License Readers, 44 Cameras To See Who Comes And GoesBy John Slattery

KINGS POINT, NY (CBSNewYork) — If you visit Kings Point, big brother will be watching.

The affluent community is hoping to prevent crime by going high-tech — by setting up a sophisticated network to screen every vehicle that goes in or out of town.

Kings Point is one of the wealthiest villages on the North Shore, and residents want to keep it that way with the latest security.

“I think it’s great,” one resident told CBS 2’s John Slattery.

To protect its 3.3 square miles, Kings Point plans to install 44 cameras and license plate readers at each of the 19 points of entry. The devices will take pictures of every vehicle and license plate and compare them to data bases.

“It will alert us to suspended registrations, felonies, stolen cars, order of protection, sex offenders, things like that,” Kings Point Police Commissioner Jack Miller said.

WCBS 880 Long Island Bureau Chief Mike Xirinachs: It May Become The Most Extensive Municipal Surveillance System In The United States

A week and a half ago, CBS 2 reported on a Kings Point woman being followed into her garage and robbed of her diamond ring by two guys who haven’t been caught.

“If they came into the village again with those cameras up, they would pass three of our locations with cameras,” Miller said.

In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, the NYPD put in its so called “Ring of Steel” camera system in lower Manhattan, modeled after the one in London. Kings Point residents Slattery spoke with said they support the plan.

“It doesn’t bother me. I have nothing to hide,” Nancy Roth said.

“I think it’s an absolutely wonderful idea and they should,” Nahal Zelouf added.

“There’s cameras on almost every intersection now. It’s the harsh reality of today’s world,” another resident said.

Privacy advocates call the cameras “overreaching.” The New York Civil Liberties Union said it may not be illegal, but there are privacy concerns.

“Giving up our liberty and our privacy in the name of security doesn’t always make us safer,” the NYCLU’s Samantha Fredrickson said.

Like the police, resident Barbara Stein, used a recent rash of home burglaries in the village to defend the surveillance.

“I mean if it’s caught on video, you know, they’ll have a better chance of apprehending whoever is doing this,” Stein tells WCBS 880 Long Island Bureau Chief Mike Xirinachs.

Aaron Freedburg said you have to balance people’s security and their right to privacy.

“[It’s a good balance] as long as you’re respectful to the extent possible of people’s privacy and the things that enhanced security, especially in this day and age, I tend to be in favor of,” Freedburg told 1010 WINS reporter John Montone.

1010 WINS’ John Montone: Burglars Have Menaced Women And Girls

There’s no way of knowing whether the project will reduce crime. It may just send it off to other towns that are less secure.

Police said the project will cost $1 million, and will be paid for over several years. They also stressed only police will have access to surveillance information.

What do you think? Will the cameras improve safety or is it an invasion of privacy? Sound off below …

Comments (186)
  1. Larry Philips says:

    No! It is Chaney’s fault. He worked for Halliburton you know and it is all a plot by BIG OIL. Didn’t you hear the presidents recent speech?

    1. Ed Wood says:

      How dare you implicate the great Lon Chaney!

  2. Black Prince says:

    It’s all BUSH’S fault!

    1. Steve says:

      Great idea! It should be in more places. The ACLU is out of touch with reality as usual and I’m Not a liberal.

      1. IraqVet says:

        Maybe not a liberal, but perhaps a facsist…Anybody that thinks a police state environment is a great idea is lacking…Like those that think throwing children under the TSA bus of molestation is a great because it makes them feel safe…

      2. Fanny Forbes Franklen says:

        If you have nothing to hide you won’t mind the weekly cavity searches that may become daily as you transit between home and work. It will be for your safety and since you don’t mind you won’t mind when they do the same to your wife Steve.

      3. waycoolsnoopy says:

        Speak for yourself, SHEEP, er, Steve. Have fun licking the boots of your police state, jackbooted masters.

        Those who sacrifice liberty and freedom for “security” deserve neither.

        You’re an idiot and it is imbecilic idiots like you who have destroyed the quality of life in this country!

      4. Mike says:

        Steve I can’t wait until the day you go to fly somewhere and TSA wants to stick a finger up your @ss, wonder if you’ll think the police state is great then.

      5. John says:

        You’re right, we should have the government track us where ever we go. Keeping a database of where you’ve been = freedom. You don’t have anything to hide do you?

