Slashdot Mirror
Downtown Baltimore To Get Massive Surveillance Network
An anonymous reader writes "The Baltimore Sun has an article on the new 24-hour security cameras to be installed downtown and in the Inner Harbor. 'Under the Inner Harbor plan, the cameras would be able to transmit images to helicopters and, eventually, police cruisers....' How long until that ability is either abused or hijacked?"
I think thispart is a good idea, I like the idea of a mixed group watching, not just the police: At a surveillance center in the Atrium Building on Howard Street, 13 to 15 retired police officers or criminal justice college students will monitor images, said Elliot Schlanger, Baltimore's chief information officer.
ARthur Spitzer from the ACLU: He said cameras infringe on privacy rights and are ineffective in fighting either crime or terrorism. I don't know about that...I think it probably does help. We may not know that it deters because what terrorist is going to call in and say, "I was going to blow up a building but those damned cameras have changed my mind."
Well, we do live in interesting times.
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
How long until that ability is either abused or hijacked?
Good point. If it can be abused or hijacked, we can't do it. Thank GOD the internet can only be used for good, otherwise we'd need to shut it down.
If this is paid for by public funds, the video feeds should be available to everyone. In fact, we should also have a network of cameras monitoring the interiors of police stations, so that we (their employers) can monitor their performance. Same for elected officials.
Seriously, though, can anyone document a case in which surveillance cameras resulted in a terrorist attack being stopped? I presume that most airports have surveillance systems; they certainly didn't stop the 9/11 hijackers. So exactly what kind of activity are these cameras supposed to detect and stop? Unauthorized assemblies? Hmmmm, sounds like a dubious exercise of authority to me.
And here's the justification:
"We're at war," Schrader said.
Sounds more like a war on privacy to me. Of course, I suppose I could be wrong, and Baltimore's Inner Harbor area could be a strategic target for terrorists. These cameras will no doubt capture great images of an airliner crashing into a populated area, or a car bomb going off. We will be able to do a great job of locking the barn door after the horse has fled to the next county.
I remember your eyes, on the twelfth of July...
"How long until that ability is either abused or hijacked?"
Maybe it will, and maybe it won't. How long till it helps catch criminals? Very quickly most likely.
Anyway, you are in a public place, there is no privacy.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Living in Maryland, I can see the need for cameras everywhere in the downtown area of Baltimore (not so much the inner harbor.
But what happens when most of the citizens in downtown baltimore have shiny new closed circuit video cameras in their house they liberated from poles on the street?
schild
editor, f13.net
Living under a rock is looking better and better.
I live in BB capital of the world, the UK. There's 4 million cameras here for 60 million people.
I've never heard of a single instance of someone suborning CCTV for their own ends, and it has to be said, I'm a lot happier that someone is keeping an eye on my mother as she goes shopping, walks through "underpasses" etc.
Everything's a balance, people.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
This article is a rather scathing condemnation of the camera operation.
While I don't agree with the author's statement that it is part of a class war, I do think one of the article snippets provides humorous insight:
During my time in the control room, from 9 p.m. to midnight, I experienced firsthand a phenomenon that critics of CCTV surveillance have often described: when you put a group of bored, unsupervised men in front of live video screens and allow them to zoom in on whatever happens to catch their eyes, they tend to spend a fair amount of time leering at women. "What catches the eye is groups of young men and attractive, young women," I was told by Clive Norris, the Hull criminologist. "It's what we call a sense of the obvious." There are plenty of stories of video voyeurism: a control room in the Midlands, for example, took close-up shots of women with large breasts and taped them up on the walls. In Hull, this temptation is magnified by the fact that part of the operators' job is to keep an eye on prostitutes. As it got late, though, there weren't enough prostitutes to keep us entertained, so we kept ourselves awake by scanning the streets in search of the purely consensual activities of boyfriends and girlfriends making out in cars. "She had her legs wrapped around his waist a minute ago," one of the operators said appreciatively as we watched two teenagers go at it. "You'll be able to do an article on how reserved the British are, won't you?" he joked.
Have you Meta Moderated t
Yeah.. let the college students run that system, I can see it now...
Student 1: Oh, dude... check this chick out! If you zoom in close enough you can see her nipples!
Student 2: Yeah, I think she's in my History class. Look at that fine ass!
All the while the Bank of Baltimore is getting robbed across the street.
This whole thing sounds like a way Baltimore can keep their grants from the US Governmetn. It's very comparable to the construction industry in every local city and state. If they don't use up ALL of the funds for that FY (and even request more) then there's a high chance that next FY it will be reduced.
Even Baltimore's city council president was concerned about this very thing saying "she was concerned that the federal grants would eventually run out and the city would be stuck with the bill.."
But the mayor says:
I'm sorry Martin O'Malley, but there are many other ways that you can prevent crime and terrorism than by setting up a 24-hour surveillance network in the city. How about increasing a police force in the city so that a presence is seen? Wouldn't residents feel a bit more comfortable having an actual person than a camera?
You could hire more police officers and increase the workforce. But, instead you are going to pay retired police officers and college kids to sit on their ass and wait for somethign to happen. Plain stupid.
Hmmm.
It's interesting that on Slashdot we criticize organizations like the RIAA for wanting to shut down technology like P2P because the RIAA fears that the technology will be abused, yet we are the ones who complain about the use of technologies such as video camera networks (and RFID, etc.) -- because we fear that they will be abused.
You can take off your tinfoil hats, my friends. In the interest of fighting back, I'll sacrifice my privacy by making sure I grab their attention with my increasingly geeked-up bike...
a er o6greenricer.jpg
http://photoshop.superdownloads.net/uploads/khs
0-Day exploit opportunity!
How long before the Goatse or Tubgirl images are transmitted to the cops? I give it about 2 weeks after they set this thing up. LOL
Cracker 1: Dude, I got a visual on the cam and GPS system for police cruiser 1!
Cracker 2: Aces, where is it?
Cracker 1: It's at... McPherson's Doughnut Palace. Right, here we got the video feed!
Cracker 2: How about police cruisers 2 through 10?
Cracker 1: According to this cam feed, parked in a straight line next to cruiser 1.
Cracker 2: Unimaginable they do that kind of stuff with my tax money.
Cracker 1: They don't, you gave the IRS fake data, remember?
Cracker 2: Oh yeah... How do you know that, anyways?
although not to that degree. There are cameras almost everywhere. Some of them are traffic cams but a good many of them are downtown oriented cams. I don't think the images captured are being sent to cruisers or copters yet. I know that there is a traffic channel that cycles through the traffic cams 24/7 on cable around here.
"It'll destroy you if you try to make it mean anything to anyone but yourself." - Henry Rollins
If these cameras are simply used as evidence in trials and to watch out for trouble at night then sure, go ahead.
.... I'd have think about it.
However if at some future date they are rigged into an international face recognition system to monitor out every movement along with cell phone emissions, fingerprints, DNA , satelite tracking, phone tapping, voice recognition, RFID and trained molemen in the sewers equipped with microphones and nerve darts so that governments can _KNOW ALL_, then
May the Maths Be with you!
Yeah, I have to admit that while I'm visiting here in London right now, it makes me feel safer that there are cameras there. But guess what, last night I saw a kid chasing two black guys down a well-lit street who had stolen his bag.
So the cameras do nothing, but give the impression of protection, all the while invading our privacy.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
You must be new here, huh?
Hmmm.
We've had cameras in cities in the UK for years with little/no outcry and (to my knowledge) no abuses being reported.
This is one of the few 1984 style measures that I support.
Removing people's privacy when they volunteer to enter public places can be used to ensure freedom and SAFE mobility.
Of course this makes proper checks and balances even more important. I'd imagine that the loudest opposers of this loss of privacy are merely those that seek to hide from bad laws.
I call them cowards.
We should be free enough to be proud of everything we partake in. If we are going to hide from laws and do the unlawful behavior anyway this means that these are bad laws and they should be striken from the books.
These are placed in public areas, right? In public, you have no expectation of privacy. Admittedly, it sounds like the threat of terrorism is being used to justify the cameras, which is stupid as hell, but the reality is that these are more likely to catch smaller crimes and such, and will probably be used in that way.
And as far as that goes, I see no reason why they should broadcast an unencrypted signal that anybody at all can watch. They're in public locations, they're paid for with the public dollar, the public should be able to see what they see. Open it up.
You want privacy? Go home. Until they start putting cameras in your apartment, at which point I'll understand your complaining.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
best known for being the setting of such uplifting police dramas as The Wire and Homicide and who's most famous football player killed a guy at a Super Bowl party^W^W^W^W^W^W^W just happened to be standing there when three of his buddies killed a guy.
