the police doesn't NEED a warrant now. Which means that the goverment would have to LIMIT it's own control of the cameras that are then installed. While that would probably work for the US government 100 years ago, Jefferson and licoln are LONG dead by now, and the current politicians are NOT about limiting the goverments power or control over it's people. The US government is longer "of the people, by the people and for the people". It's now an elitist group of guys from texas or new hampshire who wants to have the title of "most powerful man in the world" presumably to impress chicks (I mean really, look at Clinton). Well, it certainly SEEMS that way nowadays. And Find me ONE guy who's running for president with the promise of cutting down the governments control over the people, and I'll ask everyone I know to vote for the guy. But I've yet to see one of these guys.

So why ISN'T the US putting up cameras everywhere ? A couple of reasons:
1) It's going to cost money
2) It's going to cost WADS of money to record and save all the information
3) It's going to cost EVEN MORE money if someone should even superficially examine all of the recordings

Then there are the technical issues, like facial recognition ISN'T as far advanced as you see in "Las Vegas" or other TV shows. Same thing goes for gait recognition, automatic tracking  etc. etc. etc.  So technically, the use of the cameras are rather limited as you can bascially "only" find people on the film if you KNOW they were somewhere specific and at what time. That makes it a TERRIBLE prevention system against terrorism. You can't recognize a person, you can't follow him, and you can't stop him. However, once he's done his deed you CAN see where he's been, but that's really not very helpful.
So why should you put up cameras ? To record speeding ? Jaywalking ? Assault ? Robbery ? Sure, go ahead, but is it WORTH the extreme cost if all you'll get is evidence ?
I mean is it REALLY that many cases of crimes commited in public space that get thrown out of court on account of lack of evidence that it's worth the many thousands of dollars a year a SINGLE camera costs ?

Jamesey wrote:

Milk.org wrote:

They actually are phasing in cameras where the controller can speak to you here in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5353538.stm

They have them at the railway station near where I live. I got bitched at by a controller when I left an irn bru bottle on a bench when my train arrived.

lol. That sounds like it could be really humilliating.

I can just imagine: "You two, stop making out on that bench!" in front of hundreds of people commuting to work, or something like that.