      6. Robert says:

        Who going to watch the police?

      7. V says:

        Steve, you’re buffoonery is nauseating. The problem lies with the fact that one town does it – perhaps a mildly successful program (never in the prevention of crime, but only in aiding the identification of a suspect & then we all get to decide what the parameters of a success is), then a town/city copies said program & before you know it – Big Brother is everywhere. No, it isn’t ok for this to happen and don’t reply with the lunacy of ,”if you have nothing to hide” or the ever popular, “it’ll make all of us safer”. If you wish to be safe – live in a guarded tower and never venture out in public. Don’t place your fears in front of my liberties. Simply deplorable. †

    2. lesleygalbreath says:

      just cops have acess, there’s alot of crooked cops,too.,but at least it narrows it down! a regulr prison planet,huh? there aren’t any guarentees in life! good luck!

    3. Cogiito says:

      Here I was expecting Big Brother, but instead I got Big Sis.

    4. Battlespeed says:

      I think we can all agree that in our society the notion of “reducing crime” only goes so far in terms of justifying governmental actions. The question is, how should we think about the limits?

      I do this by removing “technology” from the equation with two questions:
      1. What are the (human) governmental agents behind the technology doing – or might do – with the information?
      2. What if (human) governmental agents were gathering this information instead of “technological devices”?

      When you ask either of these two questions about the increasingly ubiquitous use of cameras (and, please remember, the RECORDERS, DATA BASES, etc. that go along with the cameras!!)…we are reaching a highly questionable point of intrusiveness and potentially catastrophic outcomes from “unintended consequences” such as the loss or release of information, the abuse of information, etc.

      As a crime-prevention specialist, what I have seen of the information available concerning some of the crimes that the police in this community are using to justify the cameras, I can say that (a) the cameras will have limited value, and (b) there were traditional, proven crime-prevention measures that were absent or ignored. Let’s implement those before we put the “eyes of the police” everywhere.

  3. HooDatIS? says:


    1. linnilu says:

      You doing it on your own property is one thing. Government doing it is far from the same thing.

  4. gg says:

    We next need the right to KILL ON SIGHT anyone on our property! Kill all the trash as soon as they come near our lovely dignified classy enclaves! I AM SERIOUS!!!!

  5. George Morvey says:

    Which Town of Hempstead residents are they trying to keep out?

    1. Larry says:

      Must be the uns. The uneducated, unemployable undesirables. The rest of us left years ago !

  6. Rod in says:

    Love seeing all the thieves screaming bloody murder here on this board. The residents voted for it. The people LIVING THERE wants it. You thieves of course have a problem with it.

    1. J.B. says:

      Only a town full of liberals would voluntarily ask to be surveilled by an overbearing government 24/7. A “law of unintended consequences” case study will play out before our eyes. Why would anyone want to live like that? Oh well, such is life.

      1. lesley galbreath says:

        iam laughing tears at some of the replys! Rod in and guys are PRICELESS!

        VERY GOOD!

      2. Andrew Thoms says:

        I am laughing at lesley’s comment. It is priceless ignorance. Good job.

    2. Mike says:

      Poor little rich folks are scared, how cute.

      1. A. Levy says:

        Yes, the cameras will insulate them from what they fear most. Reality.

  7. Greg says:

    What is this country coming to?

    1. Fanny Forbes Franklen says:

      It came a long long time ago Greg. This is the afterbirth of an installed, fully working, fascist oligarchy with room temperature IQ trolls that carry out the nasty stuff.


      1. Raymond says:

        WOW, that’s a lot of big words to pull out of your…..FANNY Forbes Franklen

  8. Lark Garage says:

    Surveillance systems are not about safety or security.
    65% of all crooks are repeat offenders which get the lightest sentences humanly possible and also never serve their full sentence.
    It’s about collecting information on average citizens to help monitor their movements. If it was about law enforcement and safety then the crooks would never get out of jail.
    For hundreds of years we all got along without camera and domestic spying.
    RFID, email readers, phone ease dropping,
    Apples that log movements, Onstar and GPS.
    When was the last time that a highway video camera stopped a crime or an accident?
    The joke is on us.