But that's why we love Ballmer, right?
What is music when you despise all sound?
http://cai.gouv.qc.ca/06_documentation/01_pdf/new_ rules_2004.pdf
Maybe interesting to read regarding this subject...
Before everyone starts quoting 1984...
Why should anyone have a problem being seen on camera while in public? It just confirms that you are in public, and if you didn't want to be seen, then you wouldn't be in public anyhow. If it's hijacked so what? Somone who wasn't suppoed to see you say you, but since you were in public, why should you care?(barring the case of a tech savvy stalker..... but just waiting outside of your house would probably be more useful for them)
CCTV in the UK is massively useful, and shown to be a useful tool and deterent when dealing with crime.
If they did this in my home town. Sure, criminal activities will no longer take place under the watchful eye of the camera. They will just take place elsewhere. But these cameras interfere with my right to go wherever I goddamn please without someone knowing where I went, and where I went from there, and what I did while there, etc etc. Now it's criminal activities, next time the tapes will be used to monitor people who are suspected of other unpleasant activities, after which someone will manage to get the tapes to prove a case of adultery. Privacy IS important, because it means having the right to live life like you want it to (I know- criminals want privacy too, I don't pretend to have the ideal solution here), even though we do not always realize the countless ways in which we are giving it up. Hell, we shouldn't even be posting here, Google has our number :)
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
There are cameras everywhere in the UK.
The funny thing is that if you point this out to people, they say there isn't or that they hadn't noticed, until you point them out that is. And then they don't seem to see it as an issue.
However, I think the attitude is understandable to an extent because the UK has a history of hundreds of years of fairly benevolent government and policing. The Btits I'm sure are the most spied on people in the world and the UK has one of the biggest "intelligence" operations in the world relative to the country's size, but people are unaware and/or unconcerned about it because it rarely if ever affects the man in the street.
The only time the average Brit sees evidence of the dark side of their country is when some public figure has an accident or commits suicide at a very opportunistic moment for the country.
The Norwegian Personal Data Act (Chapter VII) and the statute to the Personal Data Act (Chapter VIII) allow for video surveillance as long as a certain set of rules are followed, including where you're allowed to set up the cameras, disclosure of images, and notification that surveillance is being carried out (for example with a sign).
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Nevertheless, I am tired of always feeling like I have 'eyes on me'. The store, the highway, a stoplight, etc. not that I wan't to do anything outrageous, but being constantly observed IMO causes an individual to stiffle or otherwise bottle up things they may have done otherwise.
Now this may not be bad in every instance, but can you imagine people walking around who are forced not to engage in activities (through cameras), eventually those bottled up activities will explode as opposed to being released gradually.
People need avenues to release emotions, whether they are good bad or indifferent. If we force them to only release in their own homes, there will be no peer related checks and balances on them and people will gravitate towards every individual having their own (different) moral compass.
Among the 207 cities with population of 100,000 or more, Baltimore's violent crime rate ranked as the eighth most violent.
When Baltimore's 1998 property crime rates are compared among the 30 most populous cities, Baltimore had the fifth highest property crime rate. When ranked by individual UCR crime, Baltimore ranked:
Baltimore has remained extremely consistent in maintaining high rates of over 300 murders for the last ten years. Much focus continues to be placed on the City's homicide totals. Murder is the most egregious of crimes and viewed by many as symptomatic of crime in general. Baltimore's homicide rate in 1998 was 5.1% higher than in 1990, bucking the national trend in which homicide rates declined 36.2% over the same period. Currently, Baltimore's murder rate is over seven times the national average.
Homicide rate per 100,000 in baltimore (1999) 43.2 In New york city it was 9.1.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
How many more times will this tired, worn out, old-and-busted, COMPLETELY FALSE excuse be used to implement draconian measures such as this before idiot Americans wake up and say "enough"?
Oh, well. One more reason to avoid Baltimore (the main reason being, it's Baltimore.)
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
"We're at war," Schrader said.
The instant I see this being used to justify observing your own people, I call bullshit. At war with who? Ourselves? Have we ALWAYS been at war with ourselves? With eastasia?
No, I'm sorry. If that's you're justification, you haven't got justification. If you are basically saying that your are just as much at war with your own citizens as with the people you're supposedly really at war with, there's a serious problem. Tear them down (if they actually go up), throw the bums out who supported it. There are plenty of good reasons to do this sort of thing. This is not one of them.
I might remind everyone that the biggest problem with a dystopian society is that the people who live in it usually don't recognize it as such until it's way too late...
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
And who'll guard the cameras?? ;)
"Cameras will only observe and record that which a police officer or private citizen could legally see."
So, why not let the public "watch" the network as well? Arguments that this could be used to allow criminals to get away with crimes are ridiculous -- if the police are watching, then they have a responsibility to respond.
Or better yet, let the public watch the watchers -- set up a facility (television channel) so that folks could see what is currently being monitored.
The other thing that bugs me -- the whole concept that "you're in a public place, you have no privacy." Okay, so my actions are not private, but my identity should be.
Finally, the whole concept of "we're at war" -- we have lost the war on terrorism. We have allowed our fundamental freedoms to be sacrificed in the name of "security". Monitoring the actions of innocent Americans equates to surveilance, which is worse than living scared. Being watched all the time inhibits action, free thinking, and most importantly -- dissent.
The biggest problem is that folks like me and you -- the average Slashdot reader -- have enabled this. WE are the ones that have designed the tools to allow this to happen. We should have known better.
this is the most blatantly obvious violation of privacy i have ever heard of. if they combine this with that face recognition crap (which you know they will) they can effectively track every US citizen at all times. this is total bullcrap. im sorry, but i just don't trust that this will be used just for terrorism. i hope that after an extended spat of these "retired police officers and college students" peering through bedroom windows that this BS will get the smack-down it deserves. the worst part is it's being paid for by my taxes. what a freaking waste of money. Maybe i should just wear a hoodie from now on.....
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
At least we had whole TV programs broadcast of how the security guards in your average casino were not watching the cards but the customers' cleavage.
There are a stupid number of cameras around the shopping malls and CBDs in Australia. Doesn't stop some government official being shot by a looney (?) or a whole lot of other more minor crime. Sometimes helps cops find the perpetrators way after the fact.
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
The Inner Harbor area is not too far from MLK Blvd.
As Chris Rock says: "Martin Luther King stood for non-violence. But if you are on Martin Luther King Blvd in any city, there's some violence going on."
Recently, three immigrant children were decapitated in a northern Baltimore apartment. There has been a lot of speculation that it was part of an illegal immigration scheme. The mayor himself visited the crime scene. I live nearby, and have friends who live on that block. Baltimore is a huge melting pot of a city, and, I suppose, an ideal target for terrorist cells. We are the farthest inland sea port, close to DC, etc. and the mayor completely flipped after 911 about security. But I don't really see how these big brother cameras will make a difference one way or the other. I guess is something blew up in the inner harbor, "they" might now about it a few seconds earlier than they would have without them.
This definitely feeds the "Culture of Fear" that this current administration has worked so hard to foster.
Until Congress says so, technically we're not. And considering this administrations dislike/contempt/disdain for the law (any law), they don't seem in any hurry to clear up the situation. They encourage a grey zone where they feel they can operate with no oversight/impedence.
now the georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi 'watchers' are the watched/prosecuted, as recent old 'footage' resurfaces.
& what of robbIE's pateNTdead PostBlock(tm) devise?
it sucks too.
attempting to clone itself, again?
at the retail store i work at we have camera bubbles. the little tinted bubbles that fit into the cieling that you put a camera in to watch people steal stuff.
the thing is, we dont have cameras in them. they are empty. the store is too cheap to actually buy the cctv equip.
the wierd part is, they work great. people walk in the door and look up at them and try to get to the one aisle that *doesnt* have one, then they pocket the $3 item we have in that row...we've also had shoplifters try to leave only to notice the camera bubbles and walk back in to the store to replace the item to the shelf...amazingly enough, we've never had a legit shopper complain about them. most people enjoy the presence of 'security cameras' (thieves and paranoids excluded)
personally, i think cameras are a great idea, and i cant imagine many things they would really bother people about. i will gladly let the camera operators watch me walk thru the harbor if it means some guy with a gun doesnt think it's a good place to mug me next week. then again, i used my tin foil hat to bake some garlic bread.
