The prevalence and scope of camera surveillance seems to be rising with each passing day. A town in Michigan will soon have surveillance cameras in every neighborhood – and residents will be required to pay for the related ongoing operational expenses.

Infowars.com has recently reported that officials in Ypsilanti Township, Michigan are working with police to put surveillance cameras in every single neighborhood. Mike Radzik, the director of the Office of Community Standards, justified the program by claiming that the cameras were no different than police officers constantly standing in the neighborhood, and that “They are only in public places.”

Indications are that, far from being an isolated incident, questionable surveillance practices are now gaining momentum countrywide. Examples recently reported by Infowars.com include:

- Police in Austin, Texas are now demanding live access to surveillance cameras inside public schools, using the remote possibility of school shootings as justification.

- In Modesto, California, an armored police surveillance truck was unveiled this week, which video and audio records local residents while traveling throughout the city. The Armadillo, a refurbished armored truck, is equipped with four high definition cameras, four wide-angle lens cameras and advanced audio recording capabilities. Several other departments across the country including a precinct in Fort Lauderdale have implemented the use of surveillance vehicles as well, with real-time video footage feeding directly into police headquarters.

- The Seattle Police Department recently announced its plan to begin using a new facial recognition software program, which will analyze surveillance footage of alleged criminal activity. With the city facing mounting opposition for several other privacy issues, police were quick to claim that the software would only be used when surveillance video of a suspected crime was obtained. “An officer has to reasonably believe that a person has been involved in a crime or committed a crime,” Seattle Police Asst. Chief Carmen Best said.

Despite reassurances from the city and police, surveillance-weary residents pointed to the city’s continued abuses with surveillance technology. While promising to focus the new software on suspected criminals only, papers released by WikiLeaks in 2012 revealed Seattle’s secret participation in TrapWire, a sophisticated facial recognition program run through the city’s CCTV cameras. Given that the Seattle government willingly scanned the faces of countless innocent residents without their knowledge, few trust the new pledge to suddenly use the technology in a lawful manner. Although the city claims it will release regular reports regarding data requests made by outside agencies, several recent reports already show that the city is sharing innocent individuals’ data with Homeland Security.

Critics seem to mainly have the following issues regarding these surveillance programs:

While the government continues to expand its surveillance grid against the public, daily reports of citizens being violently attacked for legally filming police and elected officials fill the news feed.

According to infowars.com, APD’s move to monitor school children is just one more way the public school system is used to condition young Americans to accept the shackles of a prison-like culture where constant surveillance is a normal part of everyday life, and where guilty until proven innocent is standard fare.

Studies have proven that surveillance cameras do little to deter crime. For instance, The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) estimates there are as many as 5.9 million cameras there, or one for every 11 people. Yet, despite blanket surveillance, the UK still has the highest homicide rate in all of Northern Europe. Moreover, a review by the London police department regarding the effectiveness of surveillance found, “For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year.” And furthermore, a 2005 report put out by the British government also found that surveillance cameras “produced no overall effect” on crime.

Privacy groups are quite unsurprisingly the most vocal of the critics, claiming that largely inadequate and unconvincing assurances are provided by authorities regarding privacy protection concerns. “Where does it end?” Jim Harrington, the Director of The Texas Civil Rights Project reportedly asked. “Are we eventually going to end up in a police state? And a police state is when people watch you all the time. It’s crazy.”

Nonetheless, the authorities still disagree. For instance according to a report by KEYE news, APD Chief Art Acevedo contends “…When you look at the issue of active shooters, and they come in and try to hurt our kids…the Austin Police Department, in a very short order, will be able to know what’s going on. Citizens concerned the cameras will violate their privacy needn’t worry because his department’s camera feeds “would never tap into private places.”

Really? With all the reports about lights, cars, traffic systems, cellphones, televisions and computers being programmed or “bugged” to spy on people, one would have to take those statements with a pinch of salt. The various public revelations and personal testimonies tell quite a different story about the extent of privacy violations. And that’s only what has become public knowledge – so how much else is happening out there that is still being kept secret? And is this ever-increasing trend in public surveillance hiding a much bigger and more sinister plan?

A clue may be available from a recent storyleak.com report: “This week the U.S. Army announced that it would be giving away 13,000 Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles, designed for the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq, to law enforcement agencies here at home. Last August, a former Marine Corps Colonel in Concord, New Hampshire warned that the DHS was building a “domestic army” of militarized police. Only days prior, Concord’s police chief secretly told the DHS that his department needed an armored vehicle to deal with the “threat” posed by libertarians and Occupy activists.

Other agencies like the Department of Defense have unloaded countless military vehicles on police departments also, with police in Utah recently receiving armored vehicles and grenade launchers. Incredibly, even Ohio State University campus police obtained an armored vehicle last year, ignoring requests by media to explain the acquisition. While police across the country argue that such equipment will only be used against suspected criminals, burgeoning surveillance revelations have only worked to create distrust among the public.”

Perhaps such distrust is indeed warranted and reasonable in the light of previous revelations and experience. And in addition, many unanswered questions come to mind: Why would the local authorities be allowed to acquire military equipment usually reserved for U.S military use against external enemies and threats? Given the “clear and present” dangers and vulnerabilities that the U.S faces from China, North Korea, Iran and other nations, why are these critical war tools and equipment not being redeployed to counter those external threats?

Could it be that with the dire state of the U.S economy and all the doomsday predictions of an economic collapse, preparations are being made to contain massive civil unrest – due to lack of food, water and other basic necessities? It needs to be borne in mind that it isn’t just economic disasters that could provoke such responses. A successful EMP attack or various other nuclear attacks against the U.S could also have the exact same effect, prompting the activation of emergency civil unrest measures.

Or could it be that the NSA or DHS have collected information about you that profiles you as a potential terrorist and wants to protect the public from poor little you? Besides, even local departments such as the U.S post office have been stockpiling ammunition and the DHS has profiled Christians and as 2nd Amendment proponents as potential terrorists - not to mention those profiled as “libertarians and Occupy activists”.

Combining RFID/biometric technologies, extensive surveillance strategies and massive state-of-the-art military equipment, it seems that the ultimate goal will be total control: with no place to run or to hide. And while it is all being set up, you just might be required to pay for it in one way or another – just like with the Michigan surveillance cameras.