Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

County Installs Cameras To Watch Cameras

September 17, 2012 by  

County Installs Cameras To Watch Cameras

Prince George’s County in Maryland now has surveillance cameras that will watch surveillance cameras. The residents of Maryland are tired of speed cameras, so some people have been destroying them. The county hopes the new cameras will slow down the damage.

So far, six people have damaged speed cameras. In one instance, a person pulled a gun and shot the camera. On another occasion, someone cut off one of the four legs of the camera. On July 3, a person lit a camera on fire.

“It costs us $30,000 to $100,000 to replace a camera,” said Prince George’s County Police Maj. Robert V. Liberati. “That’s a significant loss in the program. Plus it also takes a camera off the street that operates and slows people down. So there’s a loss of safety for the community.”

There is already one camera watching a camera. By the end of the year, the county hopes to have about a dozen more.

Liberati says the plan is all about public safety, not an infringement on privacy or a tactic to increase revenue.

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “County Installs Cameras To Watch Cameras”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Harold Olsen

    Brilliant! Now they just have more cameras to destroy!

    • B rian

      its just a matter of the order in which you have to destroy cameras now!

      • 45caliber

        The real problem here is the people who stand directly in front of it when they destroy it. They should at least stand to the side, preferrably in back of it.

    • Warrior

      I now have a new cause, “save the camera”. I’ll bet the Libyan’s don’t have cameras…yet!




  • cawmun cents

    They can just borrow one (camera) from the doughnut shop….

  • B rian

    Soon enough they will be using your Xbox motion detection equipment for gaming to know what goes on in your home! I’m calling it right now and you heard it here first!

    • Bob

      If you knew how many ways they have of spying on you in your home or or place of buissiness without installing anything, or getting a court order, it would blow your mind. Your phones, computers, cable TV, cell phones, I-pads, etc are already hooked up and capable of being listened in on by Big Brother without your knowledge.

      • 45caliber


        And thanks to Clinton’s “Privacy Improvement Act”, they listen to or scan every message all of those things might send – without a need for a search warrant.

  • Edg1

    It’s ALL about an infringement on privacy AND a tactic to increase revenue.

    • Edg1

      Bust up enough of them for long enough and it’s possible to run them stone cold broke. Maybe THEN they’ll stop.

    • 45caliber


      You are correct about the revenue enchancement. When Houston first started considering using cameras, it was for “safety”. They checked Chicago and Atlanta about using the cameras. Atlanta found that if you lengthened the yellow light time at a problem intersection by 0.5 seconds it eliminated over 90% of the accidents at that intersection. Chicago found they weren’t getting enough revenue from their cameras so they shortened the light by 0.5 seconds to catch more people in the intersection and collect more fines. Guess what Houston did with theirs?

  • Deerinwater

    I’ve considered it myself. I’m been popped for a “California Stop” ( rolling stop, right on red ) several times. ~ I’ve taken the high road , paid the fine and been more mindful. Not understanding the parameters of what constitutes a “stop” . If you have stopped twice, working through an intersection, must you stop that third time?

    It’s annoying.

    • 45caliber

      I was recently told by a cop that a “stop” had to be at least 5 seconds long. When I asked her where it stated that in a law she told me that it wasn’t any of my business. I’d only stopped for 3 seconds.

      • 45caliber

        Incidentally, it is NOT in any law.

      • phoenix

        wow…so…a “law” you’re supposed to follow isn’t any of your business? bravo, cop lady…… yeesh…..

  • Sirian

    There’s more than enough of them, sure, why not, they’re great for “target practice”.

    • 45caliber

      The extra cameras simply make more targets. But you should use a light rifle like a .22 or a .177. It is more of a challenge and the parts don’t fly all over the place littering.

      • Dan Mancuso

        I like your sense of justice and integrity .45, I hate litterers too.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        Also less likely to have colateral damage.

  • Roy in Wyo

    Surveillance cameras ostensibly for safety and stopping traffic infractions. Realistically to monitor people and their movements. George Orwell, thanks for the warning.

    • 45caliber

      You are basically correct. Even some of the politicians admit that they want the cameras to spy on the citizens. One recently said they want wanted enough cameras installed (I believe in NYC) so they could check on any act in the city they didn’t want to happen and see who was involved. That isn’t safety or even anti-crime.

  • SarahR

    Hurray for Prince George County in Md. Everyone should do this. Get even with Big Brother.

  • dcjdavis

    It’s just the taxpayers saying “no” to big government again. Really wish the taxpayers would win this game and be done with it.

  • 45caliber

    If it coses “$30,000 to $100,000″ to replace a camera then they believe they will get more than enough fines using it to pay for it. The idea of safety is to prevent someone from having an accident. If no one has an accident in any of those incidents where a fine was given, then there was obviously no safety problem. So why do they have the cameras there … exect to bring in more money for the city/county by taking it away from the citizens there? I don’t blame the people for destroying the cameras. I don’t think they are necessary either.

  • 45caliber

    Houston has cameras set up. The citizens voted to have them removed in a valid election. A judge finally decided that the election results had to be set aside because the city had entered into a contract with a company to install and maintain them. Besides, the city was losing about $10 mil a month with them down. Now they are up and working again.

  • Hedgehog

    Why destroy the cameras? Steal them, then sell them on the black market. At $30,000 to $100,000 dollars a camera, sounds like some poor people could become entrepreneurs right quick like. If you get caught, plead not guilty. You were just re-possessing public property and recycling it.

  • Roger

    It is time for everyone here to meet Marc Stevens. He has posted a bunch of wins with these out of control, power hungry, money grubbing S.O.B.’s. Go here;

    and learn a brand new way to shove this crap right back into their faces.

    cum grano salis

  • World History, its all around you!

    Seems it would make sense that the traffic camera and the camera camera will just be damaged in tandem.

  • AmericanIcon

    “Liberati says the plan is all about public safety, not an infringement on privacy or a tactic to increase revenue.” Sure – it’s ‘for your own good’ – not to mention ‘for the children’. Wasn’t there something in ‘the supreme Law of the Land’ to the effect of “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”? And with the state flat broke, of COURSE it’s not for revenue…and I have this bridge in Brooklyn I can get you a good deal on, if you act RIGHT NOW…

  • tim

    Hurray for the people in prince george county

  • recycling metal

    Hi there, just wanted to say, I loved this post.
    It was practical. Keep on posting!


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.