Really getting annoyed with the homeland security.

[Guest]

This is very worriesome IMHO. Sorry but homeland security was supposed to fight terrorisim and not fix other so called problems in the USA.

Another invasion of privacy which i dont like at all. Come on now what terrorist is gonna do thier planning on the street and if its a attack it would be done excuted by the time any police or anything else arrives. Its bs just another way for the Govt to watch over us imho. Yeah it may help out some with the known drug infested areas but more then likely they will just up and move thier operations to another area once they know the cams are going which even the police should know this. Another great waste of the tax payer dollar IMHO and another way for our govt to snoop in on us as well.

Sorry but imho this is taking things a little too far. I can see having them at big arenas and such or where large groups of people gather but not in my dam neighborhood or in my backyard. Cops need to start doing thier dam jobs like they use to back in the day and not letting the cams do thier work. And believe me that comment doesnt come easy from me because i do come from a family of cops from my grandfather to my father and other relatives as well most of which now are retired and i have the highest respect for the work they did however the trends i am seeing nowadays i dont like at all! More and more have become lazy and geared for just making revenue (Ticket writing) in thier respective jurastictions. Kills me when i drive up the highway here and i pass this well known drug infested neighborhood and they are out in broad daylight dealing thier stuff meanwhile a state trooper is sitting a block away at the highway waiting to pull the next person over doing 5 or so over the speedlimit and ignoring whats going on right behind him. And this has been going on for years now (Atleast 10+).! BS.




Courtesy of baltimore sun.
[url]http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal...local-headlines[/ur]



24-hour camera surveillance in city is part of bigger plan
Financed by homeland security grants, new network aimed at fighting terrorists as much as drug dealers
By Doug Donovan
Sun Staff
Originally published June 10, 2004
From the Inner Harbor to the Bay Bridge, local and state homeland security authorities are beginning to build a regional network of 24-hour surveillance cameras that will first go live this summer in Baltimore.

The closed-circuit video surveillance system of public spaces will begin in the Inner Harbor by summer's end, and a $2 million federal grant accepted by the city yesterday will expand the cameras into downtown's west side by early November.

"We're trying to build a regional network of cameras," said Dennis R. Schrader, director of homeland security for Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

What of privacy concerns raised by groups opposed to cameras constantly monitored by retired police officers or college students?

"We're at war," Schrader said.

The network is part of a comprehensive strategy in the Baltimore area to spend $25 million in homeland security grants this year and next to improve regional cooperation on terrorism concerns. The idea stemmed from a regional group of leaders that is jointly acquiring decontamination equipment and backups for 911 and power systems.

The network of cameras will be placed in downtown's west side because it has light rail and Amtrak lines, federal and state government buildings, and many cultural institutions.

The city wants companies capable of building the system to submit bids by the end of this month. "The purpose of the ... system is to provide for the homeland defense ... while also reducing crime and public disorder," reads the request for proposals. "Cameras will only observe and record that which a police officer or private citizen could legally see."

At a surveillance center in the Atrium Building on Howard Street, 13 to 15 retired police officers or criminal justice college students will monitor images, said Elliot Schlanger, Baltimore's chief information officer.

The system will be owned by the city and managed by Schlanger's office. The network would be able to connect with the state's existing system of closed-circuit cameras that monitor highways, he said.

Eventually, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford and Howard counties would plug their systems into the city's hub.

The city would also work to link its network with the closed-circuit television systems in use by the University of Maryland, the Downtown Partnership, Oriole Park at Camden Yards and other private institutions on downtown's west side.

The network could also hook up to closed-circuit cameras in city schools during a possible terrorist attack, according to the city's request for proposals.

Before that network is built, the Baltimore Police Department will have constructed a separate surveillance center to continuously monitor a number of microwave cameras now being installed around the Inner Harbor, said Kristen Mahoney, director of the Baltimore Police Department's grants and government relations section, which handles homeland security requests.

Mahoney and police officials visited London in November to examine the United Kingdom's extensive use of such cameras.

Under the Inner Harbor plan, the cameras would be able to transmit images to helicopters and, eventually, police cruisers, Mahoney said.

Dozens of surveillance cameras exist throughout downtown Baltimore to deter crime, but those images are generally taped and reviewed only occasionally. The new network, financed by grants from the Department of Homeland Security, is aimed at fighting terrorists as much as drug dealers.

