Game camera at ground zero

May 24, 2012

now everybody can see what i do with my boogers.

YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!

It would be funny to get a big foot costume and walk in front of camera.

14k · May 24, 2012

The question was: "Would it bother you if you KNEW there was a camera in the woods?"

If i KNOW there is a camera, there are two things i will not do:

1) steal coins

2) go potty

Of course, that begs the question "would you steal coins if you knew there wasn't a camera (i.e. you wouldn't get caught). Just to be clear: THAT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION. IT IS NOT AN ACCUSATION.

6.1k · May 24, 2012

now everybody can see what i do with my boogers.

YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!

It would be funny to get a big foot costume and walk in front of camera.

Or go at night, completely nekkid, wearing a ski or hockey mask, and smeared with red paint..

An issue of weird NJ had an article about someone finding plywood cutouts of very large feet with an old pair of sneakers nailed to the top in a swamp several years after the prints were reported.

1.6k · May 24, 2012

I for one would be disapponted if a photo of me caching in the woods were published without my permission. I understand the desire to catch cache maggots in the act, but there's very little way to ID someone from a photo, unless it's one of your friends or they sign the log (Likely? I think not) But not upset enough to damage or destroy someone else's property.

6.1k · May 25, 2012

While I do see the need to try and catch cache thieves and coin bandits, I would object to being on-camera in the woods.

What I do in the woods (and how I do it, and whom I do it with) is my own business.

Sure, (in)security cameras are everywhere in the city, isn't that the kind of CRAP thing we go out into the wilderness to get away from?

If I happened to detect the presence of such a camera, I would do my absolute best to 'disable' it...with extreme prejudice.

But it's not yours. It's the property of someone else, similar to a geocache.

It also may have been left by someone monitoring illegal dumping, vandalism of historic sites, or a forest ranger studying wildlife.

If I am successful, there will be no way to tell what happened, or who did it.

If I am not, there is nothing to discuss. Throwing rocks and swinging baseball bats is not a crime.

The forest ranger, or person who put it up to monitor illegal dumping, plant poaching, or for some other reason may not feel the same way. They would see the recent caching activity and believe a cacher did it.

Several years ago I found a place to hide a cache in an area marked with GREEN ACRES signage. Believing it was public, I went back there and found a spot. There was also a large wire net attached to trees for climbing nearby, so I investigated and found out that it was not public at all, but part of outdoor activity center with summer daytime activities. However, the manager gave me permission to hide a cache anyhow, as he said it seemed interesting.

Some time passed and the cache went missing. Being that the only traffic in the area was from cachers and members of the outdoor place, I contacted the manager to see if he knew anything about it. At first he didnt admit any knowledge, but eventually I found out that he was extremely angry, as the guy wires for his zip lines over the creek were all tore up. The timing cooincided with a group of cachers who visited the cache by kayak, so he assumed they did it. He had no proof, but now was an angry person who removed one cache, and could get more. I have no idea if the cachers did do it, but the guy wires did illegally block canoe and kayak access on the creek to the canoe trail, so if they didn't do it, another group eventually may have. I archived it and moved on.

If you do vandalize a camera, there may be no legal proof, but someone will note the timing and believe a cacher did it. The game is not invisible and there are plenty of outdoor people who are aware of it, but don't participate. An angry person who wants to get revenge for his $100 camera may have to snag several ammo boxes before they believe they are squared up.

In the case of the outdoor center, the manager eventually contacted me and told me he put another one there and I could enable it. He had installed a nice setup in the hollow tree with pulleys and wires to lower the cache. Although it may have been considered defacement, he was the owner of the place and I was happy to oblige. The new zip lines were placed high enough as not to interfere with creek traffic. Eventually that cache disappeared but several other people from the center now geocache.

I dont really like being seen on camera either, but I dislike people who dump, poach plants, steal coins, and tear up archaeology sites even more. If you are not damaging anything there is nothing to worry about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBSTYjJHP7k&feature=player_detailpage

19k · May 25, 2012

I for one would be disapponted if a photo of me caching in the woods were published without my permission. I understand the desire to catch cache maggots in the act, but there's very little way to ID someone from a photo, unless it's one of your friends or they sign the log (Likely? I think not) But not upset enough to damage or destroy someone else's property.

