There should be a way to find out more about this.

I agree.  Somebody email this thread to the Mayor! 

lol

Agreed!

What's Taking So Long?

I saw a story about this on the news right when they were put up.

http://www.wptz.com/news/16161520/detail.html

Video: http://www.wptz.com/video/16163938/index.html

The video doesn't work for me, BUT it may just be my wonderful computer :) Hopefully it works for you guys!

Im not sure about any one eles,,,but feel qwiet uneasy about theses cams,,have we come to a point in our society where its ok to use surveilence such as this?I have nothing to hide at all , but still when we as a whole start letting bib brother do as he wants, well where does it stop?camras in our homes,cars,bedrooms,I find it hard to belive our founding fathers would have agreed with such actions from the state, as to vidoe tape any and all persons, property and on and on and on......I know that in a day and age where these cams may help solve crime to a small degree, do we give up others freedoms for such a price? when and where does this all stop?In time when big bro isnt happy w/ cams only on a few corners, what next, maybe he can implant gps chips in ever one and monetor there daily routins, we are at a time when our founding fathers relized the resons for there actions were because of a true need to freedom from absolute power of the goverment to unreasonale demands on its citezines,the lawabidding poeple pay for the ones who arent in this case, and damm the roads could certinly use the rrepair over the goverments needs to survay , monentor it people  ,,,what do u think? ,,,thanks in advance for any feed back,[,besides grammer],,,,,,

Don't mind 'em here.

Our founding fathers would be rolling in there graves,,,,,imagain  what they would think,,back then,,if cams were around...so many gave there lifes  to ensure  our so called rights,,one being  unresonable searches,,,,well I imagain that the term unreasonable  ,,is now the ?,,,,is it  reasonable to thunk,,that big brother is now vidoe taping  us  24/7,,also  remeber  A right to face an acusser,,,is the accusser  now not human,,but in the form  of a device  put in place by gov,,,,how do I or you,,,if accuused bye such a device ,,of voilating a law?   umm I know a police offercer can speak in a court of law,,I know humans can speack,,there fore  right to face an accusser is in place,,,but can a nonhuman ,,manmade goverment sponsered poilice moneter camra speack,,the fundamental right  to face an accusser is taken away,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,when do we draw the line,,when gov,,,can wire tap our phones  w/o a warrent,,,vidio us...all why when we are monertor in our homes cars offices ,,bedrooms,,,will we say,,,,,damm:we should never had allowed gov to install that camra on corner of north and south cathrine st,after all;       so what ya think?

I get the impression that your "so what ya think?" comment was made in the expectation that your diatribe was going to change someone's mind; this is not further from the case, at least for myself.

First, I should say that I take the Right to Privacy very seriously, but in no way does that right extend to what someone does in public -- nor should it be extended to such a domain.  If you want full and total privacy, your only option is to completely disconnect from the world and never come outside again.

The founding fathers didn't have all the answers, nor could they have -- ever hear of an Amendment?  And anyway, what part of the Constitution (or Amendment thereof) gives you the right to not be photographed when in public, no matter what you're doing?  I'll save you the trouble: there is none.  Anyone has the right to photgraph you if you are in public, regardless whether you like it or not -- so why wouldn't any agency also have that right?  It's perfectly legal -- and so it should be.  Your picking and choosing who gets what rights to fit your extremely flawed argument is ridiculous.

...but in response to your question of what I think: forget about what I think -- there are more important things that I know.  I know that a camera is not an accuser; if caught doing wrong on "tape" you will be accused by the City Police or other party who monitors those images that are snapped as crimes occur -- and you can then face the accusing party at trial if foolish enough to bring it to Court.  A camera can only record events as they happen, nothing more.  If you "didn't do it" then there won't be a picture of it; this is much more reliable than an eyewitness, in fact.  An image is not an accuser, it is merely a piece of evidence.  The accuser and the accused can both use that image in an attempt to prove guilt or innocence.  The characterization of cameras as accusers is unfounded, illogical and juvenile, at best.  Having a traffic-cam in use does not constitute a search, by any means, let alone an unreasonable one, as you deemed it.

You further hold that it's now reasonable to think that the government is videotaping us 24/7.  That is not reasonable, it is simply paranoid.  However, and with all due respect, you seem to be jumping to conclusions based on this paranoia and it's coming across as nothing more than an anti-authority rant without basis or merit.

You do have the right to drive an alternate route if you are so ill-affected by this use of technology, and you should very likely exercise that right if so vividly concerned about what a camera might see you doing on public streets.

http://www.wptz.com/news/16161520/detail.html

Read the story -

It is a test camera and nothing more.  When the city has a camera on every corner, then I think we should be concerned.  Video can always be made it something else - just like the movies!

it = into , sorry for the error - I don't think anyone can edit their posts. I dunno why but they can't. Anyone know why we cant?