Other cities -- Washington, D.C.; Tampa, Fla.; Jersey City, N.J.; and Virginia Beach, Va. -- have built closed-circuit systems to help monitor crime. But most, like Washington, activate and monitor the systems mainly during events that attract large crowds, according to a June 2003 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office.

The proposed Baltimore regional system, agreed to by an arm of the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, could be one of the most extensive undertaken in the nation, experts said.

"I have not heard of such a big project," said Cedric Laurant, policy counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "We reject the use of public video cameras in public places if ... used on a permanent basis."

Arthur Spitzer, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, said his group fought Washington's system and said the D.C. City Council curbed the Police Department's plan.

"This is the first one I've heard of where apparently they're planning to put cameras around an urban area to keep them on all the time," Spitzer said of Baltimore's plan.

He said cameras infringe on privacy rights and are ineffective in fighting either crime or terrorism.

"This is just another step toward Big Brother," he said. "One of the freedoms that Americans take for granted is the freedom to walk down the street without the government looking over your shoulder all the time."

City Council President Sheila Dixon said she was concerned that the federal grants would eventually run out and the city would be stuck with the bill.

Mayor Martin O'Malley said the Downtown Partnership's use of cameras has been successful and residents want to know why the city does not use more cameras.

"You never want to have people operating cameras to look into windows," O'Malley said. "This is about being as proactive as you can be with the limited police resources you have."

[chadtm80]

Invasion of Privacy?? The cameras would be in Public Places right? And to what you said, if the drug dealers move to another city well then it worked!

[GalvestonDuck]

Sorry, Harry, but I feel just the opposite.

It's not an invasion of privacy since the cameras record areas in public view. Should you have an expectation of privacy out on a public street? Furthermore, if it records and tracks anything suspicious and helps determine where a particular suspect was and who ELSE he may have been dealing with, then it's that much more helpful in tracking terrorists.

Also, aren't there different divisions of the State Troopers, as well as Sheriff's department and city/metropolitan police? Maybe the dudes on the highway are part of the traffic control division and that's their beat. They're doing what they were put there to do. There ought to be an anti-crime/drug task force unit for the drug stuff (and they're usually in regular civilian attire, right? wouldn't it be easier to get closer to drug dealers if you don't look like a cop?). I'm sure there's even a special victims/sex crimes unit, a homicide division, an domestic abuse team, special investigations and forensics teams, robbery division, and so forth.

Just my opinion, but I'm all for the cameras.

[Guest]

Invasion of Privacy?? The cameras would be in Public Places right? And to what you said, if the drug dealers move to another city well then it worked!

Not gonna happen. And either way thats what the cops are supposed to be doing not some dam cam following every move i make. Is this the United States or is this the old soviet union?Sorry to put it that way but hell thats where we are heading IMHO if we allow such things to happen. No i have nothing to hide but i dont care to be watched if i happen to be in my OWN backyard skinny dipping in my pool or whatever it may be on my private property which will eventually happen imo and thats wrong no matter how you look at it!

Just my opinion so dont shoot me!

[Guest]

Sorry, Harry, but I feel just the opposite.

It's not an invasion of privacy since the cameras record areas in public view. Should you have an expectation of privacy out on a public street? Furthermore, if it records and tracks anything suspicious and helps determine where a particular suspect was and who ELSE he may have been dealing with, then it's that much more helpful in tracking terrorists.

Also, aren't there different divisions of the State Troopers, as well as Sheriff's department and city/metropolitan police? Maybe the dudes on the highway are part of the traffic control division and that's their beat. They're doing what they were put there to do. There ought to be an anti-crime/drug task force unit for the drug stuff (and they're usually in regular civilian attire, right? wouldn't it be easier to get closer to drug dealers if you don't look like a cop?). I'm sure there's even a special victims/sex crimes unit, a homicide division, an domestic abuse team, special investigations and forensics teams, robbery division, and so forth.

Just my opinion, but I'm all for the cameras.

Good points duck. But how do you explain whats been happening here with the drug infested areas now for well over 10yrs? I could see if this was a large metropolitan area but its not. And believe me we have plenty and i do mean plenty of state troopers, town cops in this area. Majority of which sorry to say just sit along the highways here doing what i said they do. And that i have a problem with besides the other points i just made in my last reply.

I can sit on the highway (Stop light intersection) and look up this one street and see them dealing. Its that obvious. And i have had a cop behind me sitting at this intersection at times when this has been going on in plain view.

