There was a “spy plane” flying over Baltimore city s few years ago. It would take footage that could be reviewed in the event of a crime. It was ruled unconstitutional.
One could argue that citizens do have a say when elected, rather than appointed, representatives vote for certain things.
I don’t really consider driving into and out of my neighborhood to constitute privacy, but I guess I could see how someone else could.
I think what someone can do after the fact is generate publicity with other like-minded individuals, make this an election issue, change the makeup of the city representatives, and convince them to rescind this action. Otherwise, a lawsuit could be a potential remedy, but will likely cost money.
If one isn’t committing a crime, I see no issue. Surveillance footage has been incredibly helpful in solving many crimes. If these cameras reduce criminal activity, I am all in. I doubt anyone is interested in watching footage of nothing interesting happening.
In England, motorways are covered with cameras. They use a system of chevron markings on the road and speed cameras automatically issue tickets to speeders. Apparently this system has been very successful in reducing road speeds and has reduced fatalities on roads.
Having said all this, is there an issue of invasion of privacy? I guess there is an argument for that, but unless the camera is focused on someone’s individual home, I doubt there is much that can be done about it.
1 Like
Legally it is not. I’m not a lawyer, but generally speaking if you are in a location where you can be seen by members of the general public there is no legal expectation of privacy. In your own home there’s an expectation of privacy. In a public street there is not.
If the neighborhood is a gated private community with streets paid for by the community (not city maintained or state roads) there might be some shaky legal leg to stand on but anywhere in this country on a public street you can be on camera. It is absolutely legal and a lawsuit would probably be laughed out of court. That’s why Ring and other cameras are legal. They are recording the outside of your home where there is no expectation of privacy by whoever is coming up on your front porch to leave a package or whatever.
3 Likes
This is exactly why it is legal for citizens to take video of police officers.
OP here. Perhaps I’ve watched too many dystopian movies but how quickly (and easily) this all occurred is especially disturbing.
While the potential for misuse still concerns me, I typically don’t have a problem with cameras in gathering locations, especially when clearly marked near the entrances that the area is under surveillance. I can choose to go, or not. I always do. I have little choice in my own neighborhood.
I don’t have a problem with neighbors’ security cameras. Should there be an incident, each owner can choose (or not) to share their recording, and multiple recordings should be a safety net for potential misuse by one agency. Most private businesses and public intersections (that I am aware of) with cameras, have signs that inform that a camera is in use.
I have a major problem with the speed and ease this was approved. There was no time for public discussion, and it was immediately approved by elected members.
I have a major problem with our local police installing a system with a camera pointing toward our neighborhood (not as a traffic device). When presented, notes indicate it would be used to monitor parks, schools and busy intersections (Our neighborhood has none of the above). Each and every car that enters (and leaves) will be recorded. Supposedly it only includes the license, make, model and color – but the company marketing information clearly shows photos of the entire car.
This is not intended to protect our neighborhood, nor will it. There are other more distant inconvenient entry points, and someone can always enter on foot. It is intended to assist police track movement when an incident is reported anywhere. They say the photos won’t be monitored or shared unless something happens to require it. That is a wide and open reach.
I have a major problem with the information being stored “in the cloud” for 30 days. A potential hacker (or agency) can also monitor when neighbors come and go.
I’ve heard if you’re a law-abiding citizen, there should be no issues. I’m confident other governments have used the same argument. I have nothing to hide, but it is a very slippery slope. We can say it is a losing battle and just accept we are continually under surveillance, or we can try to prevent this type of over-step. Once in place, I see few options for protest.
Yes, I know that legally, one has no expectation of privacy when out in public. Wasn’t really referring to it as a legal issue, just that clearly w/the OP it is a slippery slope type of concern.
My state once had red light running cameras that were used to fine violators. To my surprise, a court challenge resulted in a victory for the plaintiffs, on the grounds of violation of privacy if memory serves (I’ll have to look that up again). I remember being shocked that a privacy concern would be grounds for striking down this policy.
ETA: looked this up and found that the Texas Legislature outlawed the practice as a result of complaints from many residents. The privacy issue was one of the stated objections, though there were others.
I see where you are coming from. But personally I feel like we do our best to trust government officials we trust and then let them make decisions.
Having said that, I do sometimes watch their meetings online. (That was a side benefit of Covid … the kept up the meeting broadcast.). In theory I could review the agenda ahead of time and show up to share views on a particular item of interest. But so far I mostly just get a pulse the local feedback through a local FB page that has about 30K members.
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. If you’d like to reply, please flag the thread for moderator attention.