Slashdot Mirror
Chicago Pondering Huge Camera Network
andyring writes "According to ABC7 in Chicago, mayor Daley rolled out plans to install thousands of video cameras in public places across the Windy City. In some ways, I suppose there are positives, as all the existing and future cameras are tied in to the 911 emergency center, allowing a 911 dispatcher to actually watch the area in question when someone dials 911. Dispatchers will be able to control some of the cameras, such as panning and zooming in."
1. privacy violated
2. big brother
3. evil big government
4. real time real world quake laser tag finally!
ironically, i got that 'nothing for you to see here, move along' a few times before this story loaded
This is also the mayor that destroyed Meigs Field under cover of night and with police protection to keep people away while he did it.
This guy is a fucker. Underhanded bastard with no concern for the citizens of Chicago.
So what does that mean, I can't have privacy in a public place?
... is not whether such moves are useful. Arguably, almost all privacy-invading programs are in some way.
The question is: do you trust the government (and the people that work for it!) to use it responsibly?
I for one welcome our new totalitarian overlords.
I suppose it will probably also be interesting for, uhm, the "national security" folks too. Great. ;-)
Surprised they don't have this already, but don't we have exctly this discussion on Slashdot almost every other day. I know exactly what will be posted in response to this and I am bored of reading the same arguements over and over again...
Sort of off topic, but can any Chicagoans explain this Daley family thing? Is this like some dynasty that won't die?
I'm surprised this family is still around and in power, am I missing something as to how great they are or something?
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
TV watches you.
KFG
Caller: Operator, help, I'm being chased! I'm at the corner of 7th and Broad!
Operator: Okay, I see you. Oh wait, hold on, the camera's stuck.
Caller: Forget the damn camera, I need help!
Operator: Maybe if I press this button... these stupid things always lock up right when you need them...
Caller: Help! He's gaining on me!
Operator: Hey Bob, can you come over and have a look at this? Camera 76 is stuck again.
Bob: Yup, we should have a tech out there some time tomorrow.
Caller: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuugggggh!
It sounds like a great idea if used properly, but then again so does communism. Tin hat crew stear clear of Chicago
How will these cameras affect our freedom?
For some good ideas, read some David Brin:
The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?
well, I had thought moving to the US would've let me escape pervasive closed circuit cameras, ah well...
The problem with blanket-covering an area with cameras is that after a while, the criminals simply go elsewhere...
Maybe it's like Go; we place our cameras around the country and slowly force the criminals into one little area and take it over?
About as absurd as thinking cameras will solve crime problems...
----- Documentation is worth it just to be able to answer all your mail with 'RTFM' - Alan Cox.
With the pan/tilt and zoom features, what's to stop a camera from peering into a window? How long until they start adding things like infrared or night-vision? Maybe I'm just speaking for the tin-foil hat brigade, but these questions need to be asked.
This says nothing of the rights of the accused to face their accuser. When one of these systems is used to, say, issue a traffic citation, who's the accuser? You have no witness to the crime. It opens up a whole new can of worms, IMO.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
Eventually, they'll be able to tie these cameras into face recognition software-which will mean that anybody with a warrent out for them will have a _very_ hard time anyplace cameras like this are deployed.
In Oregon, ODOT has cameras all over the state- though mainly in the Portland Area. Tripcheck gives up to the minute road conditions in a number of weather and traffic sensitive areas around the State.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Now my stalking can take on a whole new dimension.
Notes to self:
1. Hack into the Mayor Daley's databases.
2. Download photos of person to be stalked.
3. Fly to Chicago and track him/her down.
*evil laugh*
Nice...
So when is the Hawkeye movie coming out?
I am sure that it will be very comforting to know that when you've been shot/stabbed/assaulted that you'll end up in the police departments Christmas Video and very possibly even get to star in some highly 'educational' Fox 'documentary'.
The perfect dying thought I'm sure you'd agree...
That's one more city I can cross of my list of places to live. Seriously, I grew up in the midwest and was thinking about moving to Chicago some time. A couple suggestions - how about spending the money on more and more competent 911 workers and more police officers? How about improving the actual city? Or even just fixing the damn traffic. Where I live now there's no one suggesting cameras because outside of a few rowdy blocks or bars in the downtown, there's not much crime.
Last I checked, there was plenty of freedom before cameras even existed.
Stuff like this limits our privacy AND freedom.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Chicago already has monitoring of some of it's 'rougher' neighborhoods. They've been labeled as 'blue light districts' by the locals, since the camera domes apparently have police lights on them. This was reported on USA Today a few months ago.