    1. lesleygalbreath says:


      YOU MAKE A VERY CLEVER POINT. , but it’s those residents who live there, that want the surveillence on their neighborhood. right? oh well, still a very objective perspective. i’m 63 and have diabetes so i probably won’t be around to see how this nutty beautiful planet will be in 50 to 100 years from now. i’ve heard that the super elites want a new world government that is run just like it says on the GEORGIA GUIDESTONES in albertson georgia. see them on the georgia guidestones the radio liberty link. very thoght provoking!

      1. Lark Garage says:

        I have several private camera systems at our rental properties. I am all for it.
        But, I have control over the videos.
        You and I both enjoy the surveillance videos of the crooks doing their work when it becomes news on TV. The crooks don’t care about cameras. The videos may help solve the crime after the fact but, the crooks still do the crime. My point is that after the trillions of dollars and all of the feel good programs that have been handed out by the touchy feelies that I would have expected reportable crime to a thing of the past. Everyone should be happy from getting their section 8, WIC, housing allowance, heating allowance, food stamps, free cell phone, free bus pass, free gas card, free car, free school breakfast, free school lunch, free school take home supper, Badger Care, Badger Bus, food share, affirmative action, quotas, set asides, free $5,000 tax refund for not filing a return and anything else that I missed.
        It’s just the opposite. When we give them free food then they have a happy full tummy and feel like getting into trouble at night when the working class are trying to sleep because they have jobs to go to.
        Sounds like you know the whole story.
        The operation for narrowing the stomach aleviates all diabets.
        This nation is being set up for a massive civil war which will shrink the population severly. The winner of the civil war will then go on to face off against all of the above technology and the million foreign troops and the million foreign gang members that are already here.
        Sorry if I am preaching to the choir.
        Good luck
        Always faithful

    2. lesley g says:

      To ANDREW THOMS, Yes ,but nevertheless, andrew, their opinions are still funny!

      lighten up! they were very witty no matter what side of the coin we’re on. oh my god, i laughed! i read more replys and they were just as funny, too. i had fun tonight reading all these replys!

  9. Oh Please says:

    Palm Beach has been doing this for decades. No big whoop. If you’re cheating on your spouse, you deserve to get caught.

    1. John says:

      Palm Beach has had license plate reading cameras for decades? Seeing as how this is relatively new technology I don’t think so.

  10. Proof Negative says:

    I moved off Wrong Island 12 years ago.

  11. JIM says:


  12. Proof Negative says:

    I thought the Red Light cameras were scary enough. Maybe they are working on catching people eating Trans fats at White Caste?

    I’m going to get into this story on at 9pm EST tonight. This over-purchasing of surveillance cameras really gets annoying. They want to film our every move, and if we try to film THEM, we get in trouble.

  13. Smashicus says:

    Someday someone might just use those cameras for target practice.

  14. Johnny says:

    Has there ever been a case where the police recover stolen property and return it to the owner? Surveillance is worthless to get your stuff back.

  15. ted says:

    Love the comment about only the authorities will have access to videos. Been hearing this type of comment my entire career involved in video surveillance. In theory okay…but we are dealing with humans who simply love you tube! If it happens the town will be bankrupt with lawsuits.

  16. Just Thinking says:

    One more reason to move off of Wrong Island. With apologies to those who love it there, even if we wanted to live there it was way too expensive, crime notwithstanding.

  17. Terry Corcoran says:

    Long Island Liberals……SIEG HEIL!!!!!

    1. Hazmat77 says:

      “The plan calls for 44 cameras to eventually be installed at the village’s 19 entrances. That’s about one camera for every 120 people.”

      There is no valid point made by comparing the number of cameras to the number of residents ….. Apples vs. Oranges and at best a puerile point by the reporter.

    2. Flashman says:

      Exactly, why don’t they just get shotguns and pistols: that would stop the home invasions!

      1. Hazmat77 says:

        Burlaries are usually done when the residents are NOT home …. otherwise it wou ld be called robbery.

        And I wouldn”t be surprised to learn that many of the residents have weapons.

      2. Lovable Curmudgeon says:

        Because they know that the Obama Regime is trying to take away their shotguns and handguns through the United Nations rules negotiated by Madame Hillary!

