Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Is the U.S. Forest Service spying on visitors?
Our country's national parks and forests are intended as sanctuaries, zones of peace and quiet where visitors can get away from the give and take of modern life. But don't expect to have it all to yourself: these days you might be joined by hidden cameras, placed by the U.S. Forest Service. Don't break out the tinfoil hat just yet; this "conspiracy theory" may have some truth to it. According to a South Carolina newspaper, the agency has been placing hidden cameras in forest areas for some time.Visitor Herman Jacob was camping and looking for firewood in South Carolina's Francis Marion National Forest last month when he stumbled across a wire. The wire took him to a video camera and a remote antenna sitting in the middle of the woods. Perplexed, Jacob took the camera home with him and contacted the local police, who explained it had been set up to monitor "illicit activities" and demanded its return. Further investigation by the Island Packet, the newspaper that researched the story, confirmed that the Forest Service has used the cameras as a tool of law enforcement for "numerous years." A Forest Service spokesperson quoted in the article indicated that images taken of those not targeted by an investigation are not kept.
In light of the fact drug cartels have been growing marijuana on federal land for some time, this type of surveillance makes more sense. And, legally, the cameras are on public land - surveillance is permissible. But is a policy that allows this type of monitoring, particularly in a quiet forest, a violation of our trust? Or is it a necessary evil, preventing misuse of public land? Leave us your thoughts in the comments.
[Via Metafilter]
Filed under: North America, United States












Reader Comments (Page 2 of 5)
Tom Apr 9th 2010 10:58AM
ROTFLMFAO
Aunt Julie Apr 9th 2010 8:51PM
AWESOME I love good humor! Kudos!!
K. Hedrick Apr 9th 2010 7:20AM
I,m surprised they know how to operate these devices, they don't know how to control speed on forest roads, which are unposted. (when asked to post speed limit signs, they replied that there was no money in their budget for such, and furthermore, their officers had no radar equipment.) Their roads are poorley maintained, and their main concern is (so-called) controlled-burns.
magnetman Apr 9th 2010 7:46AM
Sure that if it is something juicy it will end up on Facebook
betty Apr 9th 2010 7:51AM
Cumberland Mountain State Park, TN. has little secret cameras all over the camp groung. We rented a cabin there 2 springs ago and saw this. In back of every cabin they rent there are what looks like little bird houses, but they are really cameras, that are aimed at the back of each cottage.
YOU GET SPYED ON. ..IF the back window shades are not closed...they can watch you change cloths...!! They could watch you inside the cottage thru them... It appeared they could see you sitting in the dining area...etc...
This seemed terribly wrong to me.... and is why I never went back
old geeser Apr 9th 2010 8:00AM
i AGREE THERE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC THINGS NOT SPIED UPON BUT FOR THE MOST IF YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY CRIMINAL DOING DON'T WORRY ABOUT AND THAT GOES FOE EVERYONE, CRIMINALS HURT AND KILL [PEOPLE]
Keith J. Mohrhoff Apr 9th 2010 8:02AM
The term "reasonable expectation" comes to mind. About 20 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the interior of a car could be considered a private place--provided the situation of the car were such that a reasonable expectation of privacy could be maintained. For instance, it would be legal for a couple to make love in a car parked at night on a dark 'Lover's Lane' because they would only be visible to a person (or cop) who came up to the car with a flashlight and peered inside thus, making visible that which was not visible. Conversely, that same couple, in the same car, in the same act while parked on Main Street at 12 noon on a Tuesday so that anyone walking down the street can see what was going on would be guilty of public lewdness because they had no reasonable expectation of privacy. One must wonder, if one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while apparently alone in a large, dense wilderness, where does one?
Jailwatcher Apr 9th 2010 8:21AM
If you are not involved in criminal activity what's the problem? Maybe some day the cameras may save your life.
Jason Apr 9th 2010 1:16PM
THey wont save your life! but they sure will watch you die. if the catch the criminal that did it great but the camera didnt make you any less dead. Law abiding people have a right to privacy, and that isnt it.