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
How will that let 911 operators do their job better?
How does *almost seeing* the situation help? I mean, granted, they're probably not going to be the crappy webcam quality cameras we think they are, but still it escapes me how this will actually proactively help an 911 operator help a victim. It might help them after the fact, but not before or during.
-Randy
Wow...can we mod that troll up so more people can get mad at such anonymous sniping?
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Chicago?"
... I think so, Mayor, but where are we going to get ten thousand cameras at this time of night?"
"Uuhhh
"Dispatchers will be able to control some of the cameras, such as panning and zooming in."
r ity.cfm?ID=10059&c=111
Yeah. On tits and ass.
(search for breasts)
a la http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecu
This is just another case of law enforcement making up (or wanting to) for gross incompetency by using technology.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Everyone will be wearing these
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I hate this man more than Bill Gates.
The stress that the closing of Meigs has caused I'm sure has caused the the stress on O'Hare.
That is one guy whose shoe I'd spit on or spill something 'accidentally' on.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Whoops, the horrible racist and asinine comment was deleted already. Never mind.
The usa today article is HERE. The article was pretty informative.
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
This doesn't bother me as long as the cameras are completely public. That is, they are essentially web-cams whose content is recorded. Anyone can review any part of any recording. Anyone can make/keep their own copy of the video. CRCs digital signatures stored as "official copies" in multiple locations, etc. (e.g. some protection against screwing with the images after the fact.)
I like the idea of a transparent society. Let's be as transparent as possible - that is the best way to weaken entrenched power.
But then, I'm the guy who's number one desired feature on my next car is the ability issue tickets around me for bad driving. I want to be able to turn into a cop, only with the paperwork automated. Having full time camera on every inch of roadway is the closest I can get for the moment...
No, I don't value your "privacy" on public roadways. Its a public space. You don't get to be private in public. You have to play nice with the other kids.
I'll take off the flame-retardant suit in a few days. Maybe.
How does one become the dispatcher in control of the beach cameras? I hear there's a lot of 'crime' on the beach that needs thorough investigating.
In May, Chicago tested a red light camera system for two weeks then started using it to issue citations.
On August 28, I received a citation in the mail for a red light violation. The photo was taken May 12 and showed that I coasted through a right-on-red at a blazing 11mph instead of coming to a complete stop. For this, I am fined $90.
From articles in the Chicago Tribune, it is clear that the photo was taken during the 'testing' period and that the city has since gone back to those test shots and issued citations, in my case three and a half months after the fact.
I'm now more careful to come to an absolute complete stop when making a right on red (in Chicago during rush hour, this will often elicit a honk from the driver behind you), but I'll dread checking the mail for the next three months.
There are major exceptions: places where there's minimal freedom until cameras arrive. -Joel
A Lens on the World: Musician Peter Gabriel Provides Human Rights Activists With Cameras for the Cause
By Ann Hornaday, Washington Post, Nov 21
For the past decade, activists and nongovernmental organizations all over the globe have taken up video cameras to document injustices in their countries, sometimes risking their lives to bring human rights abuses to light.
Women in Afghanistan used hidden cameras to capture the depredations of Taliban rule and, later, the aftermath of the U.S. military campaign. Garment workers in the U.S. territory of Saipan smuggled a camera into sewing factories where women worked 14-hour shifts under lock and key, often without pay, to make clothes for the Gap and other American retailers. In Sierra Leone, young women spoke publicly for the first time about the rapes they endured during a brutal 10-year civil war. In Burma, civilians who are being forced into relocation camps by that country's military regime are filming the activities of the very army that threatens to kill them.
What these and more than 150 other groups have in common is Witness, a nonprofit group founded by musician Peter Gabriel in 1992 that provides cameras, technical training and distribution support to people whose stories would otherwise most likely go unheard and unseen.
The more than 25 documentaries co-produced by Witness have been broadcast on television, used in network news stories, shown at film festivals and meetings, streamed on the Web and presented as evidence in federal courts, international tribunals and the United Nations. Though only one film has resulted in the filing of criminal charges, many have been used as evidence in war crimes trials or have prompted long-awaited policy changes. Others have simply spurred progress toward collective healing. Nearly every Witness film has illuminated crimes, injustices and crises that otherwise would have been known only by their perpetrators and victims.
Perhaps... but I contend it's more fun when the criminals don't know the cameras exist and you still catch them.
As an example I present pictures from 2 months ago when a neighbor broke into my house.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Here's what scares me: all of the money rapidly being poured into surveillance today is creating an industry that will (obviously) lobby for more and more surveillance tomorrow. I don't see our freedoms stabilizing; I see the emergence of a business model that relies on stripping away our privacy.
