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/
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.
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!
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.
http://cai.gouv.qc.ca/06_documentation/01_pdf/new_ rules_2004.pdf
Maybe interesting to read regarding this subject...
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.
A camera will not stop someone from killing me. Unless we all want to pay for full-time bodyguards, the expectation that a silly camera will provide us with safety is asinine. That's the same argument lawmakers have used for ages to erode our liberties one by one. A touchy subject, yes, but a subject in which I believe strongly. True, there is no expectation of privacy in a place such as a harbor. However, that does not give a government the right of monitoring the population unless they have built a case that the population needs to be monitored. The only way that is possible is if they have evidence that every single person in Balitmore is a criminal and as such will expect to be prosecuted. The semblance of safety is a dangerous illusion put forth by those who wish to monitor the innocent.
I also reply below your current threshold.
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...
Yes, I think that you've hit the nail on the head:
The network is part of a comprehensive strategy in the Baltimore area to spend $25 million in homeland security grants this year and next...
I'm still not sure that it's justified, though, and the way that they talked about expanding the system seems misconceived. There would seem to be a limited number of areas in which this sort of thing would really be cost-effective. City centers and heavily urbanized areas would be about it.
It's hard to quantify the deterrent effect, as opposed to simply moving the crime out of range of the cameras. A few extra police officers on the ground could prevent crime, rather than just observing it, and would likely have a far greater deterrent effect. For the cost of the system and the people to monitor it, you could likely put 15 extra officers in the area. I think that would be a better tradeoff.
I remember your eyes, on the twelfth of July...
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'....
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.
Baltimore's harbor is a major port for goods coming into the country so it does make a logical location to monitor. Using video cameras will likely have little effect on a direct attack of terrorist other than to capture the event for later review. If you go off the idea that activities like drug deals (as some of the anti-drug commercials suggest) support terrorist though, this might be useful. Baltimore (like most cities) has it's share of drug trafficing so maybe this could be reduced.
Not advocating the use of the cameras, but we (the people) expect government to become more efficient in doing their jobs (including police) and then complain when they find a possible way to do it. Take the red light or speed cameras (already in use in Maryland and DC). These free up police from monitoring roads so they can work where they are really needed.
I doubt that many of us would like to live in the "Big Brother" society, but it looks like it is going to eventually get to that point.
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.
"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...
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
Police walking the beat ready to arrest people who commit crimes is a deterrent. Police sitting in rooms eating donuts and oggling cute girls on a CCTV camera is not a deterrent.
Robberies in the town near where I work have gone _UP_ since police patrols were replaced with CCTV, since the robbers just use sophisticated 'ski mask' stealth technology to avoid being identified. Crooks care about the high risk of being caught by a cop on patrol when they commit a crime, not the minimal risk of being caught from a CCTV tape.
On the other hand, I hear that there's been a reduction in important crimes, like people pissing in the street on the way home from the pub.
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
The Constitution is pretty clear that the line is as far as Congress wants to draw it, plus however far past it the Executive goes while enforcing it, minus how far back the Supreme Court chooses to yank them :)
> Here is another thought. If we don't respect people in general in public, when do we start disrespecting people in private places (like your home?). 1984 is getting closer and closer with each step we take. Do we really want to live in that sort of society?
You labor under the delusion that you have a choice in the matter. This is irrational.
> We can see how this level of control has messed up other countries. Now they are trying to live like America (I don't intend to be inflametory with that comment btw). Communism isn't spreading. Democracy and Capitalism is.
The Communist states collapsed, in part, under the weight of their own surveillance programmes. East Germany was probably the worst example - when half your population is monitoring the other half, that's a lot of people who can't get anything useful done.
Some would argue that political freedom is a necessary component of economic freedom. Once upon a time, maybe - but no longer necessarily true. China's shaping up to be a superb example of how a surveillance state can be scaled up to control a population of over a billion people, while simultaneously increasing economic freedoms. (Admittedly, political and economic freedoms in China were starting from a pretty low level :)
Technology is a force multiplier. Properly deployed surveillance technology can enable a government to achieve East German levels of social control without the nasty economic side effects that come with having half your population unofficially working for STASI. By automating surveillance, a society can achieve near-total physical security for the rulers and others worth protecting, while still preserving some degree of political and economic freedom for those who serve them.
> Do we want our children living that way?
I'm sufficiently open-minded about the prospect to acknowledge that it might not suck as hard as people of our generation have been trained to think. But look on the bright side - even if oldthinkers unbellyfeel amsoc, your kids'll love it.
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.
