4 ms·
> "Moreover, if law enforcement were required to engage in live surveillance without the aid of technology in this type of situation, then the advance of techno
by Zikes 11y ago
> "Moreover, if law enforcement were required to engage in live surveillance without the aid of technology in this type of situation, then the advance of technology would one-sidedly give criminals the upper hand. The law cannot be that modern technological advances are off-limits to law enforcement when criminals may use them freely."
Nobody said you can't use webcams for surveillance, just that you need a warrant because that's how the law works.
At least, that's how the law is supposed to work.
- ewindisch 11y agoRight, this is a matter of the rule of law. Criminals may do quite a number of things that law enforcement cannot because criminals do not follow the law. Rulings like this could drive us even further into a surveillance society where the Feds become comfortable putting cameras on every street corner (and some may say they're already started doing this).
- knorby 11y agoChicago, as an example, does have cameras on streets in certain areas. Evidence gathered by these is considered admissible without a prior warrant, and no one in the state really debates that, ACLU included (http://www.aclu-il.org/chicago-sun-times-aclu-raises-red-flag-over-traffic-cameras-360-degree-view/ http://www.aclu-il.org/chicago-sun-times-aclu-raises-red-fla...). There are a lot of stronger counter arguments against this approach that don't have to do with warrants. Cameras don't stop crime, they can only document it and possibly alert to something happening. It is better to just make arguments about the practice of mass surveillance and police priorities than to hope court rulings will knock out cameras placed on public land as unconstitutional.