And yes, I know that privacy has been eroding for a while, but it feels like it's getting much worse, much faster, now.
More scariness in Emerging 'Surveillance-Industrial Complex' Is Turbo-Charging Government Monitoring, ACLU Warns in New Report.
I wonder with these cameras springing up in more and more places and the spectre of face recognition software being added, I wonder if masks will become illegal...
With this stuff going on perhaps there is a need for a new fasion statement, Burkas for everyone (you know those head to toe concealing black robes with only eye slits covered by lace worn by women in the more "strict" islamic cultures)
The Pictures.
MaybeI should have checked the preview more carefully next time.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
So now the doughnut eaters will be voyeurs. Just what Chicago needs as they phase out the worthless toll gate attendants who steal money in favor of I-Pass...not needed as the expressways were paid for long ago...job security as some of the unnecessary tollway workers get put into this new thing...bureaucracy at its finest, and along with that butt-ugly new Soldier Field and the loss of Meigs Field, we can thank the Dishonorable Richard M. Daley, a slimeball if there ever was one...
Why is this a NEW suprise, they (law enforcement)
Have been doing it for years now..
BTW that camera setup on division and halsted
is a bit suspect
I actually wouldn't have a problem with cameras in public places, as long as EVERYONE HAD ACCESS TO THEM. Think about it - if you could see what "they" could see, then it would take away a lot of the privacy concerns. Not all of them, of course, but at least the people being monitored would have access to the same information that "they" do.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
A system allowing 911 to use the caller's cell phone's camera (should the user allow it) would be much less intrusive (and technologically neat!)
OK, so it might sound 1984ish to have cameras everyone in public. Certainly it makes me nervous. But how is this survailence worse than what the IRS has been doing for the last 20 years at least? The IRS is already entitled to every bank and ATM transaction, every credit card transaction, a record of all the charities you give to, a record of all income you make, and if you are a buisness, a record of everything you spend your money on. All this long before The Patriot Act or 9/11 or George W Bush or the War on Terror / War on Drugs.
Certainly tracking a person's every financial transaction is far more dangerous to democracy - (Did you order those movie tickets to Farienheit 9/11 by phone? The government has a record! Did you donate to the Green Party, or the Natural Law Party, or The Libertarian Party? Who you vote for might be secret ballot, but the government knows who you donated to! Did you fly out and rent a hotel to participate in a protest? The government knows! Pay by credit card for your web server? Don't think your controversial political web blog can't be traced to you!).
You never hear a peep from so called "Civil Libertarians" about what I mentioned above... probably because challenging the complete and total financial survailence of every American means that it would be hard to tax people, and be hard to pay for those expensive government entitlement programs that have so effectivly eliminated poverty, racism, and war (yeah right!).
Having cameras in public places is more akin to having a police officer on every corner. Yes, it can (and probably will) be abused... but people are regularly abused by Police officers without using any hidden cameras. And at least in public places, there is the understanding that you are in public and can't expect total privacy.
It seems to me that people are OK with Big Brother, so long as Big Brother will give us the illusion of "freedom". The government can know everything single detail about your political, social, and economic life. But god forbid they catch you on camera picking your nose or something!
Listen up. My brother was paralyzed from the legs after someone like you ran through a red light thinking there were no cars around. My brother was in a crosswalk and had the walk sign, but the guy didn't see him because my brother happens to be a midget and there was newspaper boxes blocking the view. The guy ran off (maybe to work for the mayor, who literally hates the little guy) and wasn't caught but now my brother has to drag himself around in a minature wheelchair.
Ohhh, I made that up. Never mind then, keep running red lights.
But the cameras aren't going away, barring total technological collapse or something.
Brin is NOT advocating putting cameras everywhere in his book. He just asks "given that there will be cameras everywhere, what is the best outcome for society" i.e. how can we make the best of things?
Any "trusted few" with access to the cameras is immediately empowered over the average citizen. The only way, at least in Brin's view, to keep a semblance of freedom, is for the cameras to be made public access - if a camera is watching a public area, its signal should be multicasted over the net to the public, and anyone who wants to tune in should be able to. Otherwise, you're just building a panopticon to enable an eternal police state -see "1984".
In the UK, there is some semblance of law regarding this, you're supposed to be able to request any footage from a police camera you are caught on - but the police drag their feet when you request, presumably to let the secret service vet thing - they often claim "oh no that camera was off that day". Hence, I think the footage needs not only to be available but available in _real time_.
