Panopticon State: police access to private security cams

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
Start here, let them add up and eventually even you will notice...
LOL - so none. Got it. SMH

Are you also against surveillance cameras for businesses and allowing the police to access those videos? What about body worn cameras by police? Or cameras on phones that people use? Should those be illegal as well?
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,928
113
More word salad nonsense from you. This is about using cameras that people are using for their own security. It's entirely within their right to share that with anyone they want. Just something else that the party of small government wants to control for people.
Do you understand why the court ruled against the Baltimore Police Department?

What were they doing that the court considered a ‘search’?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
Do you understand why the court ruled against the Baltimore Police Department?

What were they doing that the court considered a ‘search’?
I understand why and think it is wrong. Likewise with the paranoia that you and others have about someone seeing what goes on around your house. You're not protected from being seen.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Pinehawk

Kinnick.At.Night

HR Legend
Jun 27, 2018
10,340
20,179
113
So, the same folks worried about an ever encroaching police state also want fewer guns in the hands of citizens. 🙂
 

hawkland14

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Feb 26, 2013
7,804
8,019
113
I understand why and think it is wrong. Likewise with the paranoia that you and others have about someone seeing what goes on around your house. You're not protected from being seen.
This is absolute crazy talk.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
Let’s hear it in your own words.
Why did they consider it a search?
I thought you understood too - figures that you need it explained. They ruled that the surveillance, in essence, was too broad. That it monitored both legal and illegal activity without a specific cause.

It should also be explained to you this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. In this case the police are not doing direct monitoring of activities, they are merely getting access to surveillance video from private entities. Much the same as they did when searching for the Boston Marathon bomber or any of countless other crimes where surveillance video can help solve crimes and make us all safer.

Lesson over.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
This is absolute crazy talk.
???? You think you're protected by privacy laws if someone sees you beating your wife on your front lawn or even through you picture window? JFC. The party of law an order is really the party of hiding illegal activity.
 

Bank of Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 24, 2007
10,770
13,076
113
I watched 24 and I know the government already has access to all the private cameras
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,928
113
I watched 24 and I know the government already has access to all the private cameras
Some people probably think that’s Hollywood invention…

Just one example:

Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.
GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.
 

ZachJump

HR MVP
Gold Member
May 28, 2022
1,181
1,397
113
I’m sure the people posting here get a warm and fuzzy feeling when a cop pulls up behind them on the road. I’d bet they think to themselves, ‘whew, now I’m cloaked in the protective gaze of the law for the rest of my journey. This is awesome! I wish my whole life felt like this moment.’

I actually do - its fun to lead a parade of cars the last 40 miles of my drive home from work.

Me then Cop then the 40 cars that desperately want to be going 100 but for some reason won't pass the cop that is already doing 10 over following me.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
Some people probably think that’s Hollywood invention…

Just one example:

Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.
GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.
Scared Monster High GIF
 

Hawk_82

HR All-American
Sep 17, 2006
3,870
2,887
113
I thought you understood too - figures that you need it explained. They ruled that the surveillance, in essence, was too broad. That it monitored both legal and illegal activity without a specific cause.

It should also be explained to you this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. In this case the police are not doing direct monitoring of activities, they are merely getting access to surveillance video from private entities. Much the same as they did when searching for the Boston Marathon bomber or any of countless other crimes where surveillance video can help solve crimes and make us all safer.

Lesson over.
Why do you think the police need constant monitoring of people who are not doing anything illegal?

Couldn't they achieve the same outcome without taking away our privacy by asking for camera footage when it is needed? Like when an actual crime is committed?
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
Why do you think the police need constant monitoring of people who are not doing anything illegal?

Couldn't they achieve the same outcome without taking away our privacy by asking for camera footage when it is needed? Like when an actual crime is committed?
No one is talking about constant monitoring of people - that's a really bad strawman. It's about using the monitoring of space to help solve and, hopefully, prevent crimes. That's a big difference.

If you have some criminals coming up to you to potentially do harm would you rather be where police have eyes on it or leave them in the dark?

The paranoia over this is silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beanerhawk

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,928
113
No one is talking about constant monitoring of people - that's a really bad strawman.
That is precisely what the thread is about.
I know, because I started the thread and labeled it ‘Panopticon’.
Do you just not understand what that means?

