Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Would you approve of the use of criminal surveillance cameras in your neighborhood?

  1. No. It's an invasion of privacy. I don't think they should be allowed anywhere.
  2. No. Neighborhoods are private domains. I'm OK with having them in public places, such as city parks.
  3. Yes. If it will help fight crime in my neighborhood, I am all for it.
sort: oldest | newest




Jul-25-13 12:59 PM

Fredzz -- Somewhat off topic about the state, not federal government, proposing to ban photographing agricultural operations, but the bill that was proposed (PA HB683) doesn't make it illegal to photo farms.

Among other things, it would make it illegal to trespass to take photos, or to use false pretenses to gain access to farming operations to take photos without permission, and those kinds of things.

The bill would not make it illegal to park along a street, road, or other public place and take pictures, which is still consistent with cameras being affixed to poles not being an invasion of privacy.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-13 8:04 PM


I find it amusing and laughable that we have an Federal Law prohibiting anyone the right to photograph farm animals without the consent of the farmer.

Yet we humans have little to no similar protections.

Wow what a strange government we have...!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-13 3:11 PM

Fredzz -- I respect you being opposed to the "government" being in control of the cameras and the abuses that could arise from it. I also understand your rationale for not wishing to be spied on by the government. Those are valid concerns.

But I think your argument goes south when you trumpet the "invasion of privacy" horn...A camera on a pole is simply NOT an invasion of privacy. It just isn' any legal, court-recognized definition of the word. Cities in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) and out of state have been using them for years. They are neither unconstitutional nor illegal.

Cameras affixed to a pole were never intended to prevent crime. They are used as an investigative tool to capture the identity, path of travel, description, vehicle used, etc. of a suspect.

And you're probably not going to like hearing this, but it is NOT illegal for anyone (including the police) to follow you, photograph or video you outside your home. Sorry.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-13 10:30 AM



That's where the camera belongs.

Owned, Operated, Controlled, and used by the Property Owner.

Not some branch of government.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-23-13 9:08 AM

I have cameras at my business, best thing I ever did. we solved numerous crimes and prevented others. the smart criminals stay away, the stupid ones get arrested, and I got a break on my insurance,

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-22-13 10:57 AM


Cameras can't keep that doped up drug dealer from shooting you..!

At best cameras [might] capture an Identifiable picture of you being SHOT.

Do you still think its worth letting our current politicians change the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights..?

I don't..

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-22-13 6:52 AM

Frankly I don't really care if you feel a surveillance camera in the streets violates your rights. I think getting shot by a doped up drug dealer violates my rights. If a camera can help prevent crime, I'm fine with a little extra privacy in that regard.

Suck it up and get over it. Those of you against the camera's are the minority. Deal with it!

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-21-13 8:19 PM

instead of all the cameras recording every move like on Jim Carey's in the true man show Sylvester Stallone in demolition man just go the cheaper route implant micro chips in your neck every time there is a crime on the corner of Market and Fourth or Lycoming and Elmira streets they can look see who was on that corner at the time of the crime just pick them up interview all those there at that time see who did it if you were the only one there then they would have who did the crime doing it with cameras they could circumvent the cameras might not get seen by the camera not to mention the chips would be way cheaper would be able to find you immediately it wouldn't take days months or years to them so it would take the criminal off the street right away therefore not allowing them to commit another crime the chips would be more cost effective cheaper the other things in the name of safety find ill missing person's drowning victims immediately cost effective save lives and money

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-20-13 3:08 PM

When cameras can arrest people I'll be for it. We need more cops or more patrolling.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-19-13 12:06 PM

Fredzz, there is no law that I know of that prevents one from following another unless of course there is a PFA or something similar. Having a camera on a light pole does not violate your right of privacy, it’s no different than having a police officer sit outside your house in a white van. The cameras are cheaper since the police can’t be everywhere. I said in my earlier post, if neighbors were doing their due diligence and reporting crime, and I don’t mean kids playing, then there would be no need for cameras. I personally find it funny how we as a society want to blame our leaders (aka Mayor Campana, city police, etc…) for all the crime in the city and we always ask the question “What can be done”?Well we can’t have more officers because it’ll cost tax payer money, so we come up with a system that might be able to help and people complain about that too. The cameras will do good, and I’m pretty sure Mr. Fredzz that the police won’t come arrest you because your picking your nose on

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-19-13 7:52 AM

So... aretesancus;

Buy your Opinion...

As long as you are outside of your home I can follow you anywhere public and record your every move..?

Ignorance = People who think a camera affixed to a utility pole can't violates their right to privacy.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-19-13 7:29 AM

How would one distinguish (spl?) between " criminal surveillance cameras " And Non- criminal surveillance cameras


1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-18-13 5:11 PM

Private = What you do inside your home.

Not private = Anything you do outside in the public's eye that can be seen by your neighbor, or a passing motorist, or a kid in a tree fort across the street, or a person walking a dog, or ... a camera affixed to a utility pole.

Ignorance = People who think a camera affixed to a utility pole violates their right to privacy.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-18-13 9:33 AM

The 33% that said no are part of the problem.

They want the crime issues to disappear, but don't want to actually do something about the crime or accept anything that might deter it.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-17-13 10:54 AM

Maybe if people would watch their own neighborhoods and report incidents to the police we wouldn't need cameras. But they don't, therefore we need something more. The police can't be everywhere. If they put cameras at major intersections then maybe we can see the criminals once they flee the scene. BTW there is a camera on the 600 block of 2nd street (controlled by the landlord not the police) which does nothing to show what goes on.because the landlords don't care as long as they are getting money!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-17-13 10:45 AM

As long as Americans have indoor plumbing, McDonalds and America's got talent, they basically don't care about rights. We've raised an entire generation of sissies.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-17-13 3:05 AM

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-17-13 2:31 AM

Who watches The Watchers?

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 18 of 18 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web