[StormCrazyIowan]

I'm on the fence with this one, if you can catch drug dealers great, but if they go somewhere else to do their deeds that isn't a solution at all, it just endangers someone else's area!

[furluvcats]

Harry...let em watch you skinny dip...you could be the next Pamela and Tommy if they let the tape get out! lol..j/k

I'm ok with the cams... I can't see it ever getting to the point of taping us in our homes...

[Guest]

Harry...let em watch you skinny dip...you could be the next Pamela and Tommy if they let the tape get out! lol..j/k

. I dont think so.


Oh btw
Just remember the saying give them a inch and they will take a foot. (Or however that expression goes). Thats in reply to them taking it to the point of inside our homes.

Heck dont get me wrong i am all for getting rid of the drug problem but not at my expense or privacy. Sorry but thats how i feel about it.

[GalvestonDuck]

Are you all for getting rid of terrorists at the expense of your "privacy?"

Like I said, those cams aren't invading your privacy when they're in public areas, IMO.

How about personal emails and webpages? Those shouldn't have an expectation of privacy either.

[Guest]

Are you all for getting rid of terrorists at the expense of your "privacy?"

Like I said, those cams aren't invading your privacy when they're in public areas, IMO.

How about personal emails and webpages? Those shouldn't have an expectation of privacy either.

Response to the first question. Plenty of other ways to deal with them and no it should not be at my expense or privacy.

now the second response. They are discussing putting them in peoples neighborhoods as well which is where you or i may live which is invading my privacy imo.

Your last statement i am split on because this is a widely known way of how they communicate. Which raises the question of who decides what person they could consider a terrorist suspect and why they think so?

[chadtm80]

King not to sound Blunt, but I think if "your" child or wife was blown up in a building I would think you might thing differently.

[Rainband]

The way I look at it. If somebody has nothing to hide, then they have no worries. I would rather lose some of my "rights" or privacy if it insures that september 11th never happens again!!

[Guest]

King not to sound Blunt, but I think if "your" child or wife was blown up in a building I would think you might thing differently.

Not really. On this issue anyways. I wouldnt expect anyone to give up thier rights for me unless ofcourse they are breaking the law. Thats like saying its ok to put a cam in your apt or home because your neighbors or your house was blown up by terrorist. Extreme point i am using but all the same.

How much of our freedoms and such that we enjoy in this country (And make it the USA for that matter) must we sacrifice for the terrorist? In a way imho we are giving into them because we are changing how we live and the freedoms we enjoy in this country because of the bs they have pulled and thats wrong and not the right way to go about it imo. They are winning by getting us to change our ways on how we live and everything else for that matter. Thats my opinion on it anyways.

[GalvestonDuck]

You're not giving up any freedoms.

You're still free to do whatever you want to do (without breaking the law, of course ). It will just be on camera now when you do it in public.

[Guest]

You're not giving up any freedoms.

You're still free to do whatever you want to do (without breaking the law, of course ). It will just be on camera now when you do it in public.

Yeah well it invades my privacy and i will never ever change on how i feel about it because i feel its one of possibly many more steps in the wrong direction for this country imo. Before you know it they will do what the bible says will happen and attach things to us to track us because someone may be a terrorist or a threat to our country. Yeah a very extreme example but a very plausable and probable one in the future.

[chadtm80]

Harry, what right are you giving up? Your in PUBLIC. Why do you not complain about cameras on you everytime you are in a walmart.. Or when your on a major strip of highway? Your on camera then you know

[GalvestonDuck]

I'm watching him right now...he just doesn't know it.

[Rainband]

Harry ,some of the 911 terrorists lived in south florida for a couple of Years or at least one. Maybe if we would have had cameras back then we would have caught on to something. I understand your point..I still say if we have nothing to hide..we have no worries.

[Guest]

I'm watching him right now...he just doesn't know it.

*Goes and and covers up* . LOL Enjoy the show?


And yes Chad i am well aware of the traffic cams which btw there is one about 500 feet or so away from my house up on the main highway here. Oh and Wal-mart is privately owned and they can do as they like because its thier store.

[Guest]

KOW, I'm on your side. I don't want the govt invading my life either. This is America, the home of the free. If we let them put the cameras on our streets, they'll eventually move into our homes. I usually can't stand anything that the ACLU does, but hey, this is one battle that I'm on their side!

Cameras invading our privacy are not going to deter terrorism nor crime. Why should we have to suffer for others wrong doings?
...Jennifer...