Those of you that feel this way had better stay indoors then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Privacy_issues

Members of the public have virtually no privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, or inside a private residence. This legal standard applies regardless of the age, sex, or other attributes of the individual.

May 25, 2012

Wouldn't bother me. People are on camera so many times during the day with out knowing.

And I don't mess with peoples caches, so I would have no worries what so ever.

19k · May 25, 2012

Wouldn't bother me. People are on camera so many times during the day with out knowing.

And I don't mess with peoples caches, so I would have no worries what so ever.

Besides, we already know what you look like.

May 25, 2012

I kinda do look like Festus Hagen. I just don't have that lovable drawl.

6.1k · May 29, 2012

I for one would be disapponted if a photo of me caching in the woods were published without my permission. I understand the desire to catch cache maggots in the act, but there's very little way to ID someone from a photo, unless it's one of your friends or they sign the log (Likely? I think not) But not upset enough to damage or destroy someone else's property.

Those of you that feel this way had better stay indoors then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Privacy_issues

Members of the public have virtually no privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, or inside a private residence. This legal standard applies regardless of the age, sex, or other attributes of the individual.

I suppose a "reasonable expectation of privacy" could be expected deep in the woods on public property, but it would be difficult to define when the line had been crossed. I don't think anyone would publish a video of sombody anyway, unless they were caught doing something.

Here are a few videos of people caught dumping on camera. The first is from Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the second is in Camden, NJ. A few people abandoning their dogs were caught also.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/videonetwork/1579250375001/People-dump-dogs-trash-in-Camden

May 30, 2012

I was hiking in a nature reserve this past weekend and found a mounted camera next to a river bank. I waved and then demonstrated my lack of rhythm by attempting to do the robot.

The reserve is maintained by a local college (coincidentally my alma mater) so hopefully my silliness will give some students a chuckle.

3.7k · May 30, 2012

Here are a few videos of people caught dumping on camera. The first is from Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the second is in Camden, NJ. A few people abandoning their dogs were caught also.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/videonetwork/1579250375001/People-dump-dogs-trash-in-Camden

I watched the videos and was apalled at those people dumping their dogs. Is there not a pound in their area? Here, I only have to drive 10 minutes and I can surrender my pet if needed.

6.1k · May 31, 2012

Here are a few videos of people caught dumping on camera. The first is from Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the second is in Camden, NJ. A few people abandoning their dogs were caught also.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/videonetwork/1579250375001/People-dump-dogs-trash-in-Camden

I watched the videos and was apalled at those people dumping their dogs. Is there not a pound in their area? Here, I only have to drive 10 minutes and I can surrender my pet if needed.

There are plenty of animal shelters nearby, as well as dumps. It's a combination of lazyness, ignorance, and psychopathic tendencies that cause people to dump animals and trash wherever they please. I'd like to see a place available 24/7 in every county that would accept garbage, tires, and pets at no cost to prevent it. They could set up all the cameras they want to catch and fine the people to finance it.

May 31, 2012

I for one would be disapponted if a photo of me caching in the woods were published without my permission. I understand the desire to catch cache maggots in the act, but there's very little way to ID someone from a photo, unless it's one of your friends or they sign the log (Likely? I think not) But not upset enough to damage or destroy someone else's property.

Those of you that feel this way had better stay indoors then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Privacy_issues

Members of the public have virtually no privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, or inside a private residence. This legal standard applies regardless of the age, sex, or other attributes of the individual.

I suppose a "reasonable expectation of privacy" could be expected deep in the woods on public property, but it would be difficult to define when the line had been crossed. I don't think anyone would publish a video of sombody anyway, unless they were caught doing something.

Here are a few videos of people caught dumping on camera. The first is from Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the second is in Camden, NJ. A few people abandoning their dogs were caught also.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/videonetwork/1579250375001/People-dump-dogs-trash-in-Camden

That was the saddest thing i've seen an a while (I avoid the news). How somebody can just open the door and let a dog out like that is just sick.

May 31, 2012

Sure, maybe the only thing that happens to us in this situation is that we're caught on camera going to the bathroom on a tree. But what happens when one of us doesn't realize the camera's there, we're facing it, and it catches more than just our backside? Or worse yet, one of our children. What does the camera owner do with all the photos? Delete them if it's not a muggler? Save them for their collection? These are the things I have a problem with. If I'm in public and I know there are security cameras around, I also know I'm not doing anything worth catching on camera. But I do have a problem with individuals taking our photos without consent. I'd like to see Groundspeak require full disclosure on the cache page if a CO wants to place a camera on site. For all the CO's who innocently place one to catch a thief, there's always going to be some who are up to no good.

I would be kinda weird-ed out. I don't want to be on camera while in the woods. I would assume said camera belongs to a pervert trying to watch people in the woods and act accordingly. If I am filmed without my permission the camera will be smashed to smithereens and thrown in a dumpster. Plus what would you see? People poking around in the underbrush and people "watering" the trees? Why the heck would you want to film that?

I've got news for you... you are filmed without your permission almost constantly these days. You've probably been "filmed" while geocaching many times, also... at least if you've done any parking lot hides. Why would you assume the worst because you found a game camera in the woods?

There's a big difference between security cameras in the parking lots of businesses and a single individual (a CO) placing a camera at the cache site for who knows what purpose. For as many who say they may do it to catch muggles, there are as many who do it for other, ill-intentioned, reasons. You ask, why assume the worst. We can easily ask, why assume the best? We live in a time of social media everywhere we turn with people who not only disregard their own privacy, but worse yet, have no problem violating other people's privacy as well.

I for one would be disapponted if a photo of me caching in the woods were published without my permission. I understand the desire to catch cache maggots in the act, but there's very little way to ID someone from a photo, unless it's one of your friends or they sign the log (Likely? I think not) But not upset enough to damage or destroy someone else's property.

Those of you that feel this way had better stay indoors then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Privacy_issues

Knowschad's attitude is one that is very frustrating. The "if you don't like it, don't play" attitude. Trying to accuse us of being crazy paranoid simply because we value our privacy. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting a CO to secretly photograph us enjoying the game, but you demonize those of us who feel differently than you. It's very hard to have an opinion in these forums that opposes the majority, because if you do and are willing to voice it, there are always plenty of people who try to make you look like a fool. Some of us have valid privacy concerns in regards to this topic and it's perfectly acceptable, despite how others may treat us because of our opinions & feelings.

6.1k · May 31, 2012

It could be argued that a "reasonable expectation of privacy" may extend to deep in the woods on public property, but not on a public street. However there would have to be a court case to define it. Where would you draw the line? A geocache site is an open invitation to the public to visit public places using a GPS. There could be another geocacher present at any time. I've heard stories of cachers climbing trees to surprise other cachers. I would not expect any privacy at any cache site.

May 31, 2012

Sure, maybe the only thing that happens to us in this situation is that we're caught on camera going to the bathroom on a tree. But what happens when one of us doesn't realize the camera's there, we're facing it, and it catches more than just our backside? Or worse yet, one of our children. What does the camera owner do with all the photos? Delete them if it's not a muggler? Save them for their collection? These are the things I have a problem with. If I'm in public and I know there are security cameras around, I also know I'm not doing anything worth catching on camera. But I do have a problem with individuals taking our photos without consent. I'd like to see Groundspeak require full disclosure on the cache page if a CO wants to place a camera on site. For all the CO's who innocently place one to catch a thief, there's always going to be some who are up to no good.

So do you lock yourself inside all day? You are filmed all the time. Do you have a problem with people with photographic memories. What are they doing with those visions of peoples children in there head!?!?!?!

You consent to getting your picture taken in public every time you are in public.

And nowhere did knowschad demoralize you by pointing you to information. You just took it that way.

Edited May 31, 2012 by MisterEFQ

June 1, 2012

Here are a few videos of people caught dumping on camera. The first is from Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the second is in Camden, NJ. A few people abandoning their dogs were caught also.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/videonetwork/1579250375001/People-dump-dogs-trash-in-Camden

Man, that is just awful Total disregard for their environment, and then those dogs..

Personally I'm well aware that there are no laws against taking photos of people in public, I enjoy doing some street/candid photography myself. It doesn't bother me. Only place I expect privacy is my own home.

July 13, 2012

Sure, maybe the only thing that happens to us in this situation is that we're caught on camera going to the bathroom on a tree. But what happens when one of us doesn't realize the camera's there, we're facing it, and it catches more than just our backside? Or worse yet, one of our children. What does the camera owner do with all the photos? Delete them if it's not a muggler? Save them for their collection? These are the things I have a problem with. If I'm in public and I know there are security cameras around, I also know I'm not doing anything worth catching on camera. But I do have a problem with individuals taking our photos without consent. I'd like to see Groundspeak require full disclosure on the cache page if a CO wants to place a camera on site. For all the CO's who innocently place one to catch a thief, there's always going to be some who are up to no good.

I would be kinda weird-ed out. I don't want to be on camera while in the woods. I would assume said camera belongs to a pervert trying to watch people in the woods and act accordingly. If I am filmed without my permission the camera will be smashed to smithereens and thrown in a dumpster. Plus what would you see? People poking around in the underbrush and people "watering" the trees? Why the heck would you want to film that?

I've got news for you... you are filmed without your permission almost constantly these days. You've probably been "filmed" while geocaching many times, also... at least if you've done any parking lot hides. Why would you assume the worst because you found a game camera in the woods?

There's a big difference between security cameras in the parking lots of businesses and a single individual (a CO) placing a camera at the cache site for who knows what purpose. For as many who say they may do it to catch muggles, there are as many who do it for other, ill-intentioned, reasons. You ask, why assume the worst. We can easily ask, why assume the best? We live in a time of social media everywhere we turn with people who not only disregard their own privacy, but worse yet, have no problem violating other people's privacy as well.

I for one would be disapponted if a photo of me caching in the woods were published without my permission. I understand the desire to catch cache maggots in the act, but there's very little way to ID someone from a photo, unless it's one of your friends or they sign the log (Likely? I think not) But not upset enough to damage or destroy someone else's property.

Those of you that feel this way had better stay indoors then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Privacy_issues

Knowschad's attitude is one that is very frustrating. The "if you don't like it, don't play" attitude. Trying to accuse us of being crazy paranoid simply because we value our privacy. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting a CO to secretly photograph us enjoying the game, but you demonize those of us who feel differently than you. It's very hard to have an opinion in these forums that opposes the majority, because if you do and are willing to voice it, there are always plenty of people who try to make you look like a fool. Some of us have valid privacy concerns in regards to this topic and it's perfectly acceptable, despite how others may treat us because of our opinions & feelings.

+1

July 13, 2012

-1

Again Chad did NOT demonize anybody, did NOT make anybody look like a fool.

He simply pointed out a fact that if you truly cared about not getting your picture taken, the only way to solve that is to stay home.

19k · July 13, 2012

Here are a few videos of people caught dumping on camera. The first is from Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the second is in Camden, NJ. A few people abandoning their dogs were caught also.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/videonetwork/1579250375001/People-dump-dogs-trash-in-Camden

I watched the videos and was apalled at those people dumping their dogs. Is there not a pound in their area? Here, I only have to drive 10 minutes and I can surrender my pet if needed.

There are plenty of animal shelters nearby, as well as dumps. It's a combination of lazyness, ignorance, and psychopathic tendencies that cause people to dump animals and trash wherever they please. I'd like to see a place available 24/7 in every county that would accept garbage, tires, and pets at no cost to prevent it. They could set up all the cameras they want to catch and fine the people to finance it.

(responding to a pretty old post...)

You are suggesting they open a free garbage dump, photograph the people that use it, then fine them to pay for it? :blink:

Clever!!! :lol:

19k · July 13, 2012

It could be argued that a "reasonable expectation of privacy" may extend to deep in the woods on public property, but not on a public street. However there would have to be a court case to define it. Where would you draw the line? A geocache site is an open invitation to the public to visit public places using a GPS. There could be another geocacher present at any time. I've heard stories of cachers climbing trees to surprise other cachers. I would not expect any privacy at any cache site.

