Whose Camera Is It Anyway?
February 22, 2007 on 4:58 pm | In Local, Main | 
Thumbing through the LJ this week and noticed a strange story from Karen Bartomioli, who consistently writes some of our most interesting pieces. Click here to read the case of the mysterious surveillance equipment near Dutcher’s Bridge on Route 44 near the North Canaan-Salisbury line.
Evidently no one is claiming ownership — not the State Police nor the DOT. Anyone out there in the blogosphere have any theories as to why it’s there and no one will admit to having anything to do with it?Maybe it’s the Department of Homeland Security monitoring would-be terrorists driving out of that hotbed of rebellion — Pine Grove.
Or perhaps buried deep in Gov. Rell’s budget is the elimination of Troop B — to be replaced by strategically situated video cameras that will ferret out the evil-doers in a much more environmentally friendly way than all those 8-cylinder Crown Victorias the troopers drive.
I have a sure-fire way to find out who owns it. Blow it up, blast it with a shotgun or remove it. Then you can be sure the owner will surface.
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
As a very close neighbor of the site, I first noticed those devices last summer. I’ve been curious about them ever since. They look like web cams. One of the two has a bell light clamped with it. Judging by their location, mounted close to a hodge podge of tall privacy fencing surrounding the house on the inside of that busy corner, I have come to the conclusion they must belong to the people in that house, and perhaps their intention is to return to the homeowners an electronic version of the view they’ve lost to the fence. Maybe they’re projecting random moments of the action on the corner to the world online.
Comment by Mark Alexander — February 22, 2007 #
Terry, in the Deep South, those kinds of cameras appear all over the place. You can buy them in bulk at Bass Pro Shops, in camouflage. They are put out by rednecks who keep tabs on the habits of the local deer, all in the hope of being at the right place at the right time on opening day of deer season. Whether any of this pertains in your corner of Connecticut, I can’t say…
– John
Comment by JP — February 22, 2007 #
i vote for “The Elimination of Troop B” idea. Slap a telephoto on it and the police blotter will even more enriching than Jerry Springer on a good day.
Comment by Doug Richardson — February 22, 2007 #
Terry…
I think the family on the corner has children. Maybe its to keep an eye on their whereabouts?
Marshall
Comment by Marshall Miles — February 23, 2007 #
I think it’s funny that although someone mounted the camera to spy on someone/something we are the ones doing the spying.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that although it is perfectly legal to install cameras to view your own, private property it is illegal to install cameras pointed at government, state, town or property otherwise not your own.
This came about because people were using cell phones to snap pics of people (namely women) in compromising positions/situations.
Comment by James — February 23, 2007 #
The good news is that folks in your neck of the woods are vigilant. Bostonians let 3 weeks pass before they saw something, then said something about those suspicious devices. The bad news is it’s just one more camera in a world growing ever more thick with the damn things. It’s my guess that it won’t be long before some western Connecticut American Idol wannabee’s spotted tap dancing within range of that lens.
Comment by terry mccarthy — February 23, 2007 #
Hey all you curious compadres,
I got a call last night from the camera’s owner - yes,
it’s a camera.
It confirmed suspicions I already had. I chose instead
to pose it all as a mystery in part to show that we notice
little of the world around us, especially when driving, and
you never know who’s watching, even in these parts. I also
was unable to contact the owner before press time.
As hoped, the real story came to me, and you can read
about it next Thursday.
Although it has nothing to do with deer movements, I liked
that theory.
Doug, I don’t think we could stand it if everything that happens
around here made it into the blotter (or have room for anything
else in the paper).
Comment by Karen Bartomioli — February 23, 2007 #
Karen, Mystery solved. I look forward to the story in Thursday’s print edition. I will link to it here as soon as the link becomes active.
James, I don’t know if it’s illegal to point a camera at gov’t property (though I doubt it, unless it’s the White House or some place with high security concerns) but if you put one on a state right-of-way, as it appears this one may be, you would think it would require a permit. But since the camera stand is so close to the fence, maybe it’s off the right-of-way and mounted on private property.
Comment by Terry — February 23, 2007 #
i once came across a “photographers bill of rights” once…where it would probably apply to even a video camera.
as long as the photographer (or in this case, the video camera) is not trespassing on private property, and the subject being photographed or filmed does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy… (and while you are in your car on a public road, I guess you don’t.) It is legal.
I am intrigued. I look forward to reading the story behind it.
Comment by fred — February 23, 2007 #