The only area of Baltimore I visit on any sort of basis is the Inner Harbor - which is the "nice" area - home to most of it's attractions (National Aquarium, ESPNZone, etc.) and it's also home to an area that has a lot of bars that get packed every weekend by the 30 and under crowd. We're talking about tons of college kids coming up to Baltimore to have some fun once in a while. Like most cities, some blocks in Baltimore are fine, others are a bit more questionable. I think the CCTV cameras are going to be primarily used to keep an eye on the foot traffic around the harbor and it will ultimately used to keep down purse statching and assault. The city probably rubber-stamped this right through because they're now getting federal funds to build this video network that will end up being used to reduce crime. There are certainly other areas around Maryland that could use more anti-terrorism systems (DC, the Naval Acadamy, the NSA...etc), so I don't think terrorism is really the #1 issue here.
Is that the war against Eastasia or the war against Euroasia?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
We must surveil all tara-ists and evildoers! The President told me so! He also said my kids were gonna get blowed up good. So I'm'a vote for him come November! Hyuck!
Oh well. Back to watching NASCAR, drinking Miller High Life, making fun of Mexicans, beating my wife, and letting the grass in front of my tailer grow long enough to cover the late-model Ford Mustang up on cinderblocks in my front yard.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
"How long until that ability is either abused or hijacked?"
What consitutes abuse of a camera? Looking at things that I could see just walking down the street? This may be ineffective for terrorism or crime, but I don't see that it could hurt.
It is certainly a better use of funds than the DOJ redefining what consitutes torture, or imprisoning US citizens without trial.
Maybe we could divert some terrorism money to schools on the grounds that well educated people are more likely to spot terrorist activity.
What people tend to forget is that abuse goes both ways. If it's hackable, then it can be abused by the bad guys. Imagine non-government entities that can watch your every move. At least with the government, you have a thin veil of protection, at least there are SOME people who are anal enough to Do The Right Thing. But just lest some 15 year old get ahold of it and watch out...
not lack of surveilance cameras.
We seem to be obsessed with treating symptoms instead of causes.
All this amounts to is the theft of millions of dollars from you and I to pay for a worthless toy.
The same kind of system has been installed in Monrtéal (Québec, Canada) corner st-Denis and st-Catherine, to prevent (monitor) "massive drug deals and prostitution".
I guess the policemens looking at these images will have a good time trying to judge which girl is a prostitute and which one is just inspired by Christina Aguilera or some other pop or rap artist.
They should do a kind of hot or not concept with that.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance." Isaac Asimov
It should give the impression of and lead toward a lower crime area.
My major problem is the guy's reasoning for this.
"We are at war."
Complete bullshit.
This endless justification for anything because, "we are at war" only weakens people's tolerance for crap like this.
Some people remember what war actually meant, rationing gas, and steel and daily items, not "carry on and keep spending money" or urban renewal projects.
It's so transparent it makes me wonder if the people who say it actually keepa straight face while trying to spread this crap.
Even living under a rock is not safe! http://www.outercam.co.uk/ssc/bass1.html
What is it that makes it so hard to see that this creates an utter, totalitarian Police State?
Places not to live...
1. Baltimore
check
And no, I'm not a criminal. I just don't like the inevitable possibilities that go along with this. The good just doesn't outweigh the bad IMO.
Stop looking at me. It makes me nervous...
Bin Laden must be a genius, watching the western world scurry like ants over 3000deaths, yet more people die of smoking or on the road but i dont see a war on them, he must be laughing in his cave
USA every day is re-enforcing the fundamentalists belief that terrorism works, it gets results
I agree. Those who haven't read George Orwell's Animal Farm, I advise they do so. Politicians always use fear and intimidation as an excuse to take freedom away. This has been the rallying cry of the Bush Administration and their reason for taking away the liberties of Amercians in the name of War.
...... no your right, avoid Baltimore. I prefer the city of Annapolis, Maryland.
On your second sarcastic remark, Baltimore is not so bad. Sure it smells bad, polluted air, polluted water, high crime, tons of panhandlers, congested roads
Surveillance in public with checks & balances in the public spotlight is THE security solution to stopping terrorist attacks.
m /033104A.html
This is certainly a lot better than surveillance of private areas not under supervision right?
I mean, if not this, then what can we do to ensure security, when you have super-empowered individuals who can kills thousands easily?
For instance, you can't stop a suitcase nuke, unless you can make big cities "hard targets" wih radiation sensors throughout the city and especially along the border. Have you heard the stories recently of people getting radiation treatment setting off super-sensitive sensors? This is perfect.
Read here for more interesting opinions, and what would need to be done to make it all Constitutional:
http://www.techcentralstation.co
Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
I'd mod you up if I could.
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2071397.stm
p df
Far far far cheaper and more effective way of reducing crime is simply better lighting.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors251.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
We've been fighting for decades. We will win, god willing.
Orlando had such a system in place for a year and a half. It resulted in precisely zero hits on known criminals. But when has that stopped government purchasing?
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
People should not monitor the cameras until a crime is committed. They should all have 24-48 hour digital recording with no continuous monitoring. When a crime has been committed you can review the video for evidence or to see where the perpetrator went. You could then use TIVO-like fast forward to catch up with the criminal and start taking a live feed to track them down. Or track them in reverse to see if they had an accomplice who got away undetected. There is great potential for efficient law enforcement, but active surveilence of anyone who "looks suspicious" is not something I approve of - besides, you have to pay people to watch TV. BTW, it can also keep the cops in line.
You are guaranteed limited privacy in your own home, yes. But not when you are walking down a public street.
Have those making references to "Big Brother" even read "1984"?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Cape Town and Johannesburg have had this for a while and it has significantly had an impact on the crime rates in those cities. Cameras Reduce Johannesburg Crime.
A choice quote:
"crime rates have dropped an astonishing 80 percent since Business Against Crime erected 200 surveillance cameras to assist an under-staffed police force monitor and track criminals"
This has had the benefit of making the streets safer and boosting tourism. As far as I know, noone has abused this system for their own purposes.
So first they install a huge open wireless network for everyone to enjoy. Now they install a surveillance network to watch out for suspicious folk who might be using it. Otakon is going to be a blast this year...
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
This kind of surveillance is already up and running in downtown Atlanta since about more than 4 months now.
No Sig for you.!
For the bored collective, I guess...
http://www.notbored.org/the-scp.html
Should have figured, Baltimore - the only city that could give Pittsburgh a run for its conservative Fed Government leeching under the idea that crime happens....
Baltimore is evidentally a sewer with lots of displaced minorities just like Pittsburgh.
When you have heroin infecting your neighborhood or crack or any other deliberate and highly addictative substance people find markets on the streets.... Just like the markets of old, peddlers of the drugs.
When you chase them, like I do, they run... After a few times they either get violent or get the point and migrate to another block.
Baltimore obviously is a mess and can't get it's shit together... 300 homicides a year is outrageous for such a small city. Since the police aren't able to already prevent things or stem the flow having some nerds watching monitors yelling out pleas for people to run down XYZ street is just going to confuse and thin out and already defeated police force...
So now all we have is some prime video footage of a few open air drive bys and a few younger guys sticking someone up for the wallet. Whoopie fucking do... Surely, we will see snippets from this fine system on gossip rag tv shows... Where the host says can you believe that...
POW!
From the article: "Cameras will only observe and record that which a police officer or private citizen could legally see."
Here's how to hijack. Get yourself a nice umbrella and a backpack full of supplies. Sit next to the camera and enjoy the view.
I live outside of Baltimore. I have no problem with these cameras. When I'm out in public, I have no expectation of privacy. I am seen by people and I see them. No privacy. If I'm obeying the law there shouldn't be a problem. If I'm the victim of a crime, maybe the camera caught it increasing the possiblity of the person(s) being caught. The camera really isn't any different than a police officer walking a beat or passing by in a patrol car in terms of privacy. If I'm not doing anything to attract his attention I'm going to go about my business unhindered. End of story.
Wow, now we can watch crime.
It doesn't actually prevent it, but now we know it is happening.
If someone gets made and gets in a fight, now we know who did it. It doesn't stop the fact that the assault has actually happened.
This money would probaly be better spent having a community policing program, you know those nice mellow "as seen on TV" cops that walk around being visible, and help defuse situations before they get to the point of calling 911.
Note I said mellow cops, the controlled professional ones who actually have an interest in community work, not the big goon cops who want to bust heads.
