|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 21, 2013 19:41:25 GMT -5
So far, there has been NO evidence that the many spycams erected about the park have benefited owners. There have been at least two instances when they might have yielded useful information--the criminal mischief in the Storage Yard and the "fire" on the new boat dock this spring/summer.
I don't recall the excuse given for having NO information from the Storage yard following the vandalism; seems it might have been that there was new software on order or something like that. In the case of the boat dock, an owner informed that the fire was not a fire--it was lookalike bird poop.
It's my opinion that properly-sited spycams are a necessary evil EXCEPT when under the control of this Administration. In the custody of , they are just evil! There is NO written protocol(SOP) detailing the handling of recorded information: who has access to monitor/review, retention of information, security of recorded material, discarding footage, and SLohA response in an instance where criminal conduct was recorded. Lack of operating guidelines and privacy considerations make spycams another tool of potential abuse of owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Oct 27, 2013 21:47:04 GMT -5
Darn-It!! No More Nude Swimming at Night in The Pool or the Hot Tub.. :-(
|
|
|
|
Post by SPY Vs. SPY on Jan 22, 2014 7:22:50 GMT -5
So far, there has been NO evidence that the many spycams erected about the park have benefited owners. There have been at least two instances when they might have yielded useful information--the criminal mischief in the Storage Yard and the "fire" on the new boat dock this spring/summer. I don't recall the excuse given for having NO information from the Storage yard following the vandalism; seems it might have been that there was new software on order or something like that. In the case of the boat dock, an owner informed that the fire was not a fire--it was lookalike bird poop. It's my opinion that properly-sited spycams are a necessary evil EXCEPT when under the control of this Administration. In the custody of , they are just evil! There is NO written protocol(SOP) detailing the handling of recorded information: who has access to monitor/review, retention of information, security of recorded material, discarding footage, and SLohA response in an instance where criminal conduct was recorded. Lack of operating guidelines and privacy considerations make spycams another tool of potential abuse of owners. The spycams really serve no purpose in most cases. They are mainly pointed at the Alum. Can Recycle Bin (to prevent a Felony theft) and the Mens Pool Room lockers .
I agree w/ having one @ the Swimming Pool as it provides an electronic Life Guard .
However what I feel is an invasion of privacy is that the in Park internet provider who see's what his subscribers are doing and what they are viewing or Downloading is an intrusion on peoples privacy .
Not one of the Commercial Providers (Nextel-Verizon-Sprint-AT&T ect.) will call you at say to stop downloading movies or be able to backdoor your computer and read your emails .
Spycams may have a place in SLR but there is no place for a snoop that invades your privacy through your peasee . K C Net can also turn on your peasee camera that comes standard in most every new Laptop and Monitor and view what you are doing in your home with the installed password . NOT COOL and a major intrusion , cant trust a set up like that .
Vote NO on the Internet Proposal .
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jan 23, 2014 6:05:39 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the public perception that the camera is somehow protective and "provides an electronic life guard" is, itself, a liability to SLohA. In the event of mishap, there is no active or ongoing surveillance of pool activity. The spycam is only intended to be a historical record and not a "real-time" safety tool. It might be helpful in documenting mischief or a mishap after the fact.
A similar situation happened when SLohA provided well-meaning, but amateur, "emergency services" of a first-responder nature, with a "committee" and a defribrilator. This was even put into the Rules & Regulations under "Security" and was disbanded and removed from our records because it actually increased liability on many levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 24, 2014 10:04:40 GMT -5
An alert resident informed me about a TV spot which aired last night (1/23) on Eyewitness 9 about "surveillance cameras being ordered to be removed from homeowner associations in the Tampa or Orlando area".
I checked on that and the spot was about homeowners associations in Orange County who had violated the laws of Orange County by installing unpermitted surveillance cameras on public right-of ways. These HOA's were told by the Orange County Public Works Department that "Orange County prohibits the installation of surveillance cameras in the public right-of-way."
It appears that most HOA's have moved their trespassing cameras to their own private property but there are still violators. It also does not matter if the cameras are pointed at private HOA property; if they are situated on public right-of-way without a permit, they must be removed.
We should all be reassured by this that SLohA is not the only HOA in Florida that thinks the rules of the outside world do not apply to it. Apparently, there are many HOA's that think they can just plop their equipment on other peoples' property without permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hammer Time on Jan 24, 2014 10:27:37 GMT -5
An alert resident informed me about a TV spot which aired last night (1/23) on Eyewitness 9 about "surveillance cameras being ordered to be removed from homeowner associations in the Tampa or Orlando area". I checked on that and the spot was about homeowners associations in Orange County who had violated the laws of Orange County by installing unpermitted surveillance cameras on public right-of ways. These HOA's were told by the Orange County Public Works Department that "Orange County prohibits the installation of surveillance cameras in the public right-of-way." It appears that most HOA's have moved their trespassing cameras to their own private property but there are still violators. It also does not matter if the cameras are pointed at private HOA property; if they are situated on public right-of-way without a permit, they must be removed. We should all be reassured by this that SLohA is not the only HOA in Florida that thinks the rules of the outside world do not apply to it. Apparently, there are many HOA's that think they can just plop their equipment on other peoples' property without permission. How do we get these damn cameras down in SLR then ? I know a way and it doesn't require a ladder or a bucket truck .
