Thread: What next

Its a sad day to know its happening but society has gone down this path, Could have been the coppers trying to bust some one growing pot or vise versa. I have one of those on my chook shed it also covers the entrences for my shed as well. I ll be taking in out to our work camp next week after the caravan and a few other things were disturbed on our time off.

‘They (D.S.E.) asked if I had stolen wood.(Vernon Howell) "I said no, I didn’t think their wood was ethical enough".’

I know what sort of fertiliser I'd put on the camera if I found one.

There are no laws in Australia giving an individual the right not to be photographed/videoed when they are in a public area, so their is no illegality about the cameras.

Meh. Lots of loaded phrases in that link.

But let's look at a few other sentences:

"He believes the cameras were located in the road reserve... ...could potentially make their placement there illegal."

"'They (DSE and PV) said you’ve done illegal works, and they tried to show some things that might have been construed as illegal,’ he said"

"‘They’re using cameras designed for watching wombats to watch people.’"

OK.

So... lessee... He "believes." Not "they were" or any statement of fact; just "He believes."

And, for the sake of argument, let's say these cameras were placed by researchers who were studying wombats. If someone performing illegal acts just happened to trip these self-same cameras and the researchers didn't report the offense to the relevant govt depts, I'm betting he'd be up in arms about "incompetence."

Me, I "believe" that it's just that in this particular case, he is the one that was nicked. Whether rightfully or wrongfully. Happens all the time... it's why we have Courts of Law!

So... Meh!

Sad that we need them but the fact is we do. So much theft and vandalisation of huts, quality timber and infrastucture, illegal hunting etc. A handy tool for law enforcement. If you're not doing anything wrong whats the problem. You won't find them in Tasmania though, they hide them better and they are smaller

Originally Posted by johnnyroberts

. . . If you're not doing anything wrong whats the problem. . . . .

While I understand the need for cameras in many places I don't buy that argument. That's what BIG brother governments say about things like tattooed numbers on forearms or will say about embedded ID chips.

Originally Posted by BobL

While I understand the need for cameras in many places I don't buy that argument. That's what BIG brother governments say about things like tattooed numbers on forearms or will say about embedded ID chips.

Not sure where you're going with that statement Bob.
I think Environmental law enforcement agencies are trying to do the job that we pay them to do (manage reserved lands) have better things to do than spy on people, they are using cameras as a tool, is it any different to a business using a cctv camera to protect what is thiers, is it any different to someone putting a camera in thier chook shed or workshop ? Theft is so common these days, if you have lost a chainsaw from you're shed, you might consider a camera yourself.
As for the article courtesy of the Castlemaine Independant, I thought it to be not balanced and poorly written. My opinion anyway

Heres a first I agree with you johnny you can buy these things any where now. They ve been around a while bit like lots of things they are open to big business and government long before we the public gets em . As for fertilizer for tree planting thats a load of bull #@$% I d like to think he d use mulch an manure unless he had a super special native fruit tree that I ve missed
in the artical

I rekon the Castlemaine article was very heavy on sensationalism & extremely light on substance.
So the camera's were placed within public reach & quite visible, yet they're trying to catch someone doing something ilegal? I dont get it. If biodiveresty / enforcement personel were really trying to catch someone, you're not going to see the camera!!

Seeing motion / thermal activated cameras out in the bush is'nt reason to jump to conclusions about "govt spying" etc etc. There are many legitimate & credible reasons to use this technology. I've used an IR camera for years.

Recently I assisted a Melb Uni honors student with small mammal research, she had cameras in bush all over the local district (interestingly her new cameras wern't as good as my older one)
A few years ago I co-ordinated a feral deer control program which included using a very well hidden IR camera. a few pics below for interest

cheers

I have an ethical dilemma with all of this: Not just cameras in forests but cameras everywhere, drug testing, random breath testing etc..

It all reeks of "1984" and big brother and I think this is where Bob L was coming from. The presumption of innocence is now just a distant memory. You have to be careful where you scratch yourself in case you are accused of an indecent act!

Having said all that, we live in times where crime, riots, civil commotion, malicious damage, vandalisim, terrorism, and in extreme circumstances, war (declared or not) are part and parcel of everyday life. Just consider how difficult it would have been in the UK to catch the perpetrators of their recent riots without the assistence provided by CCTV.

I think with the legality aspect we may be confusing the placment of watching and listening devices in a private place compared to a public place. My understanding, from watching TV too much, is that you need permission to bug a home or private workplace as it is covert. Not so in the public arena

Anyhow, perhaps you can understand my dilemma.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by johnnyroberts

Not sure where you're going with that statement Bob.

Bushmiller has basically captured it.

I do agree with the use of cameras in public places, provided there is a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity (I have even approved of this at work myself) but I am opposed to plastering streets and public places with them on the off chance that someone may be doing something wrong and applying "If you're not doing anything wrong whats the problem". IMHO this is just lazy law enforcement (avoids having real cops on the beat) and a failure to address underlying causes of crime. I wonder if the UK authorities had invested the money they spent on CCTV and other covert systems in common sense law enforcement and jobs programs whether the UK riots would have even taken place.

The "If you're not doing anything wrong whats the problem" approach is a very dangerous one because it leads to authorities from cops, to tax inspectors, council inspectors, quarantine inspectors, immigration officials, and health inspectors being able to perform random stops and searches, going through personal papers or private property without warrants, or putting rubber gloved hands up body orifii, because "if you are doing nothing wrong what's the problem?" There's also bit of a difference between everyone gets a predetermined search, such as at airports (one also knows ahead of time this will happen) and random searchers at the whim of an "inspector". The predetermined ones are bad enough without allowing more random ones to take place.

I do find it ironic that one feels a significant loss of personal dignity just going through any airport in the "so called lands of the free".

Bugger just have to wear a disguise!!!! just like speed cameras its evidence ?after the fact , nothing to do with prevention ,just crap ,1984 was some time ago . cheers from paradise see me on camera Bob

Originally Posted by bobsreturn2003

1984 was some time ago . Bob

Bob

Not when it was written! George was a little ahead of his time in 1948. What would he say if he could see us today?

Regards
Paul