I'm sure that will make the drowning people feel safer.
i really feel that the benefits outweigh the costs - 99% (or probably more) of the time the CCTV oporators are looking for specific activities, or wanted people. if any of you campaign for more officers on the street (as many people here do) then you can't complain about this - it's like having an officer keep an eye on several areas at once, and gathering virtually conclusive evidence at the same time.
it's only the very paranoid who worry about people building up large profiles on them - just think of the amount of time that would take! (but then, this is slashdot...)
i feel safe around CCTV, it doesn't bother me, and it never stopped me stealing roadcones when i was at university, i seriously doubt the police really care about small things like this. on the other hand, if you were mugged, and it was caught on CCTV they would not only have have evidence of the incident, but probably a good picture of the criminal's face. quality CCTV can really put a dent in crime, granted, it tends to shift it around a bit, but then you can adjust the police accordingly
as for allowing non-professional people to view the streams, well, i can't say i'm surprised the US Gov felt forced to include this. like i already said, i know what the americans can be like for surveillance. In the UK, if you are concerned about people watching you on CCTV you are able to request (and the appropriate authourities are forced to supply) a copy of ALL CCTV FOOTAGE CONTAINING YOU.
surprisingly, not many people bother, as, shock horror, getting the images shows you doing such crazy things as walking, maybe talking to someone, and possibly shopping. really, it is just dull.
i find it very strange however, that a society which is able to randomly check the criminal records of a person, and which seems to have much looser data protection controls than europe, is concerned over this.
"the cameras would be able to transmit images to helicopters and, eventually, police cruisers....' How long until that ability is either abused..?"
Isnt sending live images to the police the first kind of state abuse of civilrights?
There is a simple check to help balance this:
Put cameras IN the monitoring room, watching the controllers.
Put the video feeds from both the cameras they are watching and from the cameras watching them online.
Now, when Officer OverSexed is zooming in on a helpless, attractive citizen, he knows he has a chance of being caught in the act!
Who watches the watchers?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Dunno. How long before it saves someone life?
1984.
Not because we have some Dr. Evil Big Brother that wants to watch everything you do, but because someone wants to: A) spend money, just because it's there; B) create and execute a plan with their name on it, so they can get political credit; C) Did I mention just spend the money?
"We're at war." Damn straight, but not with terrorism on our turf. We the people are at war with politicians and their henchmen telling us we're at war. Put this $2M towards real intelligence projects, and hell, put more cops on the harbor/bridge. Do you know how many full time cops you can fund with $2M? (actually, that's jus t a little cream on top of the $25M homeland security grant).
By the way, I'd love to read about the on-going expenses to keep the system up and running, and fully manned 24/7/365, so that we're not just talking about the video-taped incident(s) ex post-facto.
Clearwater Florida has had a system for years. Since it's owned by Scientology, you'd have to ask them how many criminals it's spotted and what laws they broke.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
the $56 MILLION deficit created by the Baltimore City School System! As a resident of Baltimore City for the last 12 years, this is the kind of thing I've come to expect from the Balti-morons that I've seen. I guess they think it's easier to watch the kids as they run rampant on the streets instead of keeping the public schools open to force them to learn how to be decent citizens. Maybe it's time to move away...
I can tell you this system has no value. Baltimore's tourism is on the decline, simply because there is no reason to come here.
The Baltimore Inner Harbor is a tuorist attraction. I suspect this has more to do with making people feel safe than it does preventing crime.
The inner harbor for those tho don't know is a safe place of stadiums, shops, resrataunts, and hotels, and a few night clubs along the cove that Baltimore is nestled in. It is very open, you can see clear to the other side, lest a ship be blocking your view. It streches from the science center (next to the stadiums) to Bars & Noble, the Hard Rock Cafe and EPSNZone. Then you cross President Street, and get into Little Italy which leads to Canton (safe) and Fells Point (not as safe, but safe enough for drunken bar hopping). These 3 places are the 3 safest in the entire city.
I live 15 minutes from the IH, but I have a coworker that lives there, next to ESPN zone. It is a very trendy place being built up for the 20-30 something crowd.
Ther must be tens of thousands of people a day that walk through there. On the summer weekends it is packed. I have no idea how the hell they'd catch anyone even if they got them on tape. I can make it out of the city and into the county in about 10 minutes, at which point it is only 30 more minutes to PA.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
In the UK we have a bit of a problem with drunken violence. You average city centre simply isn't safe after 9:00pm at the Weekend. Nearly every town and city centre has cameras installed (infact my town does and that only has a population of 10,000). These cameras do not act as a detterant but instead they often help the police catch he criminals involved. This does actually make the streets safer because it enable the police to convict criminals therby reducing the number of criminals walking our streets. Ok, so these cameras aren't an ideal solution but if the choice was between 'privacy' and safety I know which one I'd go for. Seems how I don't break the law I don't really care if the police can watch walking along the street.
Before everyone starts quoting 1984... ...there you go again....
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Is a perfect example of how cameras don't prevent crime.
The thing about these "necessary" things to use against terrorism is that they almost always end up being abused. It's sort of similar to the traffic cameras that were installed in Baltimore. Do they cause people to drive better? Probably not. But do they make Baltimore tons of money in traffic tickets (including tickets even when there is no violation)? You bet. A few years ago, I was in Baltimore and turned right on a red light, which is legal in Maryland, unless the intersection is marked with a sign indicating the opposite, which this instersection wasn't. A few weeks later, along comes a $75 ticket for running a red light, and the picture clearly indicated that wasn't the case. I ended up paying the ticket because it simply wasn't worth going all the way back to Baltimore to fight it.
So basically, the point of this rant is that the system mentioned in the article may or may not increase security, but it will lead to abuse.
1) I'd love to hack into that network.
2) Privacy violations galore! Here come the lawsuits!
Perhaps I'm just paranoid but I think this is abuse. I don't think this type of technology should be used by the government. What makes us free is the choice. I don't have to follow the law, I have the right to break it. Just as every American has the right to me being prosecuted for breaking that law, there is still a choice.
Seat Belts are a good example, how can the government fine me for not wearing one? Who am I endangering? How many old ladies are killed every year by someone flying through their windshield and striking them? Once cars start alerting the local police that my car is in motion and my Seat Belt is not engaged, we might as well start using the American flag as our floor mats.
Freedom means "free to do", or NOT do. I get really scared when government impliments new systems to streamline the process of watching or detecting. Will this new system grab some child molesters? Probably, and a few murderers, maybe a few drug dealers, but maybe 10 years from now you get a ticket in the mail for Jay-Walking.
Systems like these are VERY dangerous. Not because of their implementation, or their intended use. They are dangerous for what they could become, and for what they open the door to.
Anyone remember government, or Constituional law from High School/College? Remember that the goal of the document was to keep government so tied up in it's own tentacles that it could never do anything? Our founding fathers were so affraid of situations like this arising that they created a system of government that really couldn't do anything. (Que animal farm, 1984 and Brave New World references...)
I boycott signatures
Seriously, one of the worst problems we have
:)
:) this is a fabulous
today is making sure that none of the cops are
in the area where we want to do what we do.
I'd rather they were somwhere USEFUL like busting
drunk drivers, stopping fights and solving crimes.
Not fucking around with kids having a good time.
As soon as this network is compromised we can set up
tracking sites that will keep us on top of where all the law enforcement are. Just tracking cruisers in our area will be great
Thanks folks
How long until that ability is either abused or hijacked?
Never. That would be wrong.
I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
Enough!
Oh, wait...what does that say about me?
Now, there is a lot less violent crime and vandalism. A combination of police officers on foot, occasionally on horseback, and on Friday nights *vanloads* of the buggers just cruising round, directed by CCTV and a helicopter, mean that they *will* catch anyone they want.
Works great. It really does. I wish they'd had CCTV cameras on my street a couple of years ago when my car got vandalised twice in one month.
Because there isn't much evidence that CCTV *actually* makes you safer. The massive Manchester CCTV system has singularly failed to reduce crime significantly despite spending millions on it. In fact, the crime rates have increased since the system was installed in 2001.
s s -releases-2003/liberty-winss-key-cctv-case.shtml
"I've never heard of a single instance of someone suborning CCTV for their own ends"
CCTV is *entertainment*. I have seen instances on television of people suborning CCTV for their own ends. Where do you think the footage comes from? There was a recent case of one bloke who tried to commit suicide. It was caught on CCTV, the video of which was then sold to a TV company for broadcast.
http://www.legal500.com/devs/uk/it/ukit_130.htm
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/press/pre
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
If this is paid for by public funds, the video feeds should be available to everyone.
Maybe you're on to something here. I've often heard that one of the faults of the London camera system is that no one watches it. What if the feeds were available to anyone with net access? Users could log in and alert a master operator to suspicious activity.