The question is, do cameras like that help reduce crime? London and parts of England are blanketed with these types of cameras, and while they have been shown to cut down on vehicle thefts, the statistics show no affect on violent crime.
a ge =%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200206%5CFOR2002062 8c.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?P
However, that is from 2002. Can anyone find more recent data?
The two areas I think would be of interest are:
Do they help prevent crime? and Do they increase the conviction rates after the crime has been committed?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
We have a small network of cameras in most towns and on nearly all motoways already in the UK.
I live in a sea side holiday resort and I believe the cameras are very effective in the town where I live in locating areas where large drunken crowds are gathering at pub and club closing time. Police are despatched accordingly thus reducing drink related crimes.
The motoway system looks out for crashes and congestion, again despatching police accordingly and altering large display system with speed restrictions.
I personally think cameras are good, but then again I don't have any reason to worry about people watching me as I walk down the street or drive on the motoway...
Other: "I know this guy from Chicago. He says his family is all mob."
Me:"Ah. They work for the city of Chicago then?"
Other: "Yeah. How did you know?"
Me:"I'm from Chicago."
UK has this in most cities and it help solves hundreds of crimes and is used quite often on Crime watch (A VERY sucessful police program which shows serious crimes they need help with).
All the tinfoil hatters will complain about this but I'd much rather have it then not. I'm not doing anything illegal in the areas (at home.. well thats another matter) and if I got assaulted or raped for example they would have CCTV evidence and I wouldn't have to prove anything because the camera would of done it for me.
Simplely put, being watched walking into a couple of shops doesn't harm anyone but it can help out in alot of crimes and missing person cases.
I like muppets.
We have almost saturation CCTV coverage in the UK. It doesn't make a great deal of difference. You just find that all the kids who want to cause trouble are all wearing grey tops with hoods and/or baseball caps. There is not a lot a camera can do when they all look the same, all over town, every day.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Hahaahahahahahahahahahah...
A few years back, in my old High School, our school board was considering installing a whole network of security cameras. A lot of people was against this, but the principal re-assured us that all the camera spots would be all positioned at all the school exits, and there will be no hidden cameras.
A few years later, I happened to be one of the school network administrators, so I was doing some work in wiring closets for this school over the summer. It appeared that the board also hired contractors to run many spools of coax wire throughout the second floor and other spots of the school. When school started, I realized what those contractors did. They installed hidden cameras in spots like smoke detectors, picture frames, and, get this, inside the washrooms! The only reason why I would know this, is because I have full access to the monitoring station where all the video equipment terminates at, since some of the network equipment is located in that closet. The general public doesn't know! And no, I'm not talking about some private school, or some school in the middle east where human rights are their last concern. This is a publicly funded public school, in North America!
So what is to prevent this city from installing hidden cameras also? Or covertly using public cameras directed at private property?
I see a future when you can pay for a subscription to a city's feed. The real Reality TV.
rewriting history since 2109
Seriously, putting these cameras in public places will just increase your awareness that you are being monitored when in most places you go it is already the case.
I tend to look for cameras everywhere I go because I worked at a place where I monitored the security cameras for a while so it always interests me in where companies install them and where they are pointed (no, I am not a thief, I promise!). The other day I noticed that my local post office had cameras watching the mail boxes and also several exterior cameras. Here are a few ways you are monitored during what might be a typical day:
At the airport
At the ATM - smile!
Banks
Wal-Mart (yes, admit it, you do go there sometimes)
The Mall
The Movie Theater
Traffic Cameras in General
Webcams all over the place - there to take live video of places but can also be used to track you
I could go on and on about places that monitor you. Pretty much every medium-sized or larger business has cameras installed monitoring you - and recording you. At the store where I worked we had over 25 cameras on DVR's that stored the data for 1-3 months depending on how we had them set. We caught several people that did hit and runs in our parking lot using camera footage and of course also the occasional thief.
I think the real question at this point isn't whether or not we should be monitored - that time has come and gone. The argument and fight now needs to be focused on how companies and government is allowed to use data gathered from these cameras.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
Brings back memories of Chicago 1968.
Those of us who watched events unfold on television, can never forget the name Daley or the Chicago Police Force. This was one of the defining events of my generation.
Where is the [D] next to his name? I usally see the [R]'s on these types of posts :-)
I live in Chicago, and this is already in the ghetto. It's kinda scary looking - bright blue lights all over with video camera.
Thing is: they work. Crime went way down in the areas where they're installed. The city has used the tapes numerous times in cases across the city.
Here's the catcher: crime went up in adjacent neighborhoods. What did the city do? Rotate the cameras between neighborhoods.
I'll admit though, it was nice going through a ghetto neighborhood in Chicago (they're REAL bad), get stared at by POS gang bangers who want to rob you, and wave to them knowing they don't have the guts to do it.
Do you guys think this will change the neighborhoods? If they're installed everywhere, where will the criminals go?
I'm OK with this to a point if we make all of the camera feeds publicly available. Could be kinda fun or useful in some cases.
Ring, Ring. Hey Bob! I'm stuck at 3rd and Poindexter. Look at the city cams and tell me where the accident is, then tell me how to steer around it.
If we can all see what the watchers can see, then they have nothing on us that we don't know about.
Eschew Obfuscation
In Sacramento, the red light cameras were leading the red lights. Over a thousand cases were thrown out. Of course after the victims of injustice had to pay excessive fines for not committing crimes.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
There is no positive side to inavasion of privacy..
Yuu only *think* you will be safer as that is what the government has told you...
You will be no safer, and much less free.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There are so many 911 calls that you are often placed on hold.
On the other hand, I look forward to the new video, Girls Gone Wild - The Windy City
why don't you just use cash?
I'm certain that the mayor only wants what is best for our city. Like a casino. And besides, what our mayor wants, our mayor gets. Although, usually in the middle of the night when no one else can stop him.
The world won't end in darkness, it'll end in family fun, with Coca-cola clouds behind a Big Mac sun.
I don't mind having cameras all over in public, the more the better...
As long as we (the public) can see them!! I don't mean we need to control them, just that anyone is interested in capturing data from what they show can do so. After all, they can capture incidents with police just as easily as protestors... and plus, wouldn't it be cool to park by a known monitor and use your cell phone to make sure your car is OK?
I've always wished they had way more traffic cameras all over town, so that I could monitor routes for conditions and volume.
David Brin already covered the subject of public cameras everywhere in one of his books, and his solution was that everyone had cameras everywhere that anyone could monitor.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Mayor Daley is a totalitarian, anti-privacy, anti-liberty communist. "Fuckwad" does not begin to describe my hatred for this pinko asshole.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
The US pioneered the division between public and private spaces, with different rights in either. The 20th Century came and went, without updating our defense of our rights to accommodate the time dimension of these spaces. While public appearances aren't protected by privacy, we have come to expect freedom from recording without our knowledge or consent. Recording and playback were the major technological innovations of the last century. While our expectations of freedom have developed in that new context, the laws that document, and protect, those rights have lagged. We need to ensure that public information expires after a reasonable time, and can be accessed only through a reasonable process of law. This might be an application of copyright on our public image: our appearance is to be recorded and used only for the specific purpose for which we appeared, like safely travelling to work, or getting a tan at the beach. Otherwise the technology, and our use of it, threaten our freedom more than they protect it.
--
make install -not war
My old employer (1998-2002) had these all over the place. Very high res pan and zoom color cameras. The only effect was to give the security guards who literally sat in the booth, something to look at.
Most of their time was spent trying to look down females shirts, or to spot the occasional panty flash when they bent down (It was a call center...)
Lousy facepalm.
Yea, there's definetely a ton of underhanded politics going on in Chicago, which is probably why we have the Daley dynasty. (The story of what happened when Daley Sr. died is fascinating, NPR did a story on it when they did a special on Harold Washington). On the flip-side, Mayor Daley Jr. isn't so bad. True, he verges on totalitarian dictator. However, I think he does generally have what HE thinks are the interests of Chicagoans in mind. While his dad was an unabashed racist and classist, this Daley has done a better job of spending money all around the city. I'll tell you what, the city has never looked better. Chicago, at least when you're actually on the street, used to be an ugly ass city. Under Daley, Lower Wacker got redone, we've got planters all around the downtown and EVERYONE who visits the city thinks it looks great. Millenium Park, while overbudget and way overtime, has been a huge success (turned an ugly railyard into gorgeous park and ampitheater). Also, thanks to Daley Chicago now has a huge amount of bikelanes and bikeracks, far more for its size than New York. They even have bus racks on the city buses. On the flip side, I've heard a lot of city workers have had their salary raises frozen, so I don't know what the exact cost of these improvements has been.
I'm am constantly amused by my fellow Americans who seem to think we have some guarantee to 'privacy'. In fact, we do not. We have a constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure but that is as close as we get to a legal guarantee of 'privacy'.