  18. Rich in New Mexico says:

    You folks in Kings Point are a pack of raving cowards. I will not go into the Constitutional issues here but all it takes is a bunch of cowardly folks like you all to open the door to these abuses and guess what? These abuses will be heaped on the rest of us. Toughen up.
    You already have a private Police force, what else do you need? Did it ever occur to you to buy a gun, change the laws if necessary, and take some responsibility for yourselves. You folks are an utter embarrassment. How do you look at yourselves in the mirror, and you “men?” out there, how do you look your women in the face?
    I now know why I left Long Island for New Mexico back in 1978. Just disgusting and humiliating. A real laughing stock.
    Rich in New Mexico.

    1. Hazmat77 says:

      There are no constitutional issues here…When driving on public highways there is no expectation of privacy regarding one’s vehichle license plate. The Village would be within its rights to put barriers at each entrance and run a security check on every non-resident who seeks entry. Using cameras as described is more economical.

      This is a lot less intrusive than what the TSA is doing at the airports.

      1. Rich in New Mexico says:

        I beg to differ. have you never heard of probable Cause? It’s there for a reason.

      2. Tim Morgan says:

        Ever hear of the fourth amendment?? you need an order from a judge or probable cause to do a search. Driving on a highway is not probable cause. Idiots have no clue what the constitution says.

    2. Lovable Curmudgeon says:

      You should move to Mexico next, Cowboy. You could probably have a shoot out there every other day! What part of deterrence do you fools not understand? Deterrence won the Cold War, but you are probably too young to really remember that! Hopefully when you wake up, you will also grow up! Shoot ’em up Cowboy!

      1. Rich in New Mexico says:

        I can do more than remember, I’m a veteran 69 – 71. How about you? I’ll bet you think the Berlin wall came down because someone pointed a camera at it? I’ll stay with my theory of three hundred thousand armed American solders.
        You seem to have envy issues what with the name calling of every one who disagrees with you, Cowboy?
        Unlike you my friend, I’ll grow up but I won’t be in such a hurry to grow old, so old as you, sadly.

      2. Cowboy says:

        Clearly you don’t understand deterrence. Cold war was won by bankrupting those trying to keep up with offensive weapons. A camera is not a deterrence, it is easily defeated.

        If a camera helps the old folks sleep at night then great for them. It does not take much to pacify liberals.

      3. Darrell says:

        I say let’s see if it works. My guess is that it will work, even if it is at the expense of a few mistaken identity complaints. At least they will find out which of their neighbors have criminal pasts.

    3. Gerry says:

      Kings Point does not represent all of Long Island. This is still an excellent place to live, work and raise a family. If you want a laughing stock, check your border to the south. Pretty soon your state will have to remove the “New” and make it officially a Mexican territory. Maybe you could use a few more cameras to track that northbound traffic.

  19. Ornlly Gumfudgen says:

    Perhaps it’s a good law, despite th fact I personally don’t thank that it is.

    Most people accuse th wealthy of gettin away with crime. Now that they are trackin thair comins an goins, it will be much easier ta catch em in th act of comttin th crimes everyone else usually thanks thair comittin.

    Fer instance, that “quick run ta th store ta pick somethang up,” could be revealed as a ploy ta duck out of sight an have a quick affair with th nextdoor neighbor.

    Now wouldn’t that be interestin ta see plastered all over th news?

  20. Red Burton says:

    I understand the angst of the residents. However, it is illegal (at least it is SUPPOSED to be) for law enforcement agencies to run a driver’s license tag for no apparent reason. The article makes it sound like every single tag is run as a matter of course. A guy that has a felony record but cuts grass for the rich folk…is that going to send up a red flag and bring SWAT Teams a runnin’? I wonder if Eric “The Red” Holder or the ACLU will be heard from.

    1. Jeff Rosen ret NYPD says:

      Although I admit I I’m not an expert on the law, I am pretty certain if it’s done completely at random, without targeting any individual or group, it’s legal.

      1. Red Burton says:

        I would defer to your occupational knowledge, Jeff. Our local guys can be seen with the latest technology at the main intersection of town sitting in their cruisers peering into a huge laptop that I believe is linked to some high-speed video mounted on the car capturing license tabs and it all somehow interfaces with a database. They’re only looking for bad guys — warrants and that sort of thing — and I’m all good with that. I’m just wondering if every single plate is run, is it still considered random?

  21. Tom says:

    Private property owners requesting local law enforcement monitor those who come into their neighborhood… what is wrong with that? Is it because they are using cameras, and therefore the “monitoring” is more effective?

    Perhaps it would be more acceptable for this community to pay $millions$ more in police salaries and have a cop on every corner?

    The result is the same.

    1. John says:

      Why do either? This isn’t a high crime area, is there a reason why there would need to be a cop on every corner? When did we turn into a police state where every action and every person needs to be monitored in case they do anything wrong? Do you really think this will make you safe?

  22. Eli Greene says:

    Ugh, what an embarrassing story. An article about surveillance crazed paranoids and who gets quoted? Barbara STEIN and Aaron FREEDBURG. Ugh. Thanks for not reinforcing any stereotypes, Kings Point.

    1. Jeff Rosen ret NYPD says:

      It’s pretty hard to find a gentile in Kings Point (other than at the Merchant Marine Academy) although most do have Persian names!!

    2. Hazmat77 says:

      Eli …R U nutz all the time or just when you posted your stupid comment.

  23. alan says:

    If I was part of the jewish 5th column in this country Id have cameras on my neighborhood too.

  24. CATHERINE says:




    1. OBAMA = FRAUD says:

      Why does BHO have a CONNECTICUT SSN? He NEVER lived there!

    2. Carter says:

      Why is everything with “you people” about Obama? Get a life!

      1. thegratefuldad says:

        hmmm, where were you when Bush was President

  25. Larry Schwarz says:

    They have a right to protect themselves and their community.Someone planning a break in has a right to privacy?.I say to the residents of Kings Point,GO FOR IT.

    1. Rich in New Mexico says:

      That is a part of your cowardly paranoia. You seem to think that everyone who dares enter your sacred community is criminal bent on breaking into your house.
      Get a life, get a gun, if you to change the law, get started, and finally grow a pair, will you.
      Rich in New Mexico.

      1. Mike Och says:

        Rich in New Mexico,

        Yank my yankee doodle, buttmunch!

  26. Rick says:

    I saw the writing on the wall before 911 and expatriated. The US used to be the greatest country in the world, not anymore. Damn shame.

    1. Hazmat77 says:

      Where’s better?

    2. Raymond says:

      …thus the need for you to read US news blogs?

  27. J says:

    Man one day there is going to be a physical revolution in this country. Government is out of control with their spy programs and GPS dart throwing. We have to find better ways of protecting Americans. I know Kings Point. It’s a rich part of town. They have their own private police department. What more do these people want? The 4 Amendment is out the window and there is no right to privacy in America. Everyone should think about that. Our founding fathers are turning over in their graves right know. Our constitution is being dismantled, while corporate America continues to rape and pillage what were once hard working Americans!

    1. Dave H. says:

      Kings Point is not a traffic “pass thru” town, so if you’re there it’s either because you live there or have legitimate business there. If the residents are in majority agreement that the cameras are needed, then that’s their right. If you’re not a resident and you don’t want to be subject to surveillance, then don’t go there!

      1. catherine says:


      2. George Wallace says:

        Ah, majority rules? So, our community doesn’t want any negroes around, and we vote on that, is that all right, too?

      3. steve says:

        Have to wonder though if the camers turn up landscapers that are hiring illegals, will they prosecute?

      4. Jeff Rosen says:

        Actually Dave, a lot of people go to the Merchant Marine Academy for spoting events and other activities. True, most people take Steamboat Road in the Village of Great Neck and only enter Kings Point at the border but as one who has worked in KP there’s an awful lot of people who get lost looking for the academy.

      5. Rich in New Mexico says:

        Fine Dave. Let’s make a pact, I won’t come in, if you don’t come out. Deal?
        We both win.

  28. Lovable Curmudgeon says:

    When someone walks in your back door and sticks a .45 in your face while his partner rapes your wife and daughter you may decide that your “freedom” at any price is too high a price to pay!

    1. Armed and Ready says:

      Pleeeease. Their .45 will be met with a shotgun, and I shoot without asking questions.

      So, if we put camera’s at every intersection you believe crime will go down? You are so lacking in common sense. That same thought process is what created the TSA mentality. Lets grope every person including babies and no weapons will get on board. What the TSA idiots don’t realize is that common household goods can bring a plane down. If a person wants to commit a crime it will happen, you can’t stop it.

      Next time you have a stupid thought watch a program on Prison’s. What is the crime rate in a prison, which has guards walking around, locked cells, controlled environments, routine pat-downs, camera’s, etc?. You think it is crime free????? If a person wants you, your wife, your goods, they will attempt to take it. You can’t stop it.

