Posted on 03/22/2010 10:04:52 PM PDT by MamaDearest
Last month, Herman Jacob took his daughter and her friend camping in the Francis Marion National Forest. While poking around for some firewood, Jacob noticed a wire. He pulled on it and followed it to a video camera and antenna.
The camera didn't have any markings identifying its owner, so Jacob took it home and called law enforcement agencies to find out if it was theirs, all the while wondering why someone would station a video camera in an isolated clearing in the woods.
He eventually received a call from Mark Heitzman of the U.S. Forest Service.
In a stiff voice, Heitzman ordered Jacob to turn it back over to his agency, explaining that it UShad been set up to monitor "illicit activities." Jacob returned the camera but felt uneasy.
Why, he wondered, would the Forest Service have secret cameras in a relatively remote camping area? What do they do with photos of bystanders?
How many hidden cameras are they using, and for what purposes? Is this surveillance in the forest an effective law enforcement tool? And what are our expectations of privacy when we camp on public land?
Officials with the Forest Service were hardly forthcoming with answers to these and other questions about their surveillance cameras. When contacted about the incident, Heitzman said "no comment," and referred other questions to Forest Service's public affairs, who he said, "won't know anything about it."
Heather Frebe, public affairs officer with the Forest Service in Atlanta, said the camera was part of a law enforcement investigation, but she declined to provide details. Asked how cameras are used in general, how many are routinely deployed throughout the Forest and about the agency's policies, Frebe also declined to discuss specifics. She said that surveillance cameras have been used for "numerous years" to "provide for public safety and to protect the natural resources of the forest. Without elaborating, she said images of people who are not targets of an investigation are "not kept."
In addition, when asked whether surveillance cameras had led to any arrests, she did not provide an example, saying in an e-mail statement: "Our officers use a variety of techniques to apprehend individuals who break laws on the national forest."
Video surveillance is nothing new, and the courts have addressed the issue numerous times in recent decades. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and over time the courts have created a body of law that defines what's reasonable, though this has become more challenging as surveillance cameras became smaller and more advanced.
In general, the courts have held that people typically have no reasonable level of privacy in public places, such as banks, streets, open fields in plain view and on public lands, such as National Parks and National Forests. In various cases, judges ruled that a video camera is effectively an extension of a law enforcement officer's eyes and ears. In other words, if an officer can eyeball a campground in person, it's OK to station a video camera in his or her place.
Jacob said he understands that law enforcement officials have a job to do but questioned whether stationing hidden cameras outweighed his and his children's privacy rights. He said the camp site they went to -- off a section of the Palmetto Trail on U.S. 52 north of Moncks Corner -- was primitive and marked only by a metal rod and a small wooden stand for brochures. He didn't recall seeing any signs saying that the area was under surveillance. After he found the camera, he plugged the model number, PV-700, into his Blackberry, and his first hit on Google was a Web site offering a "law enforcement grade" motion-activated video camera for about $500. He called law enforcement agencies in the area, looking for its owner, and later got a call from Heitzman, an agent with the National Forest Service.
So do the Brits, and that is why in the cities, so many Brits wear hoods and hats. Guess I better start looking on Ebay for some hats....
In the last twenty years the Forest Circus has become nothing more than the Green Police. Their main concern is to enforce an Eco Wacko mindset on hikers, hunters, fishermen and campers. And on commercial concerns too. Mainly by shutting them down or making it difficult for them.
Well maybe we should just dress like forest rangers or bears. May as well have fun with them if they want to film us. It really is turning me off to camping. My idea of camping is in my 32 ft travel trailer with ac & a bed lol.
That's not camping. Camping is a wool blanket a knife and a block of magnesium. ;^)
Yes, cell phones are useful. If you have a piece of steel wool you can ignite it with the battery from the phone and get your fire started. ;^)
I believe that in a grander scheme of things, they wish to limit our travel and accessibility to open land. People living in metro/suburban areas are easier to control. The fed’s can’t have gun carrying “rugged individualists” out there, and being unaccounted for.
Drug cultivation, “illegal” logging, etc. is just a ploy just as “endangered” species are used simply to cut off public access to land.
Another way they’ll continue to limit, if not end, sportsmen activities is to make it so expensive (license, tags, etc.)through regulation that people won’t be able to afford it.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll continue to; the US Forest Service is the Green Gestapo. We must dismantle all fed. agencies except our military.
That is what lighters are for TE. I do know how to gather wood & make a fire. I also know you can start a fire with eye glasses.
I prefer Fritos to magnesium myself. :-D
Oh, yes, they have been closing more and more roads and trails for at least twenty years. I don’t think there is any illegal logging either. If they wanted to monitor for that they would put the cameras on the roads not in the forest. But most forests would be hard to get in and out of with a logging truck without passing a ranger station. They wouldn’t even have to patrol which they do on a near daily basis.
And cellphones can be used as a weapon. If I bear’s chasing you, throw the cellphone at it. This should slow them down.....a little. Just enough to enrage ‘em anyway.
Gotta admit it would work very well. But you would need several cases of Fritos to light as many fires as a small magnesium block and the chipmunks won't eat it.
Just dial “1-900-talk to a sexy bear” before you throw it.
Not a forest ranger. And I don’t mind reading government materials to learn what an agency says about itself. That’s useful, whether I agree with the content of the materials or not.
Sorry if I am irritating you. I think I have said all I can think of on this. Thanks for your time.
LOL!!
Everyone should be a little paranoid these days.
Appreciated the discussion. Hope you’ll seriously consider a different view of the Forest Service.
Good night,
TJI
I never camp without my buck knife & a flare gun. I think the flare gun would work better then the cell phone would....But I’ve got some ring tones that might amuse the bear. I am beginning to think I would rather be around the bears then the forest rangers.
You will be invisible until the moon comes out.
lmao!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.