It's about using the monitoring of space to help solve and, hopefully, prevent crimes. That's a big difference.
That can be done with a warrant.
What you have come out in favor of is constant, warrantless surveillance.
Courts have ruled that violates the Bill of Rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,928
113
People voluntarily sharing their ring camera with the police is like Nazi Germany?

Maybe I am dumb - but that feels like a reach.


The government having constant access to cameras and mics throughout the inside and outside of your house is more like East Germany than Nazi Germany.

Of course it starts voluntary. Next will be legislation to allow access during emergencies. Then comes the perpetual emergency (42 national emergencies are currently in effect, if you lost count).
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
That is precisely what the thread is about.
I know, because I started the thread and labeled it ‘Panopticon’.
Do you just not understand what that means?


That can be done with a warrant.
What you have come out in favor of is constant, warrantless surveillance.
Courts have ruled that violates the Bill of Rights.
And it was pointed out early on how foolish your position is. First there's the limitation personal choice and then there's the tin foil paranoia. You succeed at sucking on multiple levels. LOL.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pinehawk

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
The government having constant access to cameras and mics throughout the inside and outside of your house is more like East Germany than Nazi Germany.

Of course it starts voluntary. Next will be legislation to allow access during emergencies. Then comes the perpetual emergency (42 national emergencies are currently in effect, if you lost count).
FFS - why do you want to control how I provide security for my home?

Nevermind - we all know why.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,928
113
And it was pointed out early on how foolish your position is. First there's the limitation personal choice and then there's the tin foil paranoia.
Who exercised a choice in having GCHQ or the NSA access their webcams?

These are things that have already happened.

Not hypotheticals.

The Stasi and how they were used on the populace is real. Not hypothetical.
The hacking of devices and intercept of communications are daily realities. Not hypothetical.

Are you familiar with the term 'parallel construction'?
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
Who exercised a choice in having GCHQ or the NSA access their webcams?

These are things that have already happened.

Not hypotheticals.

The Stasi and how they were used on the populace is real. Not hypothetical.
The hacking of devices and intercept of communications are daily realities. Not hypothetical.

Are you familiar with the term 'parallel construction'?
You're a paranoid dweeb. LOL.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Pinehawk

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,928
113
Why won't you answer my question? LOL.
RileyHawk said:
It's people like you who don't want people to allow their videos to be used by police.

I want the police to obtain warrants.
Why do you hate the Bill of Rights and crave living in a police state?

RileyHawk said:
Very strange for those of you on the far right who claim to support law and order. But then, you do you.
An American Stasi isn't the kind of 'law and order' I want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
I want the police to obtain warrants.
Why do you hate the Bill of Rights and crave living in a police state?


An American Stasi isn't the kind of 'law and order' I want.
Still won't answer the question. Figures. Same old semenhole.

I don't. You're making shit up again. I like freedom and the ability to have the police watch out for my interests.

Why are you anti-police? See how that works?

I'm certain you don't.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Pinehawk

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,928
113
Still won't answer the question.
I not sure which question you think I didn't answer.
Repeat here and I'll answer it.

I don't. You're making shit up again.
What do you think I've 'made up'?

Why are you anti-police? See how that works?
I'm anti-police exercising unlawful searches because they can and do abuse their power.
We have a Bill of Rights to restrain the exercise of their powers.
Do you see how that works?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,323
23,044
113
I not sure which question you think I didn't answer.
Repeat here and I'll answer it.


What do you think I've 'made up'?


I'm anti-police exercising unlawful searches because they can and do abuse their power.
We have a Bill of Rights to restrain the exercise of their powers.
Do you see how that works?
Lol - I would say you're playing dumb but you're not playing. But I'll play along in my best semenhole response - figure it out for yourself.

Yawn. I've lost interest again. Carry on playing with yourself.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Pinehawk

ZachJump

HR MVP
Gold Member
May 28, 2022
1,181
1,397
113
That thousands of them collectively create a warrantless panopticon.

There are millions of cell phones out there taking pictures every day...probably most of which are not done with a warrant.

Some of those pictures will in turn be used in court cases....sometimes the pictures will be even acquired without a warrant or even asking.

Just another part of living life today.
 
Last edited: