Police Gain Access to Home Security Cameras

[Hairball]

Not sure how you all feel about this one and while I would be the first to turn over any recorded criminal activity, I don't agree with giving them access to my system full time. As retired LE I can see the potential use but I also see a grey area where the system may be used outside of "reported" activity. Here is the write-up:

Police around the country are wanting to turn home and business private security cameras into surveillance devices to monitor activity on streets and other public places.

New technology can give cops instant access to video from homes and businesses.

The goal, cops say, is to make it easier to catch criminals, although there are plenty of privacy groups who say the idea is a bad one.

“Because if we do get [criminals] on video, then we are going to put it out to the world that we now have your photograph and that we are looking for you,” Geneva Bosques of the Freemont Police Department in the San Francisco area told KPIX.

Freemont is one of several Bay Area cities asking businesses and homeowners to register security cameras, KPIX reported. The registration gives police the ability to take video off of the cameras in real time.

Nearly 300 homeowners have registered their cameras, and multiple neighborhoods are taking part.

“Well, it is really helpful for us in the aftermath of a crime that has occurred,” Bosques said. “We can map them out, and then we can try to determine whether any of these cameras might help us in our investigation.”

 

[marduk185]

Gotta love cops

 

[Veer_G]

Gotta love cops

Think thruster, not thrustee, my friend ...

 

[Hairball]

I don't think its a cop thing but an overall enforcement plan that could be utilized by any agency that has direct access to the system. It could be local, state, and federal level. My concern would be having my garage door open when I am working on "stuff" or moving things around and the neighbors camera across the street is accessed and now this gives a whole new meaning to the plain view doctrine. Not that I am doing anything illegal but the slippery slope does not take much.

 

[sharac]

LoL as if iphones are not enough. Never in the history of time has any snooping agency managed to get their targets (and never has been such broad target definition so this is unprecedented success measured not in multiples but in power of) to buy their own listening devices. So now they simply copy/paste same scheme over everything else...hey its all about your security.

 

[RyeDaddy]

Dig it?

 

[para72]

Gotta love cops

No.
You don't.

 

[FS1]

No.
You don't.

George Orwell's 1984 came 30 years late.

 

[rpk762]

Lol. God no! If I get something sure I will give you the video but I am not just giving you full or even read only access.

If you want to see some video ask me for specifically what you want. I will get it to you. The more you limit it down the faster you will get your info. The Bismarck PD wanted some video but our buildings manager told me he wanted everything for three full days. That prick called every day asking where his video was. He went full retard. Day 4 was a conference call with the detective. I told them we are looking at over a terabytes of data. The cop asked why it was taking so long and said some stuff about obstructing. We had a good talk about what I was doing and that supervisor got a earful. The cop said we need to look at this gate between 3 hours. Well hell that is only two cameras give me 20 min and you can have the cd. The cop was happy and my boss with no back bone was not happy.

The schalge system we had only held the data so long before it was deleted. Fuck ingersoll rand in the ass.

 

[Phylodog]

Not sure where you came across that little gem but it's a lie. I'm a cop, this is the first I've heard such horseshit and I'm not interested in the idea in the least.

 

[holderofthehorns]

Growing Number Of Bay Area Police Departments Ask Residents To Register Home Security Cameras « CBS San Francisco

Google Fu mastered should be.
At least this one community is considering this.

 

[Phylodog]

Oh, the Bay Area. Well that has about as much to do with me as a satanic church 28 miles outside of Beijing.

 

[Hairball]

They are also attempting this in Massachusetts, Philly and Chicago

"The Worcester, Massachusetts, police department wishes to partner with private businesses throughout the city that are willing to connect their surveillance camera systems to a video surveillance center at the police headquarters" - See more at: Massachusetts town police to gain access to ... | Protect America News

 

[EventHorizon]

So long as registration is voluntary and non-registrants are not penalized/victimized in any way then it's free choice whether or not to hand over the content.

 

[MLC]

There doesn't seem to be a large return on the massive surveillance installations in urban areas to date.
Yes, it does aid in the the apprehension of criminals but not exactly a boon.
I am less skeptical of the utilization of an existing network for the community than I am of a proposal where an entity is installing a network for profit.
If you were to give law enforcement access to IP cameras that view the streets, parking areas and alleys, areas that would normally be viewed and patrolled by the police, I see no reason why it would be an issue.
Law enforcement asking for unfettered access to all camera streams is another story.

 

[QuietShootr]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


No.

Not sure how you all feel about this one and while I would be the first to turn over any recorded criminal activity, I don't agree with giving them access to my system full time. As retired LE I can see the potential use but I also see a grey area where the system may be used outside of "reported" activity. Here is the write-up:

Police around the country are wanting to turn home and business private security cameras into surveillance devices to monitor activity on streets and other public places.

New technology can give cops instant access to video from homes and businesses.

The goal, cops say, is to make it easier to catch criminals, although there are plenty of privacy groups who say the idea is a bad one.

“Because if we do get [criminals] on video, then we are going to put it out to the world that we now have your photograph and that we are looking for you,” Geneva Bosques of the Freemont Police Department in the San Francisco area told KPIX.

Freemont is one of several Bay Area cities asking businesses and homeowners to register security cameras, KPIX reported. The registration gives police the ability to take video off of the cameras in real time.

Nearly 300 homeowners have registered their cameras, and multiple neighborhoods are taking part.

“Well, it is really helpful for us in the aftermath of a crime that has occurred,” Bosques said. “We can map them out, and then we can try to determine whether any of these cameras might help us in our investigation.”

 

[Krav69]

Recently installed ADT cameras and they had a program that allowed ADT to remote access your cameras in the event of an emergency.

I'm going to call and confirm, but what exactly would define an emergency?

They openly admitted that they could access your cameras and shut off/turn on your alarm with/without your consent, but it would be for ADT use only and not anyone else's, supposedly.

 

[QuickNDirty]

If you think big picture, you see where this is going.

CIA TV shows like Covert Affairs and Chuck are good for making ideas like this seem heart-warming and helpful.

Build one massive global surveillance network, build a really badass fully integrated tracking system which incorporates voice, video, govt IDs like drivers licenses, license plates and the upcoming Internet ID, and other data sources, and build a really badass user interface which will probably be an enhancement on the already badass predator drone platform, so that you can seamlessly and totally track arbitrary individuals wherever they happen to go.

 

[splean]

If you think big picture, you see where this is going.

CIA TV shows like Covert Affairs and Chuck are good for making ideas like this seem heart-warming and helpful.

Build one massive global surveillance network, build a really badass fully integrated tracking system which incorporates voice, video, govt IDs like drivers licenses, license plates and the upcoming Internet ID, and other data sources, and build a really badass user interface which will probably be an enhancement on the already badass predator drone platform, so that you can seamlessly and totally track arbitrary individuals wherever they happen to go.

And once "google glass"-type technology becomes as common as cell phones individuals will themselves become surveillance platforms.

 

[holderofthehorns]

Mass. is Bay Area East, in my opinion. Just as left wing as the Pelosi district.

Voluntary participation is the start. Then later, mandatory participation can be argued in. "For safety, and for the children".
The "If you can save one life, then it's worth it." arguement.

Security and Freedom are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Pure, no rules freedom (without morality) is called anarchy.
Pure, only rules security is called prison.

We must decide where on this spectrum we are willing to live.

The best choice, I believe, is no rules freedom coupled with personal responsibility, not imposed responsibility.
Problem is, there is no lack of the irresponsible, which will gladly do as they please at your cost.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide." <-- facist reasoning.
"Because I have nothing to hide, you do not need to monitor me." <-- responsibilty and freedom.

The above is one man's opinion, which is constantly being pruned and upgraded. I learn as I go.

 

[quietmike]

George Orwell's 1984 came 30 years late.

Government efficiency ya know.

 

[MLC]

You guys realize this is stuff that some agencies are already fully capable of doing right?
This is about doing it, with permission, at a local level.

 

[goodgorilla]

That's an interesting subject. What if the owner of the security footage doesn't want their footage to be viewed? I think a search warrant would be needed. Also, when could a person log in to view the footage? What if you don't want anybody looking in your home at a given time, like if your getting it on with your wife or something? Or perhaps some pervert will want to look for that kind of footage? Only way I can see it happening is if each location has the option to allow or not allow viewing. Anyhow, if the technology is in place someone will have the ability to watch without permission.

 

[KYpatriot]

If it is in electronic form, it can be collected, period. Cc tv, intercom, whatever. There is no such thing as electronic privacy, even for closed systems, unless it is heavily encrypted.

 

[goodgorilla]

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide." <-- facist reasoning.
"Because I have nothing to hide, you do not need to monitor me." <-- responsibilty and freedom.

All criminals will give you the same logic. That doesn't mean that you are a criminal.

 

[para72]

Protect and serve,

NOT INVASION OF PRIVACY AND HARASS!

When I want them to know who I am, I'll let them know. Untill then, they can stay the Fuck out of my business.

 

[EddieNFL]

Small price to pay for living in California.

 

[todd]

Not sure I'm ready for that. It gets in to the whole, "Who watches the Watchers" thing about accountability and proper use with oversight. I might just have to go to my next City Council meeting.