Don't believe me? Read the Constitution of the United States again (or as I suspect is the case for more than few of you - read it for the first time!). http://www.usconstitution.net/
The word 'privacy' appears exactly 0 times in that venerable document. The only reason the police can't enter your home simply because they feel like it is because the 4th Amendment protects you from "unreasonable search and seizure". It has nothing to do with privacy as a whole in society. Once you are in a public place your every action can be observed and recorded by anyone who wishes to do so and there is nothing illegal about it.
Privacy is not a Right. Never has been. If privacy were a right then you could not have probable cause - after all you would have a reasonable expectation of prvacy in every situation and for an officer to even look through your window would be a violation of that right. If privacy were a right there would be no paparazzi. There would be no sobriety checkpoints. There would be no security in airports, concerts, or anywhere else. Any activity that required you to provide some piece of information about yourself would be outlawed as all of these are violations of your 'privacy'.
Yes, cameras in Chicago will reduce your privacy - no doubt about that...but then again you never really had a right to it in the first place. Of course, we could just ask our London based colleagues what life under CCTV is like - last I saw the average Londoner was supposedly photographed 300 times a day. Any of you Londoners having a problem with big brother breathing down your neck? Or maybe, just maybe, have those cameras have had an actual impact on crime and safety in your lovely city?
NathanThere is a simple underlying equation which is cost vs reward. The cost of this solution will continue to go down, while the reward will either remain the same or go up. It is only a matter of time until the equation balances itself out and is voted into effect. Placing mechanical eyes and ears in public areas where it is already legal to place real eyes and ears shouldn't make much of a difference legality wise.
I think it would be useful to have something like that in my own car, along with a GPS logging system. If pulled over, I could turn the camera to record the conversation with the officer. If someone cut in front of me and slammed on the brakes, in an insurance fraud scheme, it would be noted on camera.
Of course, there is quite a difference between the two examples; the first is surveillance by 'the man' against an unwary populace, while the second is a private citizen using technology to protect his rights.
Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
I can't believe the hypocrisy here. If a Republican official tried to do this, it would be the end of privacy...every possible reference to 1984 would be made. But, since it's all done under the watchful eye of his majesty King Daley II, it's "I suppose there are positives".
The last thing Chicago needs is another pet project for King Richard to pour tax payer dollars into...we're still pulling our pants up after Millienum Park.
-R
install cameras that have built in lights (cameras still have those right? I remember years ago they did).
Sadly, you're correct, although he did spur legislation to avoid it happening again. The FAA fined the city $100k for illegally closing the airfield, the maximum fine; that maximum has now been raised to almost $1m as a result (although it of course can't be applied retroactively).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The audience.
A video only has power if it's publicly accessible. If all the camera feeds go straight to Police HQ where they disappear into vaults forever, they will be, at best, totally worthless and more likely to be abused as others have described.
Dyolf Knip
The lesson from this being the effect of the cameras depends on who controls the pictures. Privacy is lost regardless, but if only the gov't controls the pictures then you lose your freedom too.
Kinda ironic, considering this whole homeland security thing is supposed to protect Americans' freedom. Seem to me your gov't is doing the bad guys' work for them.
That way there will be a video record of the apocalypse.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
If you have cameras you have to have some sort of protection law for the people who are going to be on them, everyone must have the right to see the tapes they appear on and the right for their image to be kept secure and not sold etc. Its also vital that policies are made and kept about recording and use - eg recordings must be deleted after x time and a camera may only be accessed in certain circumstances vs just random watching of people. I think this would have been good in NY during the RNC to record the unfair policing, its sometimes a evil but constant monitoring of people is not ok.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
step 1. Install the cameras talking about safety
step 2. Run them for a while and talk up the safety aspects
step 3. Install face recognition software without telling the public
step 4. Now they can check on the movements of particular people!
Excellent point. If the goal is to deter crime, rather than, say, to spy on people.
I thought that part of our constitution was to protect the interests of many without trampling the rights of the few. It seems to me that even if many people are interested in this, the few people who want freedom from monitoring of thier legal activities should not have thier rights abused like this. And yes it IS a right to not be harrassed by the police without due process. Even psychological studies have shown that people under surveillance are subject to higher levels of stress.i s is at work where some supervision of duties is already expected. Now we have to be subject to increased levels of stress when we get off work too?
http://www.amrc.org.hk/Arch/3405.htm
Th
a Beowulf cluser of repetitive overused jokes?
Dispatchers will be able to control some of the cameras, such as panning and zooming in."
Hey Peter man, check out channel 9, it's the breast exams!
Chip H.
You don't have a constitutional right to not be under stress. So sorry, but thanks for playing.
For the past decade, activists and nongovernmental organizations all over the globe have taken up video cameras to document injustices in their countries, sometimes risking their lives to bring human rights abuses to light.
Thats all great and peachy, but we're not putting these cameras into sweat shops... We're putting them on the street. Refer to my post here, where I make mention of the Rodney King beatings. They had filmed Rodney getting out of his car, and swinging at the cops. The cops overreacted, but it was not a race crime that the media led us to believe. It wasn't until well after the police were charged for a hate crime that the truth came out....
My point: That was on tape. And it didn't matter. This does nothing for my "safety" and "security" other than allowing to government more of an opportunity to see when I don't do exactly what I should be doing, 100% of the time. And when my actions aren't aligned correctly with whatever agenda someone has, they'll look as bad as the powers that be can manipulate them to look.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
You should have cameras in your house as well, because you might dial 911 at your house and the dispatcher could look in your house and see what was going on there when calling 911.
Wouldn't you feel much safer?
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
Obviously a comment from someone who hasn't read the book.
The ultimate thesis of the book is that invasion of privacy and erosion of privacy are inevitable, and will continue until there is no real privacy left. That is, anyone will be able to find out anything they desire about you.
So the question Brin takes up is, can we have freedom without privacy? Arguably, yes. But transparency is required; the tools which monitor everyone must be available to everyone. If they become a tool that government and corporate powers can use against their enemies, then monitoring becomes a tool of oppression. But if the powerful are subjected to the same sort of monitoring, then they remain accountable to the rest of us.
Privacy laws have good intentions, but they may ultimately be self-defeating. These tools are too useful to pass up. If the government can't gather and collate vast amounts of data legally, it will do so illegally. If businesses are required to limit the sorts of data they collect about us, those who quietly violate the rules will have a significant advantage over more scrupulous businesses. So instead of kneejerk privacy laws, Brin argues that we should be making these systems legal, but demand that they be built in such a way that the public can figure out how the data is being used.
I thought "The Transparent Society" was an awesome book. The biggest reservation I have is that Brin seems to underestimate the power of monitoring as a way of enforcing conformity. But I hope he's right and I'm wrong in that regard, because I sincerely believe he's right about the inevitability of a total privacy meltdown.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
How about this: You can have your cameras in public places if everything that they record is released to the public as well, free of charge.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Now I can keep track of my ex-girl friend all the time, along with my favorite star, or my teenager or aging parents, or even my dog who I left roam the streets. If one of them dies in a bloody car crash ( or other horrible event that you want kept private) what is to prevent this form being taped and admission being charged? There are good applications along with evil applications of this technology. A great discussion of this is David Brin's transparent society. Just my two cents.
So dispatchers will watch and do what they feel is necessary for a given situation, but who will watch the dispatchers to decide if they are doing a good job or simply abusing their power?
If they are the police, who will police the police?
For example if they make a complaint against you, pushing someone, even without causing them any injury, is now classed as a violent crime. As is spitting at them. Now, in the US and elsewhere, such things wouldn't be classed the same way.
As this recent BBC News article shows, the chances of someone being a victim of any crime in the UK have fallen dramatically since 1995, and burglary and vehicle theft have halved since then.
The article states:So, half of all violent crimes in the UK don't involve any real harm to anyone whatsoever. Something to remember when people start spouting rubbish about how violent crime in Britain is soaring.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
If we really want to stop crime, we need to put cameras where we all know the serious crime takes place.
That is the office buildings of public officials. We also need to tap their (OUR taxpayer dollar paid for) phones. Over night the dirty dealing and back rubbing would stop. No more BJ's in the oval office. We could even link the cameras in air traffic controllers to watch as they ignore planes that switch off there transponders and deviate from course for 20-30 minutes before they crash into the WTC. Hey, but what's with letting three or four planes all go AWOL. Not like George doesn't support going AWOL. (and he cares enough about our troops, not to attend even one funeral.)
To bad they have this thing about letting the American public know the truth about WMD's. That would have been neat to see that briefing for replay. The ability to trace this info to the source (or lack thereof) and actually hold them accountable for the 1,000 US soldiers that have died. These really are the people that need the cameras put on them because the fate of all our live are held in their hands. How long will it be before the world decides that Americans are the real threat to life and need to be controlled. If the American people won't hold elected official accountable, then somebody will have to.
What ever became of the security tapes around the Oklahoma City Federal building. These tapes hold the smoking gun of Timothy McVeigh in the last moments before the bomb blew. But they were never released due to national security.