If I'm reading and interpreting it correctly, not true, according to the courts. See Open Fields doctrine:

…open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields.

19k · July 13, 2012

-1

Again Chad did NOT demonize anybody, did NOT make anybody look like a fool.

He simply pointed out a fact that if you truly cared about not getting your picture taken, the only way to solve that is to stay home.

Thank you!

Assumptions have been made about my attitude that are entirely wrong! I do NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, like or approve of the current level of surveillance on the public for any reason. I find it despicable, to be honest. And to say that I have an attitude of "if you don't like it, don't play is also dead wrong. You won't be able to find a single post here where I've said anything remotely like that.

Trying to accuse us of being crazy paranoid

If you really think that is what I was doing, then perhaps the shoe fits.

6.1k · July 13, 2012

Here are a few videos of people caught dumping on camera. The first is from Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the second is in Camden, NJ. A few people abandoning their dogs were caught also.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/videonetwork/1579250375001/People-dump-dogs-trash-in-Camden

I watched the videos and was apalled at those people dumping their dogs. Is there not a pound in their area? Here, I only have to drive 10 minutes and I can surrender my pet if needed.

There are plenty of animal shelters nearby, as well as dumps. It's a combination of lazyness, ignorance, and psychopathic tendencies that cause people to dump animals and trash wherever they please. I'd like to see a place available 24/7 in every county that would accept garbage, tires, and pets at no cost to prevent it. They could set up all the cameras they want to catch and fine the people to finance it.

(responding to a pretty old post...)

You are suggesting they open a free garbage dump, photograph the people that use it, then fine them to pay for it?

Clever!!!

No, silly. The cameras in illegal public dumping areas, and the fines associated, would help finance keeping a legal 24/7 place available. Many towns that have lots of people dumping crap all over, also tend to have a highly restrictive legal dump in their area.

The one around here is open only on saturday from 9-2 and you need ID to show that you live in town. A mile away in the woods is a illegal dump which gets cleaned repeatedly by the same employees who can only be counted on to staff the legal dump for 5 hours a week.. :rolleyes:

6.1k · July 13, 2012

It could be argued that a "reasonable expectation of privacy" may extend to deep in the woods on public property, but not on a public street. However there would have to be a court case to define it. Where would you draw the line? A geocache site is an open invitation to the public to visit public places using a GPS. There could be another geocacher present at any time. I've heard stories of cachers climbing trees to surprise other cachers. I would not expect any privacy at any cache site.

If I'm reading and interpreting it correctly, not true, according to the courts. See Open Fields doctrine:

…open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields.

Open fields have more visibility and different characteristics than places deep in the woods which have deep tree cover. However if you are on public property, I would not expect any privacy. An actress sued a tabloid that was flying over her home in California and taking pictures awhile ago. She was on her own property, but still lost.

Edited July 13, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

6.1k · October 20, 2012

Bumping, due to questions asked in another thread.

October 21, 2012

Some of the new cameras have a cellular service (you have to pay for) and it sends the picture right to your cell phone right away. This is a good way to catch trespassers. I know a treestand thief who was just busted that way.

I you try one of these for spend the money on an IR camera. The burst type just announce themselves in low light and they just get stolen. That's another plus about the cellular. You get a picture of the camera thief...... if your lucky

October 21, 2012

I could actually care less about the camera, but what I'm worried about is all of you PEEING where I'm caching! That's really, really gross.

3.7k · October 21, 2012

I could actually care less about the camera, but what I'm worried about is all of you PEEING where I'm caching! That's really, really gross.

Do you have an iron bladder or do you never go on long hikes? :unsure: I don't think anybody actually pees right at GZ.

October 21, 2012

There is NO legal expectation of privacy in this scenario. You're good to go (video only, no audio). If you're doing it for fun put a note on the cache page. If you're doing to catch a thief...good luck and god speed.

October 22, 2012

How sensitive are those cameras? I only ask because I thought it could be funny to tie a helium balloon to a near by tree.

The game cameras that I am familiar with detect infrared radiation, not movement, so the balloon would not register.

Game camera at ground zero

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation