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

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: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: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: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.