Take this a step further. Users with valid reports would get a bolstered rating, we'll call it "karma," say. These same users could then use this karma to allocate higher priority rating based on what they're seeing.
Someone bumping into a wall? +1 Funny. Someone pissing on a cultural artifact? +1 Insightful, modded later by someone else with -1 Overrated. Someone walking around with a bomb shaped suitcase in the parking lot of the federal building? +1 Dear God Look Out?
but tomorrow they'll use computers using advanced pattern/facial recognition, behavior recognition, and interpretation of any other data that could be sensed by the next generation of cameras/sensors. ...and do you really think they'll always have retired Police officers - they may rather go do something else with the later years... and college students may want higher paying and more relevent work than just sitting and looking at cameras all day/night...
As (pretty much) everyone who wants can have access to p2p, not so with these video camera networks.
no
How long until that ability is either abused or hijacked?
Done. We were able to intercept video during a recent piloting on Mulka Blvd using an Icom IC-R3 handheld.
We're putting in the cameras because "we are at war"? To be blunt, what the hell does war have to do with cameras on city streets?
When was the last time a surveillance camera operated by a local government caught someone related to the ongoing war or terrorism?
Let's stop swallowing the party line and be honest about what we're doing, or at least stop deceiving ourselves. The cameras may reduce crime, sure. That is the justification for cameras. But war? Does anyone think before speaking any more?
Put cameras everywhere but allow everyone to view their output. Then I have no problem with it. Also put cameras in watching the watchers and make those feeds available to the public.
Plaaaays Hhalp!
> How long until that ability is either abused or hijacked?
Hmm... Sounds like our next Slashdot Poll! (or at least a pool. Dibs on 24 hours!)
I'm for p2p, and I'm also for this.
My first thought about this was: "Huh, why not, go for it". The crime in Baltimore is horrible as it is... something needs to be done about it.
If I'm out in public, I don't care if I'm being recorded, I try to be on my best behavior anyway (which sometimes isn't all that great, but I digress). I could give a rats ass if some bum with a video camera is behind the bushes recording me, or some camera attached to an electric pole is recording me.
As long as the cameras are aimed for surveilance of public areas, and not aimed into my window or back deck or something, I'm fine with it.
My second thought was, why not make it a public service and broacast it over the local cable? The last place I lived already did this, although they only had a few cameras. This way people can see where the camera's point, and if they have a problem being on film, then don't go there.
> If this is paid for by public funds, the video feeds should be available to everyone.
Is this really what you want? If this were done, I'd predict that many people would recieve the following phone call:
"I've stopped watching reality television and started watching the live video feed. Anyway, I've been watching your life. I know what you did. I have the video tapes to prove it. Give me 10,000 or else your secret goes public."
Police will be watching video's while driving, kindof stinks doesn't it
Seriously, has martial law been declared and we, as citizens are just out of luck?
Pretty much everything like this that is taking place is violating our rights. But if we are at war and martial law has been declared, what are we to do?
Sux to be a citizen these days. Fewer and fewer rights and freedoms. And they bill us for it.. ( taxes )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There must be about 30 cameras in the centre of town at least, plus cameras private in pretty much every shop, it's rubbish!
They have been trying to expand the Police here since O'Malley came into office pushing his Giuliani styled Zero-Tolerance policy, even going so far as to bring in Ed Norris as police com. There have been some postings of stats on the crime here in Bmore, but they are actually lower in many circumstances now than in '98 (last ones I saw posted).f ire18oct18,0,6537531.story?coll=bal-local-storyuti l [www.baltimoresun.com]
But clearly you've never been in Bmore. Homicide rate of almost one person dead a day, Herion Capital of the Eastern Seaboard, and a fleeing middle class has made the War on Crime quite real for us citizens here.
Increasing the Police force too has it set backs. Residents in some neighborhoods here COMPLAINED at the number of patrol cars and bike cops in their communities because it gave the feeling that it wasn't safe there...
Plus the parent makes it sound like there is this magical pool of Police Officers out there, that if you got the funds, you can summon '50 to you. I've seen adds in the Baltimore Sun for LA Police department. No one wants to be a cop in these places.
Plus cameras could have saved these people http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.
This came up in Boston in the post-9/11 aftermath and one of the more intelligent suggestions were to construct surveillance networks along so-called "Safe Streets" in addition to various areas (Government buildings, etc) that needed extra security. The streets would have signs on lamposts denoting their "Safe Street" designation. Routes would be designed so that people worried about their safety could take a route along these roads. While it doesn't fix the knee-jerk reaction some of the Privacy buffs have it is a good compromise between safety and privacy. It provides a safer environment along those routes, and the signs would act as a deterrent and warning as well.
Something intelligent here.
Like democrats, children, and street vendors?
What's worse is when the cameras digitally scan faces to build a database of who's visiting the location...
So, Can the government then Sell this information to generate revenue?
In Pennsylvania - a court decision stopped the state government from selling driver license and other data to marketing companies...
A little social engineering as a 'New' marketing company could compromise the privacy of many Americans.
The tighter the government pulls the strings, the greater risk they Cause. Good Intentioned people build the machine of government - bad intentioned people will abuse its power... but by then it's too late.
'You are with Us or you are with the terrorists.'
- A great line for a Dictatorship.
Great, now when I moon the camera when I go down to the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, Homeland Security will have a photo of my ass on file! Hey a great way to track the girlfriend when she goes down to the harbor and I want to stay home and game. "Don't worry honey, I'll be with you the whole time...WATCHING YOU!" Thank you Baltimore City!
LainTheWired = isgod( int Lain, int denial, float truth)
...and you still are no more safe than you were before.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
If they build this, crimes will still happen in this area anway.
Lets protect our rights to privacy
but the cameras are no match for my tin foil mask!
Have we forgotten so quickly...?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
we wouldn't even need cops if the 2 amendment wasn't keeply stampled on.
If every citizen owned AND carried a firearm, there would be NO crime. NO criminal in his right mind would approched somebody if he thought, that person may be armed. He doesn't want to get shot and rightfully so!
Not that there shouldn't be some manditory training that goes along getting a gun, there would be that and once one had a gun one would be given limited arrest privlages, essentially turing every american who own a gun into a police officer. This would substationaly reduce the amount of hired police officers that there would have to be, limiting the cost to a lot less than what is spent now.
This poster is *very* insightful and needs to be modded to "5" - what he says is very pertinent and true. Good job, funkdid!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
"If it saves just one life, it's worth it."
"Zero-tolerance policy"
"Hate-speech"
"We're at war"
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
As another native of Balimore I have absolutely no problem with them adding cameras. If it only makes the harbor and streets a bit safer and helps to solve crimes faster I dont know why someone would be opposed. Until they come to my home and try to install cameras I don't care. There are so many people watching you anyway when you walk down the streets whats the big deal with having a camera there to? Personally, I dont plan to do anything on the streets of Baltimore I dont want a camera to see... but then I cant speak for everyone here.
Yes I have read 1984. The police state is not the problem here, just the unfortunate outcome of what we do here in the US. We don't address the problem, (crime and drugs) just put a bandaid on it to make people feel good. Haha! call it the war on drugs, make bs commercials that your doing something! Lie to us, we love it! The war on terror is used as the excuse to do so much harm to our personal freedoms, sometimes I wonder if we didnt blow up our own buildings..... Oh well we can always haxx0r the cameras and leer at boobs with the police.
{STM}+Marauder+
Maraud (merod),v, 1. To rove in quest of plunder; raid for booty
I live in a rough west side Chicago neighborhood where cameras are installed on major drug dealing corners. Last year we had one of the worst murder rates in the nation in my neighborhood. Let me tell you - the cameras work! The drug dealers move all the way around the block - sometimes even blocks away.
Ok, so they don't really work, but I'm sure if we turn Chicago into a civic panopticon we'll start seeing results...
Its mostly propaganda, so i dont watch TV as a rule.
:)
Except perhaps for an occasional re-run of stargate
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I spent a few months living in the area they're planning to install the cameras, maybe 5-7 years ago.
During the day it was a decent enough area, but at night it was crawling with street people, drunks, drug dealers, and hookers. My apartment was 6-7 blocks from the harbour itself, and you could pretty much count on it being all of 2-3 minutes before you'd hear the sirens from John Hopkins after you'd hear the gunshots. Thursday-Sunday night from about 10PM to 5PM, you'd hear gunshots at random, usually 4-5 per night.