 

[Twisted .308]

They want law abiding citizens to allow them access to cameras ? What about all them " Mosques " with state of the art security cameras ? Oh wait they don't care what happens inside those places !

 

[flounderv2]

As long as you can restrict it to specific cameras. I.e. cameras facing a street outside the home, I don't have a problem with it. If you are giving them 100% access, then that is an issue.

 

[Javelin]

No thank you. Move along police state... Move along.

 

[mwilkins]

Not sure where you came across that little gem but it's a lie. I'm a cop, this is the first I've heard such horseshit and I'm not interested in the idea in the least.

In the small town here of Sachse, Tx..... this is a reality. For those residents that are members of the EWatch program, we all were sent letters in the mail "asking" if we would like to participate in the security camera initiative. It is stated within that letter that access to interior camera's is not being requested but, if there were an event in the neighborhood, that any possible footage from exterior camera's be turned over.

Government and police departs are over stepping their boundaries every day with our freedoms. For instance, my cell phone belongs to me. If a police officer asks for my cell phone, he will quickly get told to get bent. The fake cell towers being used by police departs along with other equipment like the stingray that tricks cell phones into thinking they are connected to provider cell towers is just another example.

Not knocking LEO's and never will. I have retired LEO's in my family but departments have become just as corrupt as our government. We all have reason to be skeptical of power positions and protect ourselves these days.

 

[355sigfan]

Anything you do in public view can be recorded by anyone with a cell phone. We wear cameras on our person, we have them in our cars so I guess I am just used to them. I just don't see the complaint. Now if they put cameras in your home where you have an expectation of privacy then you have a valid complaint


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smithwhick]

Let them do what they want, but don't give that community your business.

 

[Javelin]

Police departments are becoming so crooked. It's sad.

 

[Switchblade]

For the tidy sum of $3500 a month I would allow such use.
No monthly payment, no use of my devices. In point of fact, I would also add in a defeating system to prevent anything from hijacking my signals and devices

 

[holderofthehorns]

All criminals will give you the same logic. That doesn't mean that you are a criminal.

Exactly.
All criminals breath air. Breathing air doesn't make me a criminal.

 

[KYpatriot]

Anything you do in public view can be recorded by anyone with a cell phone. We wear cameras on our person, we have them in our cars so I guess I am just used to them. I just don't see the complaint. Now if they put cameras in your home where you have an expectation of privacy then you have a valid complaint


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's because when you give law enforcement an inch they invariably take a mile, it's just human nature, it's what people, and people who are cops, will usually do. For example, the American people had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to prevent law enforcement agencies from secretly planting tracking devices on people's cars without a warrant. Read that again. Various law enforcement agencies literally fought US citizens all the way to the highest court in the land to not have to get a warrant to spy on you. So we have reason, time and time again, to be skeptical of any increase in the tools available to LE.

By the way, the Supreme Court was unaminous and scathing in the decision. You know you are off the reservation when this court is unanimous about anything.

Reference article
Supreme Court holds warrantless GPS tracking unconstitutional | Ars Technica
The case:
United States v. Jones | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[355sigfan]

The old slippery slope argument. I understand your concerns and at times law enforcement does over reach but cameras in public areas can do a lot more good than bad. For instance catching the Boston bombers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pusher591]

Police departments are becoming so crooked. It's sad.

Actually they are not, but its obvious you have a certain perception of a particular police officer, a police department, or multiple police departments that has encouraged this perception but to say Police or Police Departments in general are becoming more crooked is incorrect. Just my .02 and I'm not gonna debate or argue because several here, including you have already made your minds up, so there is no debating it. Hopefully you have no interactions with LE but if you do, I hope they are positive and professional. Those guys are the only ones that will gain mind/heart back.

 

[KYpatriot]

I understand. The motivation is good, and it is absolutely true that such things could reduce crime. It all comes down to the balance between how much liberty, or privacy, I am willing to trade for the security of catching more bad guys. Some people are willing to take on a lot of risk for the utmost non interference or intrusion in their lives by government, others would be willing to accept even the most drastic surveillance/police state and completely cede any personal responsibility for themselves to the state and are content to live like a zoo animal. Most of us are somewhere in between.

There is a stake in the ground though, where this choice is no longer a personal decision. If the American people want to cede more liberty and give the state more authority than the Constitution allows, in this case in the 4th Amendment, then do it the right way and amend the Constitution. Otherwise we damage the entire concept of the rule of law and set dangerous precedents when we allow the emergencies and pressure of the moment to tempt us to bend the Constitution "just this once."