That said, DC's biggest problem is that it has a predominantly black population. Which is purely a political problem for DC. To wit:
1) They vote Democrat there. Every time.
2) So, the Democrats don't have to pay any attention to their concerns. Safe Districts are like that.
3) And the Republicans don't have to pay attention to their concerns. Again, a safe district. For the opposition, but still safe.
So, noone has an incentive to do anything for DC but hope it doesn't riot. Note that riots would probably cause some changes, but not likely favourable ones.
This, incidently, is an issue with wide implications for African-Americans (and other voting blocs, real and imaginary). Noone has an incentive to listen to them until and unless they become swing voters.
Pay attention to pols when they run for office. They don't aim their speeches and promises at their "safe" votes - they aim them at the guys who might vote one way or the other, depending on who sounds the best. Best way to get a pol to listen to you is to make it clear (by voting that way) that your vote doesn't belong to a major party. One reason the NRA has the clout it does is that they are quite willing to endorse Democrats who support their views, as well as Republicans.
Voting the Party line just gets you ignored by both parties. Voting the CANDIDATE, not the party, can get you all sorts of influence.
First Presidential election where a majority of black voters vote Republican, you'll start to see a MAJOR change in the way the two Parties react to black issues.
DC's problems will start to evaporate when the two parties have a reason for vie for their support. Until then, forget it....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Speaking as a former citizen of Baltimore, the issue is not with the police or the law-abiding citizens. I went to Johns Hopkins, were getting stuck up was really more of a question of "when" rather than "if". Baltimore has some desperately poor people, which unfortunately often results in desperate criminals, who do desperate things. My roommate had some wires(!) stolen out of his car. (They broke the window and cut off the wires coming from the cassette adapter in his crapped out stereo). I got held up by three losers with a .38 my senior year, and they actually got caught.
The police were fabulous about the whole thing. The resulting trial left a really bad taste in my mouth. To start with, when you are a witness, you have to sit either in the "Victims Services" office, or outside the courtroom on a hard wooden bench. You get to do this whenever there is a chance you might be called. Usually this means you sit there from 9 AM to 5 PM. If you get lucky, they'll call you when they think you might be needed. In my experience, this consisted of "Hello, we need you at the courthouse in 25 minutes. *click*" And then nothing once you got there.
The police fell into the same "witness" catagory I did. Since I got stuck up at 3 AM, the cops who handled the case were night shift guys. So, they got to work all night, and then spend all day in the courthouse waiting to be called. And they took it seriously. One guy showed up with mild food poisoning, because if they called him and he wasn't there, the preps could get off. So, they didn't sleep or see their families much.
Let me tell you a bit about the "Victim's Services" room. It was a long, narrow, hastily converted place filled with a mix of bored witnesses and severely tramatized victims. I saw mothers crying and screaming hysterically to prosecuters "How could you let him get off! He killed my baby in front of me! He's gonna kill me next!" And they meant it. Truly horrifying stuff. Not a comfortable place to sit and chill with a book for eight hours. Oh, and even though this was pre-9/11, you couldn't bring any electronics in. No laptops, no discmans, nothing. Just you, a book, and people living though things most people are fortunate to never even imagine. It was surreal, and made me feel almost guilty for being in there for something as minor as getting stuck up.
The other option was to sit outside the courtroom. On a highbacked oak bench set against the wall. And I mean sit. Not lay, not sprawl, not slouch. Sit. Because if you didn't a bailiff would come by and make you do so. Oh, and this is also where the defense witnesses get to hang out. So, a lot of my time there was spent in the brooding presence of one of the dumbasses who robbed me. Two of the three perps rolled over on the third, and plead to reduced charges. So they still went to prison for 35-50 years, (multiple counts + prior felonies + handgun in the commission adds up quick) but not for their involvement in my case. (They robbed multiple people that night). Needless to say, having one of these guys handcuffed to the adjacent bench didn't improve the ambiance.
I spent something like 5 days there, and even had to reschedule job interviews around it. (Try telling a prospective employee you need to reschedule due to a court date... fun times...) I testified once for 7 minutes in open court, and spent a lot of time waiting around while the defense tried to suppress what I said. (Another story, but the short version was the defense maintained that as a white person I wasn't qualified to look at a lineup of non-white people because even if I did correctly identify the suspect it must be a lucky guess. Their argument fell apart when I revealed that I not only knew people who didn't look like me, but grew up going to a school which was 87% non-white. Was pretty funny...)
I don't want to make it seem like I was some sort of martyr. They robbed 10 different people that night, and every one of them was there the same as I was.
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"
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.