Question: Since these cameras are on Community Property are they property of the owners now ? just like the Pool Tables ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 24, 2014 10:41:16 GMT -5
The surveillance cameras are part of the common property, which all members own (but this type of ownership is not "divisible" ie you can't cash out and destroy your 1/787 ownership portion.)
The way to get the cameras off the property is to get a petition signed by members (20%) to present to the BOD. The BOD must then call a Special Meeting within 60 days to present the proposal to all Members and discuss. If it appears that most people want the cameras removed, the BOD would logically poll the entire membership as a Ballot Item on the next Annual Member Meeting.
The BOD is not required to act on the "will" of the membership as a result of the Ballot poll. It still has the power to keep the cameras (or take 'em down).
The option then becomes a question of whether to keep or dump the Board, if they are acting contrary to members' wishes. This is one of the FEW places that majority rules--when it comes to electing and removing Board members!
See how this works? The OWNERS were never asked if they wanted surveillance cameras. The BOARD just rammed 'em down our throats. Supposedly we don't pay for them. Don't believe it. In some manner, we paid for the labor to put them up, the software to run them, the extra bandwidth to handle the video feeds. We might not have paid for the old casings. Who knows how many cameras are actually IN the casings and how that was paid for?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 24, 2014 11:15:48 GMT -5
I wanted to comment on this, in all fairness. K C "can" monitor usage and identify overusage by computers' unique IP address. Yes, he does know that YOUR computer is the one gobbling up megabandwidth by recording movies from "a server"! K C would not know "what server" but would be able to identify where the server was geographically.
If you were on another provider's plan such as Verizon, you would simply be billed for the extra bandwidth consumed or, you would be "throttled" i.e. your bandwidth consumption slowed Waaaaaay down so as not to prohibit others from using a limited resource for email and stuff. In this case, there is a unique situation where the provider is in our backyards, knows us and can pick up the telly and say "Hold UP on the downloading--you're choking my system"!
In both cases, you are monitored and action is taken. It's just that you don't know it until you get a bill from Verizon or they squeeze your speeds down to nothing. And, with K C N, might get a knock on the door if it was wreacking enough havoc!
This actually happened to me after my nephew visited and downloaded the entire cable series of Californication to my spare computer after he heard me say I missed watching it. I was totally unaware of the stress it was placing on K C's bandwidth until BS phoned me and asked what the heck I was doing! I didn't mind the call; it was reasonable for K C to investigate the drain on his system uncharacteristically coming from my house!
K C N has no legal permissions to "snoop" what websites a computer visits or hack into email (except perhaps SLRmail). Doing so would be a very serious criminal act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Apr 23, 2014 21:46:47 GMT -5
Heck with "spy" cameras, Miss M. e. l. just uses her staff to follow residents she wants to intimidate and have them report back to her. Amazing use of our workers. (Why not have then remove the giant pile of leaves behind the tennis courts? It's been there since the first of March.) Following us has gotten to be It has gotten to be so constant that we are now calling out and saying "hello" to the workers. In addition, on Monday of this week Jhn Cr. stopped by to see how it was going and asked if he could help in any way. He then inquired what we were doing about our incomplete home. Told him we were proceeding ahead until we heard from their(SLR) attorney. So, today, Wednesday a letter arrived from SLR attorney which was refused and sent back. By the way Jhn, nice photo of you cutting my cord in the back storage area. Just smile next time your picture is being taken. Nice that management has the power to harm SLR residents property.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Apr 24, 2014 4:56:22 GMT -5
In addition, on Tuesday maintenance guy Joe and another worker have been assigned by management to hand deliver the letter from the attorney. So far they have been unsuccessful. Such use of your SLR dollars at work. Talk about manbod being on a witch hunt is no understatement.
Management even had to call Polk Co. on the landing being installed on our home. We cannot install a landing without going around a tree due to the root system of the tree. Should I just eliminate another tree?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 24, 2014 6:27:29 GMT -5
It won't be long until SLohA begins to get fined by Polk County Building Division for abuse of services and harassment. Or maybe they just won't accept IT's calls. Her frequent Help Me! calls have already cost SLohA $100 and a local reputation for being mismanaged. Polk County Building Division is likely wondering what the heck is going on here as well.
Using employees to hunt down owners to deliver mail is harassment of both employee and owner and certainly not in any reasonable maintenance job description imaginable. It might be against labor laws, legal notice requirements or even postal regulations. It's a shame that employees are as much enslaved by their continued employment at the pleasure of IT as the Board Directors are immobilized by their fear of doing their fiduciary duty to DIRECT the vendor.
SLohA's attorney has been directed by IT, with the approval of the Board, to spend SLohA assessment monies to harass and intimidate you. In my opinion, SLohA has no legitimate business with you as you are not a member of SLohA and therefore have no duties or obligations to it (except to pay your quarterly User Fee). Perhaps this needs to be put in writing by your attorney as a warning to SLohA to cease and desist these kinds of tactics. If IT has a problem, she should hire her own attorney to write you a letter under her own personal signature. DITTO for the Directors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Apr 24, 2014 15:39:07 GMT -5
66 Silversides Warranty Deed reads: "Restrictions, if any, are not reimposed hereby." Covenants, Rules and Regulations expired March 2, 2012. Property purchased March 27, 2012 by current owners was free and clear.
66 Silversides now HOMESTEADED. Nothing can be imposed on this Warranty Deed without the written consent of the owners.
|
|