      1. Lovable Curmudgeon says:

        Your shotgun is going to be taken away from you, Cowboy! And cameras deter crime they don’t prevent it! Nothing except a complete change in the morality of the world will prevent crime! Those guards and cameras deter crime in prison, if you don’t understand deterrence you don’t understand how the US won the Cold War, But you probably are much too young to remember that! And you sure didn’t learn about in public schools…. After you wake up, grow up!

      2. DieMarlboroManDie says:

        Lovable Curmudgeon is practically an exemplar of why you may soon, in your lifetime, find yourself without the freedom to protect yourself from criminals who don’t obey laws, by definition, or from laws expressly designed to savage the non-privileged citizens who are bound under them . Maybe he/she, or those in his/her “social category” have the money, and/or the elite caste status to live in an area where private police departments exist, where you can festoon the neighborhood with security cameras like ornaments on an overladen Christmas tree, and where, when the unmentionable castes, criminal or not, enter into the protected zone they are quickly or immediately met by an armed authority with legal right to discharge a weapon. The aforementioned security paid for by said aforementioned aristocrats–directly from their pockets or indirectly from their culling of money and power from your slave labor in the system they control.

        Almost all of the rest of us are not violent criminals, but we also will not have the resources at our leisure to command our self-protection, our family’s protection, or other decent citizens’ protection via some surrogate armed protection force that answers to us or else. As well, most of us would not wish to sacrifice the freedoms of our privacy and autonomy for such security, as such sacrifice is odious and unnecessary in order to secure ourselves, to what degree security in this life can be had or reasonably desired.

        Lovable Curmudgeon, at the heart of it, doesn’t understand the consequences of his/her desires if enacted or doesn’t care if your family is attacked after you have been legally disarmed, so long as his/her family is protected. And, of course, privacy, and the abuse of it, matters far less to those who wish to do the watching or who hold dominion over the watchers.

        The above is what you must come to understand. History teaches you this tough lesson to swallow–a truth we understandably do not want to believe about many of those around us, but which we must face, or otherwise be left increasingly to the perils of our self-deception. Lovable Curmudgeon can only be in one of two categories here: either he/she is a willing fool, or he/she understands what will happen to the non-elite in an unarmed society and simply is indifferent to this, or worse will derive satisfaction to our plight.

        Why Lovable Curmudgeon, and the very significant number of like-minded individuals have come to this position is inconsequential to the situation: be it cowardice, be it sadism, be it unchecked opportunism, be it insanity. It simply doesn’t matter.

        What matters is that you understand, THAT YOU UNDERSTAND, throughout history, there have always been a significant number of people in every society who at best care not that their whims are destructive to those around them or at worst act not on whim at all but with a purpose to harm those they see as chattel beneath them. Lovable Curmudgeon and those in agreement with Lovable Curmudgeon are not simply people with which you disagree.

        They are people at which you are at odds; and it is the safety and the freedoms of your families and loved ones that are in the balance.

        While you still can guarantee your right to self-protection by legal fiat, you best do so. Elsewise, Lovable Curmudgeon and his/her ilk will use legal fiat to see to it that you defend yourself as an outlaw or suffer the ravages put upon the law-abiding citizens in the lower castes of societies rendered evil by the law itself.


      Welcome to Our

    3. Rich in New Mexico says:

      You seem hopeless and so utterly helpless. My shotgun, or in my case my 1911 Colt Auto., will taken away? Boy you are scared old curmudgeon. I think we may have to change your name to ‘Puddy Tat’. How can you say that? Statistics fly in the face of that argument as does my own personal experience.
      I have used my pistol in self defense and guess what, it worked! Just fine.

      1. Clay Aiken says:

        Rich & Curmudge – why don’t you girls settle this once and for all, with a tickle-fight!

  29. Hank Warren says:

    Endless surveillance, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our right:
    They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.
    They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
    They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.
    Impeach Obama and sweep out the Congress.
    (Last link of Banned Book):

  30. Ralph Rainwater says:

    Who can blame these people, given that semi-wealthy households are being targeted with a “Get them!” mentality? If this village’s occupants feel the need to protect themselves from roaming bands of thieves, how is this wrong?

    I increasingly see this as civilized people trying to create safe enclaves in a U.S. that celebrates uncivilized behavior. That’s not Big Brother watching you — that’s local police charged with protecting local citizens.