Shawn Apr 9th 2010 10:16AM
This is unfortunately the misguided response I hear many people give when confronting difficult questions related to balancing constitutional protections for privacy with the legitemate need for law enforcement and security. Unfortunately, to say "if you're doing nothing wrong . . ." doesn't answer these difficult questions. The framer's provisions for privacy and our society's need for privacy exist to protect those who are innocent, not the wrongdoers. If everyone thought it was OK to spy on those who are "doing nothing wrong," ask yourself who decides when you are doing something "wrong" or worthy of spying on, and what is the deterrent to those who have either power or just know-how from constantly spying on those doing nothing wrong and seeing their children squat behind a bush or seeing into the back window of their cabin when they may be doing all sorts of things "right?"
PHIL Apr 9th 2010 12:00PM
You are so right. They could use the video that is captured to show that the govt is HONEST and has NOTHING to hide. Heck they could shut up all these 9/11 conspiracy folks by showing the video from the cameras that were pointed at the side of the PENTACON that was hit. When this happens sheep like you will be vindicated. Watch out mutton, sheep are to be shorn not treated like thinking adults. So where are the videos that show that view of the PENTACON? I am sure that the F.B.I. would love to let you and the rest of us who own them see them, but they can't because you might not be able to handle the images so they are going to keep them from you for your own good because they care about you so much. You got to see how much the govt cares in Jacksonville a week or so ago when the cops put 42 rounds into a car and hit a 2 year old twice. But I am sure that a look into the event by our sheapards will find out that they meant well so it is OK and that unpleasent moment will be swept under the rug.
Kim Apr 9th 2010 8:26AM
This is not the whole story that was printed in the local papers here in SC. Mr. Jacob was camping in a primative legal campsite with his two young daughters. There isnt any bathrooms, so you must go in the woods where any camera can take pictures of the children (if you or I took pictures of children using the bathroom, bathing or dressing we would be charged with taking child porn) . You can bet if there are some "Great Pictures" if you understand what I mean, they wouldnt be deleted! Mr. Jacob contacted the Forest Service who said they are only using the cameras to watch for illegal activity. When he asked if it was safe for him and his young daughters to camp there, he was told it was a safe area. SO WHY THE CAMERAS THEN?
earl Apr 9th 2010 8:29AM
We are just not smart enough to regognize that growing marijuana on public land is somewhat trivial, we should leagalize marijuana, tax it to the limit! build more prisons and incarcerate the 'real criminals'!
The amount of time and money wasted on catching/incarcerating marijuana growers is obscene?---it is a stupid endeavor just like prohebition was a waste of time and just generated more criminals, and people did not drink any less alcohol during that period, the only thing compromised was the quality of the booze?
Robert Apr 9th 2010 9:53AM
Hey uhmmm Earl ,...Yo u ever wonder WHY they have to build more prisons ??
BECAUSE THEY ARE BUSTING PEOPLE JUST FOR SHEER POSSESION !
Not because we have a whole lot more violent criminals do we run out of space to house violent offenders but becuase we have so many stupid laws that put otherwise innocent non violent people in jail !!Get your facts straight before you post PLEASE ! We would not need more prisons if marijuana were legal ,TRUST me on this one .
Larrythecabinetguy.com Apr 9th 2010 8:32AM
I think the most positive result from cameras hidden in the forest is to finally answer the question we have pondered for years. Do Bears really poop in the forest?
TJ Apr 9th 2010 10:20AM
Not if they're polar bears.
s Apr 9th 2010 8:45AM
I don't want armed criminals in our forests. But I don't want innocent citizens spied on. People should be advised before entering the park that there is camera surveillence. I don't want rangers watching my children peeing in the woods or watching people as if they were alternative porn entertanment. "Peeping" and stalking are just as unlawful as pot.
gerry Apr 9th 2010 10:08AM
agreed
Dot Apr 9th 2010 9:05AM
Excellent idea for the safety of all involved!! Animals, the forest habitat and the humans that feel they need to go backwards in civilization. This need has, more then once, produced odd behavior in some that could be harmful to the animals and forest habitat.
Wolfman Apr 9th 2010 9:11AM
I think you need to double up on the tin foil in your hat. The aliens have gotten most of your brain.