Tags for this video have been changed from 'chainsaw, pub, bar england, britain' to 'chainsaw, pub, bar england, britain, security camera, vigilante citizens' - edited by ctrlaltbleach

"There's a security camera up there"

Yeah, so what lady?

It's people like that who would like to have us all under camera surveillance watched by psychos.

Come on, guys, let's get some class warfare going on in here. A security camera and a spiked security fenced? Oh no, Richy Rich here has to call up Newegg!

>> ^Trancecoach:

that's private space. that's essentially a security camera on a private gate.>> ^conan:
aren't there laws against filming public space in the US? At least in Germany it would be highly illegal to have a private camera filming anything other than your own private grounds.



but it is filming the street and the sidewalk... but i did some googeling and it seems that US laws are much less strict in regards of filming public spaces.

Ah the difference of the "privacy" concept between the US and Europe. See the google street view bruhaha we had over here...

The laws that conan mentioned basically says that while you're allowed to set up security cameras to monitor your own property, they are not allowed to film whats going on beyond your property. That includes public spaces. In addition, if people have a chance of being filmed, there needs to be a clearly visible sign stating that filming is taking place and who is doing it.

I'm sure a lot of americans just don't get the european view, just as a lot of europeans just won't get the american view of privacy. All in all, while I think there is a bit of overreaction (especially in germany), I'm more in favor of the european view. I just don't trust corporations with my data, directly or deduced, since I will be bought and sold and will never know to whom, why and what for. But thats just me

that's private space. that's essentially a security camera on a private gate.>> ^conan:

aren't there laws against filming public space in the US? At least in Germany it would be highly illegal to have a private camera filming anything other than your own private grounds.

@blastido_factor:

There's an old Jewish proverb that runs something like this:

"A fool can throw a stone into the water that ten wise men cannot recover."

Your stones, fortunately, aren't irrecoverable. I'll offer some counterpoints to a few of your claims, and I'll leave it up to you to fish for the truth about the others.


- The alleged masterminds of 9/11 have never been produced and never put to trial, despite having supposedly been captured in 2001/02

I don't know what you mean by "produced," but here's something I do know: I started a case in small claims court earlier this year (in New York City, nonetheless), and I was told I'd have to wait at least four months to appear before an arbitrator. (It's likely that I'll have to wait longer, if, for example, I opt to appear before a judge.) Simply put, trials take time. Given the complexities of a trial involving the masterminds and perpetrators of 9/11, ten years is hardly cause for conspiracy.


- Total failure of the air defense system. The Pentagon was struck One hour and Twenty minutes after the attacks began, yet there was no response from Andrews Air Force base, which is just 10 MILES away and supposed to be in charge of defending the capitol."

The North Tower was struck at 8:46 AM, the South Tower at 9:03 AM, and the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. By my math, the Pentagon was hit fifty-one minutes after the first plane hit the WTC and thirty-four minutes after the second plane hit. The 9/11 Commission estimated that the hijacking of Flight 11, the first plane to hit the WTC, began at 8:14 AM. It's misleading, in this context, to consider the hijacking of Flight 11 as the beginning of the attack (I assume this is what you meant); it wasn't until the second plane hit the WTC that the nature and the scale of the attacks became evident. Could the communication between the FAA and NORAD have been more prompt, and, thus, more effective? Yes. (Rightly so, this is one of the major criticisms lobbied against the agencies responsible for responding to the attacks.) Is the delay of thirty-four minutes cause for conspiracy, given the lack of precedence in handling such a coordinated attack and the confusion surrounding the events of the attack? No.


- The remains of the twin towers were quickly carried off and buried before any forensic investigations could be done.

Your use of the word forensic is categorically flawed. (The first and third definitions of forensic, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, are as follows: (1) "belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate, and (3) "relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems.") NIST's reports are chock-full of forensic analyses; have a look for yourself: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/index.cfm. Forensic investigations also led to the identification of a significant number of victims. According to Wikipedia: "Within a year, medical examiners had identified the remains of 33 victims who had been on board Flight 11. They identified two other Flight 11 victims, including the lead flight attendant Karen Martin, after body fragments were discovered near Ground Zero in 2006. In April 2007, examiners using newer DNA technology identified another Flight 11 victim. The remains of two hijackers, potentially from Flight 11, were also identified and removed from Memorial Park in Manhattan." The methods used to identify these victims (DNA testing, in many cases) were nothing if not forensic.