    1. T.Wilson says:

      Cameras can’t protect you from anything but they may aide in identification after the crime.

      1. Brad S. says:

        They also deter crime. That is a form of protection.

  31. Kevin says:

    The US is a feminized, nanny-state joke today. Enjoy your unappreciated special rights while they last girls….

    1. True Colors says:

      Have you considered the fact that it’s entirely possible to construct an argument against this kind of surveillance without casting slurs upon an entire gender?

  32. James says:

    So basically anyone with a criminal record, even if you did something stupid in your youth, becomes the target of an investigation for merely being in an area that has a crime committed while you’re there. I’m not sure if this is a good precedent to set.

    1. libertyordeath says:

      @James, please read the article before you start jumping to paranoid conclusions, they are using the cameras to scan car plates to see if the owner of the car has a criminal record.
      There is a fine line between the Right to privacy and the Privilege of security. You have the right to “be secure” (privacy) in your effects, person, and home (see the 4th amendment). This means that you have the right to go anywhere you want to (as long as it does not violate others right to privacy – i.e. gated communities). The residents of this community are trying to secure their privacy given the same chance wouldn’t you do the same?
      Besides it’s not like anyone is forcing you to go to there, if you don’t like it don’t go, simple as that.

      1. sscomment says:

        So if I have a legitimate reason to be there, tell me how this DOESN’T violate the 4th amendment? They are still doing a search and seizure – and by your own admission, I should be able to go ANYWHERE – that includes a gated community, without such a thing happening.

      2. Hazmat77 says:


        The Fourth prohibits UNREASONABLE search and seizure.

        The license plate on vehicles is generally on the exterior of the vehicle, so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy to prevent the police from running your tag…. get over it.

      3. James says:

        Two things:

        First, this article has been edited since it was originally posted. It had originally said something to the effect of “the cameras will run your license plate and if you have a criminal record it will be immediately reported to the police.” This has now been changed and removed.

        Secondly, please learn to read yourself. I never said it was wrong to scan license plates, which cops do quite regularly when behind a vehicle. However, my point is that you are being targeted merely on the premise that because you have a criminal record you will be considered a suspect in a crime. That was the inference given by the article itself. If this is not the case, what other reason is there to see if you have a criminal record or not? They aren’t tracking for the sake of tracking. Let’s take the example of the robbery in the woman’s garage. According to the logic presented here in this article, if you happened to have a criminal record for whatever reason you would automatically be considered a suspect in this crime. Now, considering that criminals aren’t as dumb as anyone thinks, they could easily have taken a car that does not have a criminal record associated with it, mask the license plate, put on a false one etc to escape detection by the police. As a result, the one’s most likely being targeted are most likely frequently to be innocent people who just happened to have a criminal record for some stupid event they did in their youth, like I said in my comment.

        In the future, please more closely read the aticle yourself before saying others are jumping t paranoid conclusions. Furthermore, it would be important for you to actually understand my point instead of erecting a straw man in place of it and arguing about things I never even talked about.

  33. FedUp389 says:

    “Authorities stress that only police will have access to surveillance information”
    and the Easter Bunny delivers cavity-free candy.

    at this rate “Papers…let me see your papers” isn’t all that far fetched.

    “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Benjamin Franklin

    1. Brian says:

      You’re misquoting Ben Franklin ..

      They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  34. T OZZY says:


  35. donkey says:

    Just put the porn loving TSA at each intersection. The sheep will enjoy the “pat-downs” whereas the criminals will stay away since they don’t enjoy being groped.

    1. T OZZY says:


      1. T OZZY says:


  36. arhooley says:

    I bet every one of the island residents supporting this move is an open-borders liberal who considers screams “Racist!” at anyone who wants to protect the nation from foreign criminals.

    1. REALITY says:

      Thats only because they have a continuous need for fresh landscaping, housecleaning and handyman staff… you know, once the staff get a “grasp of things” here in the States they are fired and replaced with cheaper (and more grateful) labor

  37. David Cearley says:

    London has a system like this. It charges a “congestion” fee to enter the central business district, recording every license plate of every vehicle. They also have a ticket writing traffic cam I’n a construction zone on one of their freeways. It generated $1.5 million I’n revenue in one year, under the guise of making it safer for highway workers…

  38. Tim Krause says:

    19 entrances? That is a Security nightmare. They’re going to have too shut down some streets, build a moat.