Believe me, I get it. As a fighter pilot our rule was "if you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin" when it came to winning a fight. Police officers are often the same kind of guy, a type A whose desire is to win. Nothing wrong with that, but we have a different definition when winning in law enforcement, and winning means " upholding the law" which means sometimes a suspected bad guy gets away. As long as the job is done right, and the law is upheld, the result of the criminal case against the suspect is irrelevant to the whether the cop does his job right. The cop has already done his job, he has upheld the rule of law and if the law prevents a conviction then that is not the fault if the officer; he didnt write the law. Criticism of police officers because of crime rates is Unfair and a misunderstanding of an officer's oath and first duty to uphold the law, not capture bad guys.

 

[Javelin]

Actually they are not, but its obvious you have a certain perception of a particular police officer, a police department, or multiple police departments that has encouraged this perception but to say Police or Police Departments in general are becoming more crooked is incorrect. Just my .02 and I'm not gonna debate or argue because several here, including you have already made your minds up, so there is no debating it. Hopefully you have no interactions with LE but if you do, I hope they are positive and professional. Those guys are the only ones that will gain mind/heart back.

When police agencies stop stealing money from innocent people I might be more receptive to their practices.

Civil Forfeiture Laws And The Continued Assault On Private Property - Forbes

 

[Maggot]

For the tidy sum of $3500 a month I would allow such use.
No monthly payment, no use of my devices. In point of fact, I would also add in a defeating system to prevent anything from hijacking my signals and devices

Maggot feels this worthy of a guest appearance and is with the Switcher on this:

NO money? Fuck you.

Ah, fuck you anyway.

 

[Pusher591]

When police agencies stop stealing money from innocent people I might be more receptive to their practices.

Civil Forfeiture Laws And The Continued Assault On Private Property - Forbes

** Nevermind, I don't have the energy for this, its like arguing with a teenager.

 

[355sigfan]

I understand. The motivation is good, and it is absolutely true that such things could reduce crime. It all comes down to the balance between how much liberty, or privacy, I am willing to trade for the security of catching more bad guys. Some people are willing to take on a lot of risk for the utmost non interference or intrusion in their lives by government, others would be willing to accept even the most drastic surveillance/police state and completely cede any personal responsibility for themselves to the state and are content to live like a zoo animal. Most of us are somewhere in between.

There is a stake in the ground though, where this choice is no longer a personal decision. If the American people want to cede more liberty and give the state more authority than the Constitution allows, in this case in the 4th Amendment, then do it the right way and amend the Constitution. Otherwise we damage the entire concept of the rule of law and set dangerous precedents when we allow the emergencies and pressure of the moment to tempt us to bend the Constitution "just this once."

Believe me, I get it. As a fighter pilot our rule was "if you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin" when it came to winning a fight. Police officers are often the same kind of guy, a type A whose desire is to win. Nothing wrong with that, but we have a different definition when winning in law enforcement, and winning means " upholding the law" which means sometimes a suspected bad guy gets away. As long as the job is done right, and the law is upheld, the result of the criminal case against the suspect is irrelevant to the whether the cop does his job right. The cop has already done his job, he has upheld the rule of law and if the law prevents a conviction then that is not the fault if the officer; he didnt write the law. Criticism of police officers because of crime rates is Unfair and a misunderstanding of an officer's oath and first duty to uphold the law, not capture bad guys.

Ultimately the people will decide where the balance is between privacy concerns and law enforcement. With ISIS being a real threat inside the US I think that needs to be taken into account. Again I am against hacking peoples phones without warrants and things like that but I am all for cameras in public places especially high crime or high value target areas.

 

[Javelin]

** Nevermind, I don't have the energy for this, its like arguing with a teenager.

Believe me I feel the same way.

 

[355sigfan]

When police agencies stop stealing money from innocent people I might be more receptive to their practices.

Civil Forfeiture Laws And The Continued Assault On Private Property - Forbes

Javelin with respect most of those people who have had their property taken are not innocent their drug dealers. But I understand your concern that it can and has been taken too far at times. If people were more willing to fund their departments adequately this would be less of an issue. But raising taxes is a loser proposition.
Pat

 

[deersniper]

Javelin with respect most of those people who have had their property taken are not innocent their drug dealers. But I understand your concern that it can and has been taken too far at times. If people were more willing to fund their departments adequately this would be less of an issue. But raising taxes is a loser proposition.
Pat

The "war on drugs" has cost Americans a lot of liberty. Now the "war on terror" is doing the same thing.

It's ok though. You can't hardly find drugs or terrorists in this country anymore.



Edit. I think this may be banned political talk so I won't post in this thread anymore.

 

[355sigfan]

Really what liberty have you really lost? I can't think of any.
Pat

 

[deersniper]

Really what liberty have you really lost? I can't think of any.
Pat

Not sure if serious?

Edit. Oh. You're a cop. No surprise you feel that way.