The sixteen year old hooker working half a block from a church on Easter Sunday was really the final kicker to showing how bad the area really is once you get past the glossy day-time business setting.
I never had problems, but I also never went outside after 10PM with anything better than an old T-shirt and jeans. It was real obvious that dressing any better would be asking for trouble.
Cameras are a nuisance, but lets not forget this is predominantly a business district, not a residential area. What, precisely, would you expect to be doing that you need to even care that there is street surveillance?
Or is the offense more that a so-called "regular" part of a city now needs the same kind of monitoring as the worst crack districts?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
So your one of those people who desperately clings to the belief that The Vietnam War -- was infact nothing more than a "Conflict" or perhaps you prefer "Police Action" instead of conflict?
In the end it's just an argument of semantics. Whenever you have a lot of people shooting weapons at eachother it's a War with or without Congress. We've bombed 27 different countries since our Last War without declearing war. But we were actively killing.
It doesn't even matter because using War as an excuse to rob essential Civil Liberties is a rediculous excuse. Let's spit on the faces of our Founding Father's because we can compromise our ideals just because we're killing people.
Something intelligent here.
Cameras own saws?
From the second title line:
Financed by homeland security grants, new network aimed at fighting terrorists as much as drug dealers
And yes, I've been there. I still don't support my government that I pay for spying on anyone.
Let's not confuse law enforcers with law makers. The patrolmen(and women) making the arrests don't wake up in the morning thinking "Today I'm going to go out and bust the balls of some horny guy who just wants to pay for a BJ." They get their orders from a higher source. Every cop I know realizes that arresting a drug user is a waste of time and resources, but they also know that they would be lynched by the media and much of the general public if it was known that they gave him a break and let him go about his (illegal) business. Getting back to the original topic, cameras watching over public places *can* help law "enforcers" to do their job better. If we as a nation decide that we don't like/want cameras in public places (or bicyclists in Baltimore arrested for no reason), it's not the cops we need to complain about/to, it's the people responsible for scripting/passing the laws.
People will wake up right after people driving SUVs stop bitching about the price of gas.
What happens if someone invents randomly changing masks/clothing that disrupt the contrast & shadow patterns that face recognition software use.
No more automated surveillance. You want to track someone, do it on foot or monitor the camera in person. Depending on the camera angle, even that might not work.
We are living in a dystopian society - right now, today. The bad thing about it is that it seems more like Robocop than Bladerunner (not that the latter is better than the former)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I am very aware of that thankyou. That's why I added the word "relatively" to the the "few losses". Relatively, as to keeping the entire population under constant surveilance (and thus virtually impaired in their actions).
Didn't you read the last part of my post? The one saying "it hasn't been successfull in any measurable way. Except for ensuring prison-wardens their jobs".
You'd think that covers your concern for my lack of knowledge. And, yes, ofcourse I think that it is a major problem. Just in case you don't see my bias on that point.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
13 to 15 retired police officers or criminal justice college students will monitor images, said Elliot Schlanger, Baltimore's chief information officer.
The key to increasing confidence that government and law enforcement officials are doing the right thing is for them, too, to be monitored by the citizens.
Cameras and audio monitoring equipment should be placed around police stations, in cruisers, etc.
The standard objection is that sensitive investigations should not be made available to the general public because it could compromise the efforts of effective enforcement. Indeed, that can be true in certain cases. For those cases, there should be a time delay, and there should be a citizen's review panel to screen what is going on before it is released to the general public. But everything should be eventually released and much of it can be released in a short period of time.
It's been made more than clear that "secrecy is needed" is used much, much more than is necessary by the criteria of "sensitivity" and that a lot of improper procedures and incompetence can be masked and allowed to fester when authority is granted blanket exemption from being surveilled by the citizens.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Yes, insofar as "has" is correct. Can you speak English?
is deluding themselves.
Its not so much a 1984-ish, "Winton Smith" scenario as it is one of constant and total surveillance. The point of this "security" is not to "catch 'em red-handed" but to find and fix the blame afterward.
If they could the "security nazis", people only a bit to the right of the "safety nazis", would plant listening devices in your head at birth.
Now what would that, akin to telepathy but outward bound only, do to us as a society?
Maybe we deserve it. Maybe we don't.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
south africa would still be rich if they kept the blacks for the cities the whites built, obviously.
After that murderous bastard was taken down the US (and it's Republican administration) looked upon his installation of video cameras at every street corner as an abomination and further evidence of how evil his totalitarian regime was (and how good we were in comparison).
Amazing how things have so quickly changed in the last fifteen years.
Oh well...Maybe's we'll all get kick ass threads like Duvall in THX-1138. That'd rock.
"I ain't got no flyin' shoes."
- schitzophrenics who are taking their meds.
- How about crimes of passion?
- Do we get to have armed road rage now?
- Teens feel immortal and angry; will we have more columbines if they have easier access?
Anyway, there is no right answer. The second amendment was to keep the government from getting to uppity (wether it is the federal govt or any in general is still a matter of debate). Neither the state militias nor an armed population is any challange for the power of the federal government. The voting populace is much more of a threat.I think this might be a modern illusion of a consumer-based society. When we see events on TV, like a robbing, the 9/11 hijackers, etc. we are looking through a camera's perspective. That is our perspective on many of these events. When we watch a cop show on TV and see them bring the criminals to justice, they always are looking for the camera's tapes to look at the guy. I remember seeing the 9/11 guys on the airport video dozens of times. But go back to my first point - we were sort of consuming the images, not really living them. The camera was our major source of information and we go back to it. So people seem to associate cameras with information and prosecuting justice. If it is on a camera, it will be seen and when seen, we can do something. There's this widespread perception, true or false, that what's not on camera/recording is not on record.
What I object to is all the surveillance where only a few unknown people or groups have acess to it, and you don't even know it is happening.
Letting anyone access the data will be even more effective than the small group of people watching it. If hundreds of random people are watching, imagine how much more likely it is that an evil-doer will be caught and reported.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
I guess you'll object to phase ii, where RFID implant sensors are integrated with facial recognition on these systems?
Connect this system to the Ohio license plate recognition system, biometric ID's, RFID tags. We're almost there! We're almost to where the government can track our every move! We need more systems like this to make the dream a reality!
It gets so tiring watching these knee jerk reactions to everything posted here on slashdot.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
I agree! The fundamental danger to the viability of our civil society, is that the powers that be could use a system like this to identify the people most effective in anti-goverment/ anti-power groups. Right now, they are hesitant to take people out because there is a real cost and political danger to doing so. If they knew who eveyone was, what they were doing, who was most active, etc, they could make these choices much less cautiously.
As an example, I was at a dolpinarium protest when the cops clumsily planted a huge quantity of crack on an individual who was committing civil disobedience and blocking the street. Oops, the person they chose is the son of the CEO of a major bank. As shitty as it is, because of that he was about to get the kind of defense that nearly convicting the cops rather than the protestor.
Imagine if they had taken out Martin Luther King early on, etc, etc...
Maybe if we really can watch the watchers we'd be able to do something about it.
Baltimore is a city that celebrates any year the number of murders drops below 300. This in a population of 700,000. A friend of mine was shot a couple of blocks from her office, which is in a government building surrounded by surveillance cameras and populated by plenty of guards with guns. Luckily the guy was a poor shot armed only with a .22. The city is also broke, because anyone who can afford to leave usually does so at the first opportunity. There's no money for any more constables on patrol, so the cameras are the next best thing. The citizens of Baltimore are probably happy to have them, considering the current situation.
The ones who really need cameras are the police. Not cameras they can turn off or walk away from, but worn cameras that record audio and video the entire time they are on duty, with exceptionally stiff penalties for blocking or disabling the camera.
This would protect the public from illegal searches, threats, breaking of your property, and general unprofessionalism (all of which I've personally seen from the police). It would protect the police by establishing a record of just what the cop saw- truly what the situation looked like from their perpspective.
Of course, there would have be ironclad safeguards, such as complete access all footage by the public, etc.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.
Why are four schools crammed into one building with no A/C, known arsonist children, smoke damage from arson, moldy water-damaged carpeting, children carrying firearms, and children allowed to behave any way they want to with zero threat of every being suspended?
=====
HREF="http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/art icle.jsp?id=30604§ionId=46
Four Schools Close Due To Fire In Building
POSTED: 12:48 p.m. EDT May 20, 2004
UPDATED: 12:49 p.m. EDT May 20, 2004
Story by http://theWBALChannel.com
BALTIMORE -- The Baltimore City public school system closed four schools early Thursday afternoon after fire was discovered in the
building housing all the schools.
