Security has to do with search and seizure - not casual observance. The part that is up to debate is whether or not a constantly running camera constitutes "casual" observance. The other question is that if the camera is always on, it is always collecting "evidence" despite the fact that no warrant has been authorized. I find that disturbing.

The same laws and logic apply to CIA/NSA eavesdropping on email and digital communications, because the communications lines are designated as public view as anyone can watch a router's traffic. If you view constant video surveillance of public streets to be an infringement on the Fourth Amendment, then so must also the CIA/NSA eavesdropping fall in the same boat.

One last point of significance, however: the Fourth Amendment does not apply to anyone other than government. It becomes a civil suit when one person takes a picture - still or motion - of another. The way it usually works is that if you are in a common space, you have no expectation of privacy and can be surveilled or photographed without your permission. If you are on private property, you must first obtain the permission of the property owner.

If the media is complicit, as they often are, and only report the positives (i.e. apprehending criminals) without reporting the abuses then there is no question this will be a major problem in the near future.

"As to the warrant, if a policeman walking down the street observes someone steel a woman's purse does he need to have a warrant to act on this surveillance?"

That's a different circumstance entirely. In order to get a warrant, law enforcement must show probable cause that a law was broken by a given person and that warrant enables law enforcement to legally search for evidence among the property in the warrant. A law enforcement officer observing a crime being committed is not seeking evidence (the purpose of the warrant) and is authorized to intervene.

The presence of surveillance cameras isn't the problem, but the temptation to use that information in a way that violates the Constitution is. With the swamp creatures we see being revealed as the scum is being cleared from the Deep State, I think we're only barely scratching the surface of the many crimes they've committed.

The frightening implications of the growth of universal surveillance were dramatically played out in the TV series "Person of Interest." The idea that there could be an artificial intelligence enabling unending tracking of any person from myriad sources may not be that far off. In fact, some of the things I knew from my work with the intelligence agencies led me to believe that concept might already exist.

On the positive side, we're able to track down criminals faster. The Austin bomber should have realized that that he was likely to be caught on camera when he dropped off his package bombs at the FedEx shop. His real bonehead error was to park his truck right in front, where the license number could clearly be seen. Up to that moment, the police had no idea who the bomber was.

Use of tracking technologies is only going to grow, and it will be abused, on occasion. We have to do our best to elect good people who will prevent such abuses.

Constant surveillance by the state is a violation of the 4th amendment. The idea of public is a misnomer used to violate the 4th amendment. Individuals have the right to privacy in their property, papers and persons no matter where that person may find themselves. The courts have ruled there should be not expectation of privacy in public and therefore anything you do among other people is considered automatically in their purview without need for a warrant or cause. If a private property wants to use surveillance I can avoid that, I cannot avoid government cameras on freeways and government personnel trying to determine if I might be a criminal because I use a highway too often. The database gathered by the government makes it easy for the government to control individuals that are not amicable to the rules and regulations that are promulgated by the myriad of bureaucrats interested in controlling the lives of others with violence not protecting individuals from criminals.

Yes. We tend to get so impressed with "what we can do" that we don't stop to think "should we do it".

Yeah, until....

Technology is cool.

The camera is always there. Should not a law biding citizen be allowed to walk down the street without being observed every moment?

My house. Public property.

Here’s a question. Where should surveillance cameras NOT be allowed? Some choices could be, schools, jails, churches, hospitals, airports, hotels/motels, day care centers, safe spaces, parking areas, businesses, government offices, restrooms, police stations, beaches, federal banks, military bases, people’s houses, meeting places, Washington DC or none of the above?

"Now everyone can use it to find photos of themselves on FB. "

And get on a plane and go through customs!

https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/bi...

What is the difference between a camera at a corner and a police officer standing at that corner? Would you say that the fourth amendment protected you from being seen walking down the street by an official?

I don't think that observing people in public is what they had in mind when writing the fourth amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Would seem to me that a camera, wherever, would be a violation of the "to be secure in their persons" clause.

Exactly. I was worried when I saw the support Bernie Sanders got especially from younger voters. The educational system is working according to plan.

Totally predictable. Now that society has shifted from self reliance to government reliance this has become the norm. I really appreciate CG's post - he gives the back story of the cameras and technology.

I have perhaps a distorted view of privacy because I grew up in a small town. I remember stopping on the sidewalk on the way home from school one day and chatting with a girl. When I got home, my mother said, "what's this with you and Sally B*"?

In a small town, there is no expectation of privacy. A few years ago, I revisited that small town and walked down the alley to get a view of the back of the house I grew up in. I noticed that I was being watched by three people in separate yards. I was definitely under surveillance.

As to the warrant, if a policeman walking down the street observes someone steel a woman's purse does he need to have a warrant to act on this surveillance?

I agree. These cameras aren't going away but there should be a public debate about how they are used. Too much apathy out there.

More proof that the masses are asses.....

Yes, just like Atlas.....

The legality of this is of great debate. On the one side is the argument that if something is in the "public" view, it can be surveilled without a warrant. On the other is the argument that that argument only applies to police when looking for specific evidence of wrongdoing by a specific person in a specific place and time and always-on cameras violate that provision of the Fourth Amendment.

On the one side, the public cameras do significantly assist in catching lawbreakers, but does it place an unConstitutional burden on the common citizen? In my opinion, yes. Government initiated surveillance is only permitted based on a warrant. It should be as simple as that. Do individual businesses have the right to place and maintain cameras covering their individual premises - including the public walkways leading to them? I think that yes they do - provided they notify their customers of that.

Time to Shrug.

It's another way the state pretends to protect the people when it is only protecting the elite (and elite controlled government), expanding their power, and removing their competition.
Of course they say that. It justifies their existence, gives them a false feeling of accomplishment, and increases their funding. Our best way to fight back is to strike; stop the funding.

The smugness is what got to me. It was like the reporter and Chief of Police felt this would prove all the naysayers wrong. Clearly the masses have accepted that this is the way it has to be.

I remember warning everyone about our loss of privacy (from government snooping and meddling) when they put cameras everywhere using money for the '96 olympics in Atlanta.
Blanketed the city with government snooping.
Disgusting.