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?"

Comments

Interesting

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

Let me start of by saying that I fully understand the benefits of Surveillance of this nature, as a Maryland resident who has a cousin that is a Baltimore City Police Officer - I can tell you that they have a big problem, even without terrorists. Entire portions of baltimore look like they were hit by a bomb. Most of it is related to heroin though, and cameras would certainly help get some of those pushers and addicts off of the street (dealers see the cops, learn their schedules, etc) (I don't think that they concentrate near the inner harbor though, mostly areas near there).

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.

Baltimore does not have a crime problem - snarf!

[mcwop]

In 1998 - the latest year for which national statistics are available - among the 30 most populous cities, Baltimore ranked as the second-most violent city in America. When ranked by individual UCR crime, Baltimore ranked:

• 2nd in homicide;
• 8th in rape;
• 1st in robbery; and
• 3rd in aggravated assault.

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:

• 4th in burglary;
• 4th in larceny theft; and
• 15th in auto theft.

  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.

Re:Erm, never?

[Inda]

I live in the home town of Intel. My mate used to be in charge of the CCTV for the town centre. A drunken BJ in the plazza by House of Frazer was the best thing he ever brought home - yes, he had a VCR there. Phoning the public telephone boxes in the town centre and zooming in on the women as they answered was his favourite pass time.

Now you've heard.

Re:This will keep the ACLU folks busy

[stecoop]

There was once either a federal ruling or states were trying to regulate the use of surveillance cameras; the recording of conversations is a federal violation under wire tapping regulations. Now some lawmakers were extending the use of recording people in the same sense as wire-tapping. Hmm, it seems to be all right to record crowds if you're a government entity. But if you record video of your front yard to see who's stealing your gas or which neighbor's dog is pooping on your yard then you may be considered a criminal.

Thing is, cameras aren't very effective.

[Moderation abuser]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2071397.stm

Far far far cheaper and more effective way of reducing crime is simply better lighting.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors251.p df

Re:Thing is, cameras aren't very effective.

[jridley]

Interesting link.
In regard to their mixed results:

I'd like to point out that "better" lighting does not necessarily mean "more" lighting. There have been studies that show that lights that produce large amounts of glare can actually INCREASE crime, because it makes it HARDER to see people lurking in shadows than if there were no light at all.

In cases where proper, full-cutoff downlights were installed to replace glaring lights, crime is generally reduced noticably.

For reference, a "bad light" is one which you can see the bulb directly when looking at it from an angle more oblique than 45 degrees. Light cast out on an oblique angle like that (some even cast light directly UP!) is completely wasted, and contributes to light pollution and light trespass into surrounding properties (ever had a street light shining straight into your bedroom?).

Bad lighting is almost a given in small towns; some people apparently think they're "quaint." I've even seen horribly glaring lights installed on high-speed highways; in some conditions they limit visibility badly, and we'd be better off without them.

Unfortunately, if you go to Home Depot/Lowes/whatever, **EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN LIGHT THEY HAVE** is a "bad light" - you can not buy a good full cutoff light without going to a specialty store, which most people don't do.

Re:The Point of This?

[legoburner]

In the UK (london) in the late 90s, a man set off bombs in soho and brixton. They caught him because he was the only person who appeared on security cameras in both places around the time of the bombing. His house was filled with evidence and he was planning many more bombings which were halted because of the cameras. (of course this is from my distant tv-watching memory so I may be fuzzy if someone wants to verify. To help your googling, he was trying to start a 'race war').

The key to cameras is responsible laws governing their use. The UK's data protection act is key here and I cant believe the US is still without an equivelent. All footage (and data associated with a person) must be removed within 6 months unless there is either a continued relationship (in the case of a business) or legal request to maintain it. If you want to set up a camera to point at a public area, you must register it with the national list, and then anybody who requests any footage must be given a copy if it is available (for a reasonable fee). Any person in the UK can therefore get footage from any fixed camera in the UK that points at a public place if they want/need it. Any data associated with a person must be shared at their request (for a fee of up to 15GBP if desired) and they are allowed to change any data that is stored about them but is not correct.

South Africa

[SnowWolf2003]

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.

Re:Erm, never?

[BenBenBen]

I agree that CCTV is a supplement, not a replacement. But it does have an inherent deterrent value of its own.

The danger is that people don't see the need for a "multi-prong" approach, and just jump from one whizz-bang Ultimate Solution to another.

Re:Erm, never?

[0123456]

"But it does have an inherent deterrent value of its own."

So why are the shopkeepers complaining that they're getting robbed _more_ now than they were before the cameras were introduced a few years back?

Cameras are just another way for the police to pretend they're doing their job while they abdicate control of the streets to the crooks. I can only hope that the next Tory government sack the lot of them and privatise policing completely.

Re: This will keep the ACLU folks busy

[Black Parrot]

> This will in no way deter "terrorists" form blowing up buildings. Imagine for a second that you plan to undertake such an assignment. Would you go to the target site and sit around for a while to let people know your intents?

Probably they will pick targets that they know are on camera, to maximize the shock value of their act.

Re:Violation of Privacy?

[psykocrime]

What is all this talk about these violating people's privacy? How is your privacy being violated by someone monitoring you while you are in a public area?

Dude, wake up and smell the coffee. All it takes is a few of these cameras in a few different places, some facial recognition software (or human intervention), linking of the systems in multiple cities, and boom... the government can track your movements from city to city. That sort of power, they do not need.

You are guaranteed limited privacy in your own home, yes. But not when you are walking down a public street.


Limited privacy in my own home? Fuck that... in my own home I have reason to expect damn near 100% privacy if I choose. It's on the streets that I have to accept "limited" privacy, by virtue of being out in public. But just going outside my home does not mean the government has the right to watch my movements and maintain surveillance on me.


Have those making references to "Big Brother" even read "1984"?

Have you? If so, are you really comfortable with the idea of being watched everywhere you go? See, these camera installations are only going to continue to spread and grow.. and make no mistake, they will eventually be linked together, to provide a central method of monitoring people nationwide... it's just a matter of time (if it hasn't already happened). More power for the Federal government...

Re:This will keep the ACLU folks busy

[American AC in Paris]

I'd maintain that unless you are in the presence of other people you have every reasonable expectation of privacy.

Believe me, if you're walking around downtown Baltimore at night and you don't have a crowd of people around you, your personal privacy is going to be the absolute last thing on your mind.

In downtown Baltimore in 2002, there were:

• 2,275 reported cases of larceny
• 243 reported cases of robbery
• 213 reported cases of aggravated assault
• 136 stolen automobiles reported
• 5 reported cases of rape
• 5 reported murders

source

Privacy in public in downtown Baltimore is not something you'd want to seek out. It's just not smart. Downtown Baltimore can be a very dangerous place, and you can go from 'very safe place' to 'very dangerous place' in less than a city block.

Not the first US City to react with paranoia

[martian aura]

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!