Samuel L. Banks High School, Abbottston Elementary School, the Stadium School and Highlandtown Elementary School #237, which are all housed
in the same building at 2500 East Northern Parkway, are closing immediately due to a fire in the basement. All students and staff were evacuated.
Fire crews are still on the scene in north Baltimore. There are no reports of injuries.
Stay with TheWBALChannel.com and 11 News for the latest news updates.
=====
On June 3 the students rioted in the cafeteria turning over the long, heavy tables with attached benches in the presense of the principle and vice principle who were unable to stop them. I could not even find a news story about this one.
======
http://www.ebguide.com/seleadarchive.html
School 237, tired of waiting
School promised meeting, didn't deliver, say parents
by Mary Helen Sprecher
newsroom@baltimoreguide.com
We're still waiting.
Parents of students at Highlandtown Elementary School 237 are sending the message loud and clear to the Baltimore City Public School system. The parents, whose children have been bused to a BCPS facility in Northeast Baltimore since 2001 while repairs were supposed to take place at PS 237, were promised a meeting with school officials by early December. Chief among their complaints are the lack of progress on the original building (on which repairs have not yet started), and the problems with the children's interim school facility.
As students enter the second semester of the 2003-2004 school year without the promised meeting, the unrest is growing.
"The parents are getting really angry," says Virginia Glass, president of School 237's PTA. "We're being lied to, lied to, lied to again. There's no meeting. I want a meeting. I demand a meeting. My child deserves a meeting."
School officials claim that a meeting is in the cards, but that its scheduling had to be delayed while the system dealt with its financial crisis and widespread staff layoffs.
"That's not satisfying to me," says Glass. "I mean, come on now."
Highlandtown 237 was originally closed in January 2001 because of the need for widespread renovations, Carlton Epps, COO of Baltimore City Public Schools, told the Guide in November of 2003.
"Generally, we can do a renovation more quickly and at less cost if a building is unoccupied," said. "The idea was to take about two years, maybe two and a half years."
Students were moved to 2500 E. Northern Parkway, a building that houses a professional development center as well as several other schools. From the beginning, there were complaints.
Parents disliked having their children attending a school that was located so far outside their neighborhood. Getting their children out of bed earlier, they said, was difficult. They also complained about problems with buses that came too late to get the children to Northern Parkway in a timely manner.
Many parents who did not have cars also found the new school's location to be a problem. In the event of an emergency such as a sick child who had to be taken
> The Muggie may not be able to pull his/her gun in time, but all another citizen has to do is pull his/her gun and stick it in the muggers back and tell the mugger to drop the gun or else.
This only seems to work when muggers attack people in view of other people, which strangely doesn't happen all that often. Nice try.
> The gun isn't really for the muggie's sack its more for the average joe walking down the street, turing him into a citizen police officer.
No, it doesn't turn him into a citizen police officer. It turns him into a firearm-carrier, nothing more or less. You seem to have this fantasy going where the only crime in society is strangers attacking, but only in positions where regular citizens can see them and react to them, and the criminals never have help from accomplices, and a thousand other pieces that make you sound like a hyperidealistic fool (sorry for the insult, but it fits here). It seems that citizens in your world never drink, never manage to hit bystanders, never face criminals who outnumber them, never have to deal with criminals who don't give them a chance to shoot back, and never get attacked while they're alone, or attacked by someone they know. Not one of these situations would warrant having or using a gun (because it wouldn't help), and most of them would be made horrendously worse by using a gun. You need to temper your considerations with a huge dose of reality if you think for a moment that arming everybody will eliminate, or even significantly reduce, crime (even just violent crime, since non-violent crime wouldn't be changed nor affected at all by this idea).
Virg
Perhaps some of you remember some time ago an area of Tampa, FL called Ybor City had a camera system installed on the "main strip," 7th Ave. This was very soon after 9/11 and our community was rabid for anything they could spend their tax dollars on to make them feel safe. Reactionary politicians in their haste decided to make Ybor City, Tampa's nightclub district, an example of new "terrorist recognition software." Captured images from cameras installed on the light poles on 7th Ave would compare face shots of the people milling around in our Bourbon Street-esque party district with wanted criminals and terrorists alike.
As time went on, the project cost more than it was worth in the number of people it actually helped bring in. If my memory serves me correctly, exactly 0 terror suspects and 0 criminals were recognized by the system. I suppose criminals and terrorists alike are smart enough to know that there are much darker and more dangerous places in Tampa to do their dirty deeds and could conduct their business and themselves elsewhere.
I think the point here is, every area of the country, and indeed the world, react differently to this idea. South Africa has been under oppression for decades. America has been "free" since it's inception. Britian is under rule of a "monotariat" as I like to call it, a figurehead ruler with a parliament (please don't argue that point, it's my opinion, and I'm entitled). Each government, thus each culture, are completely different in their determination and their beliefs as to what their rights actually are. Certainly, PRIVACY is not something that is enjoyed by all cultures, and is given to the people in varying degrees depending on where you live. It even varies from city to city in the US.
The camera system has now been removed from 7th Ave. It was effectively replaced by none other than more cops. So be it!
>How long until that ability is either abused or hijacked?"
That's a non-question. The existence of the ability is an abuse.
Steven
Hey... nice post. You whine and moan without offering any help or answers! You should consider a career in politics!
Have you been to Baltimore? Drugs and crime. It's not a pleasant city except for the inner harbor, about 6 square blocks of downtown, and the 2 stadiums. Otherwise, I'd not want to be walking around much. Putting a video system in will keep criminals out. Baltimore is trying to keep what little tourism they have left while offering a good chance at identifying criminals with iron-clad proof.
-- No sig for you!
> Besides, if you think people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, get out your camera, head downtown, and start taking pictures of everyone you see passing by. You will quickly discover that many people do indeed have a very real expectation of privacy, reasonable or otherwise. And if they decide to take you to court over your photograph, they'll win too.
Only correct in a very limited sense. You can take pictures in pulbic all you like, and face no legal ramifications (although many people will get very upset if you take their picture). The release is because you can't use someone's image in a commercial or public regard (in an ad or as part of an art exhibit) without permission. That's where the lawsuits happen, and that's why there are release forms for professionals.
Virg
While I agree with a previous poster that an increase in the number of actual police in the area would be more effective, I see nothing wrong with a couple of cameras in trouble spots. At worst you can say that they're setting a precident. Just keep your eyes open for the time they spread hundreds of cameras throughout a city. Until then, I have a hard time believing these will really be abused.
Rebutals?
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Right about the time they power the system up.
Three.
:)
:)
I knew someone would look up the exact number and post it. Thanks for being that one (though why not post your linked source next time
Thanks for not falling for the "how MANY..." bs
The basis for your argument and the basis for his do not mesh, and therefore you both end up going to extremes to defend your case. The simple problem he has, and which I share, is that the right to privacy is divisible into the right to privacy from observation, and the right to privacy against tracking. You seem to think that he wants the first, when what he seeks is the second. Casual observation does not carry the same considerations as tracking. You can look at someone on the street all you like, but when you begin singling them out and watching them, you begin to move toward invasion. The big gripe with these cameras is not that they can do the first, which is observe your actions in a public place. It's that they can do the second, which is observe your actions in all public places. There are reported cases where people put in control of these cameras have abused them, and there's no real way to "watch the watchdogs" to be sure that it doesn't happen, so it's passed over the line from invasion of privacy from observation to invasion of privacy from tracking. It's easy to say, "don't do anything wrong and you have nothing to worry about" but that's simply not true. When the something you're doing wrong is having the wrong color skin walking through a neighborhood policed by a prejudiced camera operator, or being near the girlfriend of a jealous police officer, then you can begin to see why there are those who don't like being tracked.
Virg
You said that the problem with this is that "Probable Cause requires a real or imminent threat....". My worry is that it doesn't. The resolution on a camera and the judgement of some old fogeys may misjudge what is going on down on the streets, and sic the cops on innocent people that are just horsing around or even acting for the cameras. If that joint is found in their pocket, then the courts are going to have to really examine probable cause. I think this is the main threat of using cameras. The standard for probable cause will be eroded and more police checks will be the result. Even on my good days, I'd rather not be scrutinized. -aggles
before they abandon the project due to the inordinate cost of maintaining and replacing the camera's. We had them all over out here and they kept getting shot or fried by some high power lasar on the lense. Paint balling them was very popular as well. I ofen wondered just how long it would take them to detect placing a still shot of the same environment over the lense..weeks ? :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
You said a mouthful, matey.