You're also neglecting the simple fact that the removal of debris was necessary from a health standpoint. Again, according to Wikipedia: "The thousands of tons of toxic debris resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers contained more than 2,500 contaminants, including known carcinogens. Subsequent debilitating illnesses among rescue and recovery workers are said to be linked to exposure to these carcinogens."


- Of all the cameras around the pentagon, including the security tapes taken from local gas stations, only one blurry clip was released.

Three videos, not one, were released. According to Wikipedia: "A nearby Citgo service station also had security cameras installed, but a video released on September 15, 2006, did not show the crash because the camera was pointed away from the crash site. The Doubletree Hotel, located nearby in Crystal City, Virginia, also had a security camera video, and on December 4, 2006, the FBI released the video in response to a freedom of information lawsuit filed by Scott Bingham. The footage is 'grainy and the focus is soft, but a rapidly growing tower of smoke is visible in the distance on the upper edge of the frame as the plane crashes into the building.'"


I don't fault you, or others like you, for wanting to "think twice" about the explanations given for certain of the events surrounding 9/11. I do fault you, though, for spending so little time on your second round of thinking, and for so carelessly tossing conspiracy theories to the wind.

Here is Security Camera footage of the same scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IvAgrgvtV0


seems viral, and if you notice this Delorean is missing Mr Fusion, So it could take place during the cloning of the Delorean as explained in the Back to the future video game that came out last year from the lightning strike caused a split in the time rift as explained in the video game thus creating a new Delorean to travel 2 months after the events of part 3. (explained in video game)

BUT <- big but
with that said

probably just a local argentina viral ad for something <- most likely or who knows
could be an amateur production. But that is the older Christopher. So that's cool.

Is this what is going to lead to a real police state? Security cameras in the hands of government instead of just civilians?

I can see the merchants insisting on a camera system downtown and an increased police presence.

The shadow side of cheap media -- in the hands of folks with good intentions, good is done. In the hands of folks with bad intentions, bad is done.

http://www.philebrity.com/2011/06/27/the-way-we-live-now-flash-mob-robberies-flash-mobberies/

Clockwork Orange, my god it reads like Clockwork Orange.

holy...
did anybody see that?
hope there are no security cameras...
/scampers away

fucking failing species.cant wait for extinction.

Let's say the mall had a video camera that streamed video of the main atrium to their website. Plenty of places do that. Does she have a case then?

What if this had been in the background of a private citizen's cell phone video?

Is it that an employee of a company willfully selected and posted the video? Why does that strike us as wrong? There's no sound, and I think video is fair game as far as the law is concerned. And why should we assume that security camera video is private?

>> ^Stingray:
I don't know how it will hold up in court, but the video pretty clearly shows she is suing the mall for the public humiliation of her being broadcast all over Youtube.
I mean, I think we can all admit we have done some dumb things at time, but to then know some security camera guy is going to turn around and post it on Youtube? Eh... this is sort of why people are up in arms about cameras being everywhere.


Well she went from anonymous idiot to famouse idiot by bringing light to this event. However, knowing that she was a mall employee, something tells me the one-time public humiliation is worth the large paycheck so that she won't have to deal with the daily humiliation of working at the mall.

I don't know how it will hold up in court, but the video pretty clearly shows she is suing the mall for the public humiliation of her being broadcast all over Youtube.

I mean, I think we can all admit we have done some dumb things at time, but to then know some security camera guy is going to turn around and post it on Youtube? Eh... this is sort of why people are up in arms about cameras being everywhere.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Did they really leave the baby inside a running vehicle with the keys in the ignition?
White folks.

Also, did the YT write-up say that the carjacker is a woman, and still "at large." Dude, local police need to get on that.


Shall they wave their magic wands and conjure up evidence?

There's no face in the security camera, the parents don't look like they'd have gotten a good enough view of the suspect to describe them (The father was in the car with them upside-down for about 5 seconds before they took off)

So the only thing they -might- have is fingerprints, and even then, judging by the amount of visible exhaust coming out of the car, that was a cold night, they were probably wearing gloves.

I agree something should be done, but you cant expect something from nothing.

security camera?

>> ^ponceleon:

Now I'm not saying it is fake, but why the hell was the person just randomly video recording his street... there was absolutely nothing going on.