Virtual policing comes to Miami

[ND-Dem]

A new virtual policing system that allows authorities to watch people in real time - and slow motion - is now in place in Miami, Fla, reports CBS Miami.

Twenty-five cameras are up and running in the city of Miami but 250 will reportedly be up in the next few weeks. In all, the system can hold up to 25,000 cameras, according to the station.

"The future in policing is virtual," said City of Miami Police Chief Manuel Orosa.

The program, which is funded by the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, means better protection for everyone, police say. But some say it's an invasion of privacy.

"They don't need to monitor everyone's every move," Baylor Johnson with the American Civil Liberties Union, told CBS Miami.

The cameras are reportedly going to be stationed in government buildings and high crime areas. Each camera can shoot 25 miles out, reports the station, and one feature of the system allows authorities to zero in on a certain car or certain color. The cameras can also get boat registration numbers and read license tag numbers.

According to the station, the camera system is also in place in New York City and in 2010, it helped flag a man with a car filled with explosives that was parked in Times Square. The system has also reportedly been in effect in London.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/virtual-policing-system-introduced-in-miami-florida/

[MohRokTah]

1. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.

This has been a legal standard for literally decades.

[ND-Dem]

2. Thank you for weighing in. Good thing you're here to keep people abreast of the latest on the

government mass surveillance front. I assume you stand with the head of Sun Microsystems and the entire tenocracy: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

Governmental organisations such as the NSA, CIA, and GCHQ amongst others conduct mass surveillance throughout the world. Programmes such as PRISM, MYSTIC, and other operations conducted by Nato-member states are capable of collecting a vast quantity of metadata, internet history, and even actual recordings of phone-calls from various countries.

The existence of programmes is justified by their conductors in terms of supposed benefits for defence and law enforcement, however this is also in conflict with the right to privacy established under various treaties, constitutions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The argument in favour of privacy has therefore come under a larger opposition to intelligence operations carried out for political purposes, and has become a contentious issue since it undermines the perceived need of nations to spy on the general population in order to maintain their power structures.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy#Mass_surveillance_and_privacy

[MohRokTah]

3. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.

It's that simple. The government does nothing wrong with heavy surveillance in public places because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.

In fact, there is every argument in favor of heavy surveillance in public places.

Be more concerned about surveillance in those areas where there exists an expectation of privacy because nothing youo or I ever say about it will alter the fact that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.

[Oklahoma_Liberal]

4. Spot on, mate. Not sure how some are confused by this.

"The gubmint is invading our privacy in public places dagnabit!!"

[ND-Dem]

5. Expectation of privacy is a legal test

crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is related to, but is not the same as, a right to privacy, a much broader concept which is found in many legal systems (see privacy law).

The U.S. Supreme Court explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection…. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1976). In general the Court has said that individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own bodies, Personal Property, homes, and business offices. Individuals also enjoy a qualified expectation of privacy in their automobiles.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+expectation+of+privacy

[MohRokTah]

6. None of which is affected by these surveillance systems.

The surveillance systems in the OP all rely upon that which is exposed to the public and cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Be more concerned about devices that can track movement within the privacy of a home or monitor digital communications. Those are the areas where abuse is occurring.

[ND-Dem]

7. Abuse is occurring in all areas. And the courts have been known to rule differently than in the

past.

Personally I think there's a vast difference between having cops monitoring the streets and having wall to wall cameras on the streets, especially cameras with technology that way exceeds the capability of human eyes and ears.