Pinole, CA. They have 24-hour surveillance cameras in every conceivable location.
How long until that ability is either abused or hijacked?
Done and done.
Just a sanity check: I live in Baltimore. The area getting camera are neither safe from crime nor safe from an abusive police force. I think it's a good idea that needs some careful checks and balances. But it's an idea the area needs. Badly.
Ok, so 5 days ago we hear that the city of Baltimore is going to delete all of its old email because they can't afford the disk space to store it. And now they want to add hundreds or thousands of cameras? Any idea how much storage those will require? Ok, they get some federal grants but doesn't it seem like priorities are a little off here?
Maybe they should just keep all the porn spam they would otherwise be deleting and unblock voyeurweb on the city firewalls so they don't have do go around leering non-consensually at members of the public.
Some people pointed out the difference between public and private spaces and that we had a right to expect privacy in private spaces and not in public spaces. However, that depends on your income. If you have a lot of money, you live in your own place with no housemates (except perhaps spouse and kids) and rent hotels for affairs, so your house is private. If you don't have a lot of money, however, you may have 3 roomates, parents, grandparents, etc. and you may go out in "public" (say to a park) in order to get some "privacy". In poor neighborhoods, the cameras will be owned by the state. In rich neighborhoods, the cameras will be owned by the residents.
What happens when they integrate face recognition technology and can track people everywhere? Except the ones who take the trouble to wear masks? Robbers will wear ski masks. Terrorists will wear hollywood style identity concealing but human looking masks. Right now, most of the cameras are in private hands and the government has to ASK for the tapes. And they can't run real time face recognition networks.
And as far as detering crime, serious criminals - let alone terrorists and suicide bombers - are not dettered by cameras. A camera is not going to run up and save your ass like an actual beat cop might. On the other hand, it has a chilling effect on people who engage in victimless "crimes" like smoking a joint, having a little sex behind the bushes, streaking, and pissing on a tree because you couldn't walk all the way home.
If you drive around on public roads, you have a reasonable expectation that police may see some portion of your activities. On the other hand, if a policeman rides your bumper all day long, you have serious issues of harrasment and discriminatory enforcement. Not to mention they will make you so nervous you will become distracted and violate some traffic reg. A friend once demonstrated that he could induce other drivers to drive off the road (at least he did it on safe streatches of road) by getting them to look in the rear view mirror by doing things like riding their ass. And a driver looking in the rear view mirror doesn't realize it but he is now following the car behind him. If that car drives off the road, so will he. Excessive public surveilence is like riding your bumper except you don't even know when you are being singled out and can't get a restraining order or take precautions. Will Driving While Black be replaced by Walking While Black?
But if you never do anything the religious right would object to and you think your government can always be trusted, then you can ignore the issue. Might I suggest you spend the time saved in such frivolous pursuits as watching a movie: The Fugative , Minority Report , Dark Angel , Blade Runner , Brazil ; or reading a book: 1984, Fahrenheit 451, or Brave New World. And that is all just light fiction. It is the non-fiction that will really creep you out.
therefor the message was not off-topic
I'm disappointed. You missed my point on every single point. I'm going to go through them again, and I'm going to be painfully clear on them, so we can re-rail this discussion.
...and you are complaining that an employer was hesitant to release an employee's name?
> Intent itself does not violate your rights (what we were talking about).
No, my rights were not what we were talking about at all. I presented that the difference between observation and tracking is intent. Don't read deeper into it than that, because to do so takes the concept of intent out of definition and into legality. Intent to track is not illegal, nor a violation of rights. But, one cannot track unintentionally. Got it now?
> And you think my article is just as outdated as yours?
Not at all. My point is that my article is the best information I found, and yours came out recently enough that I'm not horribly remiss for having missed it. A search for "Alabama Tuscaloosa surveillance camera abuse" on Google doesn't show your article even today.
> For staring at a girl's butt? Probably something like sensitivity training.
You seem to have trouble getting past what he was staring at and getting to the real fault, which was misusing the surveillance system. If he was using the DoT database to dig up dirt on his neighbor's driving record, he'd have been fired. I know that because the Alabama State police did just that to someone who did it. So what makes this abuse of official systems somehow less egregious?
> Let me get this straight. You are a privacy advocate...
Oh, now I get it. Take note, I'm not much of a privacy advocate. My beef is with governmental agencies operating without oversight. This aligns with privacy advocates in this matter, but not in many others.
>
"Employer" is deceptive on your part. Public agencies and private businesses operate under different rules, and that's proper. If a Wal-Mart employee was doing this in the store, I wouldn't care if they released the name of the employee or not. I have the option to vote against this sort of thing with my wallet. I don't have the same recourse against the police.
> So you are advocating firing everyone who stares at a pretty girl's butt?
Here we are, back to what he was watching. No, that's never been my point. My point is that I advocate public oversight of public employees. I advocate that public employees who misuse public systems like this be fired. I don't care that he stared at women's parts. If he used it to watch some guy with a bad hairdo, I'd still want to see him removed from the job, because his job it to watch the monitors for criminal activity, and he wasn't doing that job.
> If the trooper had been watching girls out of his car they would have never found out.
For the third time, I don't give a damn what he was watching. They had a proven case of abuse of a public system for personal use, and they denied it in the face of proof positive, and it took a hue and cry to get them to 'fess up and do something about it. Once more, I don't care that he was watching women. I care that even after he did it there was no recourse for the public to prevent such misuse other than public outcry. When a system used to monitor the public is in use, the oversight must be such that abuses can be discovered and addressed publicly. Since the police force doesn't seem interested in allowing the general populace any way to do that, my proposal is that we take away their toys until they realize they can't do it that way. We're not talking about a private concern here. I see no reason why the police, to whom we give large latitude of investigation, should be allowed to bury their dirty laundry. If anything they should be less able to do so than the public at large.
> Fine. You want to regulate it out of existence. Still inconsistent and ill
You have a lot of nerve accusing me of inconsistency when you can't seem to comprehend the meaning of context. I'll put it in painfully simple terms, so you can see from start to finish where I went, and so you might grasp that it's all consistent. You put forward that I thought intent to track was a violation of one's right to privacy in this quote:
I went on to say that I introduced the word "intent" to differentiate between observation and tracking. The word "intent" has context ONLY in that differentiation, not in rights as a whole. You keep going back to the fact that we're discussing rights, but then try to tie in my use of the word "intent" when that's not contextual. The discussion as a whole is about rights. The concept of intent does not apply to the discussion as a whole, only to the particular differentiation between observation and tracking. You keep hyperextending it out of its limited context and then using that hyperextension to attack my argument as a whole. Your error does not make my argument inconsistent.
> You said you were worried about oversight of the system to prevent cops from slacking off and abusing it instead of working instead. Now you are saying you feel tracking is a violation of rights?
I said both of these things, and they are not inconsistent nor contradictory. Are you claiming that I can't be concerned about both things and be consistent? In actuality they're only tangentially related to each other.
> I can't debate you if you can't be at least somewhat consistent in your arguments.
Your inability has little to do with my arguments, it has only to do with your inability to read my arguments without running them through a mental filter.
Ok, so here is the distilled list of my complaints. See if this doesn't make it a little easier to get a grip on them.
1.) The difference between observation and tracking is intent. Note that this statement does not address nor apply to any rights. It is a definition.
2.) Camera systems make tracking simpler than not having them. Again, note that no discussion of rights has taken place at all.
3.) There are documented cases of abuse of such systems. This is realistically to be expected, and again, note that I have not posited that this means they shouldn't exist. It does prove, however, that such systems do need some sort of oversight.
4.) Civilian oversight of such systems leads to a reduction in abuse of such systems. One more time, no mention of rights.
5.) Historically, departments that install these systems resist with great effort any external oversight of such systems.
6.) Now, for the parts that involve rights, and my arguments. Because these systems make it rather easier to violate the right of privacy as it applies to tracking (please don't try to say that this statement is meant to imply that looking at you on the street is a violation of rights; I'll explicitly say that the violation of rights only occurs when someone is actively tracking without warrant or probable cause), anyone who wants to install and use such a system must be willing to submit to oversight by the community that will be under observation by the system. Because municipalities (including Baltimore) resist such efforts, I feel that they should be forbidden to install such systems until they're willing to allow such oversight. As my example presented, when the Tuscaloosa situation occurred, and the spokesman for the Alabama State Police denied the misuse and refused to press the issue after the public got to watch it on cable TV, it took a public outcry to initiate action. That's insufficient oversight, so therefore I feel that the Alabama State Police shou
I'm still waiting...
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.