    1. J says:

      “…, build a moat”.

      The would require a joint action exercise and funding between Police Dept and the local Sewer Authority… 🙂 … never happen … lol

  39. Leviathan says:

    The age of the video camera and cell phone camera has doomed savages like the McDonalds attackers. This will probably be done in all neighborhoods that can afford it.Put one in the Walmart parking lot too.

    1. T.Wilson says:

      But it didn’t stop the victim from getting beat up did it?

  40. J Ruben Kincaid says:

    If the cameras are a desire of the local residents/local government and not being imposed on them by federal or state government, then they should have them. Criminals beware.

    1. sscomment says:

      The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is not limited to the Federal Government.

  41. George Adams says:

    I’d leave a nasty comment but I am afraid the internet police would be knocking at my door.

  42. Wartooth says:

    You notice how they start this in the rich neighborhoods to make it more appealing to the proles when it’s our turn. Tiburon CA got this first.


    1. Death says:


      I’ll be there ASAP.

  43. Tim says:

    I’m going to go ahead and call it right now — the primary purpose of these camera is revenue. The cops are going to run license plates for warrants (including, I’m sure, outstanding parking tickets) and pull any revenue stream over. They’ll also use them like red-light cameras and send people tickets in the mail for speeding, illegal lane changes, etc. etc. And those “mobile units” are out there in a lot of towns running innocent peoples license plates constantly trying to find any excuse to pull you over. It’s pretty incredible to me that no one seems to have a problem with these incursions in to our lives. The role of the police and government in our society is changing in front of our eyes. The police were once there to “protect and serve” but now it seems that their primary role is to harass and spy on taxpayers.

    1. James K says:

      Tim: it is to protect and collect…

    2. Pat says:

      Cameras work, after the fact for criminals…but knowing they are present keeps honest people honest. Traffic camera enforcement helps reduce police staffing, the folks who complain the most about cameras are usually the ones who love to race thru the yellow lights or cut in illegally in no lane change areas. ‘me thinks he douth protest too much’

  44. J says:

    “He does not possess wealth; it possesses him., (Benjamin Franklin)”.

    Wouldn’t it be reasonable to consider a “criminal” *might* steal (1) license plates from another vehicle (2) steal another entire vehicle (3) use plates from out of state (4) throw mud/snow on the plates?

    I suggest a gated community with a toll booth / EZ-Pass like device (RFID). Charge money to enter the neighborhood.

  45. Jen says:

    These cameras don’t help stop the crime – but might be an aid in apprehending suspects. I’m thinking home protection such as a shotgun would produce the same results.

    1. Please wake up says:


      Only if your home while it’s happening.

      1. A says:

        If the woman who had her ring stolen would have had a gun that night I bet you she would still have her ring too.

  46. norman west says:

    this is how all people will be watched with every move they make no matter where it is in the next 100 year,s the whole usa will be covered including your bathrooms and bedrooms……

  47. Johnny says:

    Thanks for the story. Just got to get out my rifle with the scope and go camera hunting in Kings Point. As fast as you put them up, I’ll l take them out.

  48. TheLibertine says:

    “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.” – Ben Franklin

    1. Miss Quote says:

      Don’t dumb down the quote… a summary of a quote is not a quote, its a summary. If you’re going to use QUOTATION marks, make sure you’re using them around an ACTUAL QUOTE. Idiots…

  49. booger says:

    The next time I break in these homes, I’m taking a cab.

  50. Flux Capacitor says:

    Why aren’t Constitutional lawyers all over this? Why not put a cop in every persons house in case a crime is committed? Government sells this idea around the country to the American people under the guise of fighting crime. The fact is it is a continual assault on public privacy. It really is amazing how our Federally protected civic rights are chipped away on a daily basis and nobody does anything about it.

    1. Cos says:

      I agree… Can anyone say, “Big Brother”? For the unaware, read the book entitled 1984 written by George Orwell. It describes how the government ‘monitors’ everyone under the guise of security. Flux, you’re absolutely correct. The civil lawyers should be all over this. They probably aren’t interested because there’s no money involved… Not being a lawyer, you should take that comment with a grain of salt… Ooops! Did I say ‘salt’? Please don’t send the salt police after me!

Leave a Reply