The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 7-10

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 7... ... 7Transportation Authority gives notice on its buses and in its transit centers of its use of video surveillance.47 As for whether any part of an agency's video surveillance system is kept secret, six agencies (8.33%) stated that they keep part of their video surveillance system secret (e.g., hidden cameras) Read the entire page →
From page 8... ... 8likewise stated that they adopted the use of video surveillance to address a serious potential threat or threats to public safety of indefinite duration.60 Finally, fourteen agencies (19.44%) considered alternatives prior to adopting the use of video surveillance.61 B Read the entire page →
From page 9... ... 9was used to establish probable cause for a series of warrants for the use of GPS-monitoring. In Garcia-Gonzalez, a federal district court in Massachusetts noted that prior to Jones, supra, the courts had approved without a warrant the use of video surveillance of areas that were exposed to public view.85 Although the court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, the court discussed at length judicial opinions, including Justice Alito's concurring opinion in Jones that had "expressed substantial Fourth Amendment concern regarding continuous video surveillance."86 The court decided, however, that its denial of the defendant's motion was compelled by controlling precedent in the First Circuit.87 It may be noted that the Jones case involved a GPS and long-term monitoring of a vehicle driven by the defendant, not video surveillance of a public place or even of a home or its backyard. Read the entire page →
From page 10... ... 10 the differences occasioned by third-party monitoring and recording which insures full and accurate disclosure of all that is said, free of the possibility of error and oversight that inheres in human reporting.92 In Whalen v. Roe,93 the Court stated that it was "not unaware of the threat to privacy implicit in the accumulation of vast amounts of personal information in computerized data banks or other massive government files"94 and that in some circumstances there is a "duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures" and recognize "that in some circumstances that duty arguably has roots in the Constitution."95 Some states, such as California and Colorado, have laws regarding the retention of video surveillance. Read the entire page →

From page 7...

... 7Transportation Authority gives notice on its buses and in its transit centers of its use of video surveillance.47 As for whether any part of an agency's video surveillance system is kept secret, six agencies (8.33%) stated that they keep part of their video surveillance system secret (e.g., hidden cameras)

Read the entire page →

From page 8...

... 8likewise stated that they adopted the use of video surveillance to address a serious potential threat or threats to public safety of indefinite duration.60 Finally, fourteen agencies (19.44%) considered alternatives prior to adopting the use of video surveillance.61 B

Read the entire page →

From page 9...

... 9was used to establish probable cause for a series of warrants for the use of GPS-monitoring. In Garcia-Gonzalez, a federal district court in Massachusetts noted that prior to Jones, supra, the courts had approved without a warrant the use of video surveillance of areas that were exposed to public view.85 Although the court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, the court discussed at length judicial opinions, including Justice Alito's concurring opinion in Jones that had "expressed substantial Fourth Amendment concern regarding continuous video surveillance."86 The court decided, however, that its denial of the defendant's motion was compelled by controlling precedent in the First Circuit.87 It may be noted that the Jones case involved a GPS and long-term monitoring of a vehicle driven by the defendant, not video surveillance of a public place or even of a home or its backyard.

Read the entire page →

From page 10...

... 10 the differences occasioned by third-party monitoring and recording which insures full and accurate disclosure of all that is said, free of the possibility of error and oversight that inheres in human reporting.92 In Whalen v. Roe,93 the Court stated that it was "not unaware of the threat to privacy implicit in the accumulation of vast amounts of personal information in computerized data banks or other massive government files"94 and that in some circumstances there is a "duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures" and recognize "that in some circumstances that duty arguably has roots in the Constitution."95 Some states, such as California and Colorado, have laws regarding the retention of video surveillance.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.