Our government has been running amuck. We need to pull out the magnifying glass and put the cameras on them that can't be turned off. These cameras should be streamed on the net and recorded for later viewing. We also need to remove our public officials right to privacy anywhere they go so they can't make deals 'out of the office'. Just like a teenager that gets into drugs, they will loose any right to privacy, they have, because we know they can't be trusted. There has been to much trust in this country of our elected officials for way to long.
Damn! No more silly walkin down Michigan avenue for me!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Umm ... okay so this is completely OT but since my only other way of getting to you is AIM, I'll try this first.
What's C2 all about? You put a link to it in your signature, but gee, there's nothing at all to see unless you're already invited in / registered. So, what's the point? Or is that bragging?
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Uhm... yessir, that's right... the womens locker room is a major terrorist breeding ground. We need to, uhm, monitor, it.
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
Anyway. . , if I may offer my attempt at the Cole's Notes version of his/her post: (Ahem). .
"You were never guaranteed privacy, so therefore you don't deserve respect or consideration. Crime is best combatted with ever-increasing controls and distrust, and I am probably smarter and wiser than you because I have read the U.S. constitution."
Pardon me; but this sounds like the spewings of a smarmy fool who has bought into the media message, or has little facility for objective thinking, or is deliberately self-serving with no concern for anybody but his/herself. (Or some combination of the three.)
--On the chance that I am mistaken, (for I have only read portions of the U.S. constitution, being a non-native of that country and as such must clearly not be as smart or wise as the poster), perhaps somebody would care to explain the logic to me.
-FL
Unnfortunately, Brin is wrong. The people who abuse these sorts of things have years of experience, and won't allow a true transparency.
Let's say they send out an expedition somewhere remote, that only has cameras that are brought along, to watch. These guys have an agenda, to work on a "project". No one will watch them, except a few freaks. There's maybe a 5% chance someone will watch, if not, they get to complete the project (more on that later).
Later: This project allows them to infiltrate camera networks, and re-render things they don't like, even on the fly. If it is completed, it will worm it's way into the camera networks, at which point only they'll see the real deal. Software, maybe nanotech hardware, either way, you won't see the corruption via "transparent" cameras.
5% chance: Someone watches. But there is only a slight chance they'll understand (it will look boring) and even if they do understand, it will take time to convince others to watch. Assuming that the project will take months or less, the actions of the watchers will eventually be re-rendered. They'll be the worst kinds of conspiracy theorists, shown exhibiting signs of schizophrenia. They'll make outrageous claims when you talk to them in person, that the "cameras only show you what they want you to see".
And, this is assuming 100% transparency. Do you think the cameras in the basement of the Pentagon will be available, the ones that show nuke launch codes? Chances are, it won't even be this difficult, given exceptions to transparency for classified things.
BTW, it's been 10 years now since SGI demonstrated on the fly video re-rendering. Nothing fancy, mind you. No purple dragons, but they did erase a figure skater out of a skating rink, and with minimal preparation it was possible to add ones in, even back then. What will be possible by the time a transparent society could become viable?
So with this new system, we'll be seeing loads of "Mayor Daley is always watching." signs?
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Let me start out by saying that I'm not at all in favor of this move and I'm not much of a fan of Daley.
But lets clear up a couple of things:
He isn't planning to "install thousands of cameras." He's planning to centralize the monitoring of the existing cameras, while installing "a few hundred" more. Yes, "a few hundred" is vague, but the significance of this move is NOT the installing of these cameras, but rather the centralization. He could have installed those other hundreds of cameras without saying a word. Centralizing them, though, becomes a big deal, because it creates the "Big Brother" possibility. Bottom line: Most of these cameras already exist.
As for Daley himself: There are a lot of replies about Meigs and about all the bullshit Daley pulls. For background on this, read Boss by Mike Royko or read any and all of John Kass's columns in the Chicago Tribune (there is a particularly good recent one about his long-standing "freindship" with Daley) (free reg. req.).
On Meigs: The closure of Meigs did NOT place any further burden on any other airports. Meigs was ONLY general aviation and provided NO long-term parking. Furthermore, Meigs was scheduled to be closed in 2005. I, myself, was sorry to see it go (I have taken off and landed from Meigs only a couple of times, but they were plenty of fun). It WAS shady how he closed it, but you get over that. That's how politics work in Chicago.
Chicago wouldn't be Chicago without Chicago politics. City Hall is corrupt. Corrupt as hell. But it works. And it is a government of the People. Daley is from Bridgeport, a blue collar neighborhood southwest of downtown. You'll see truck drivers, construction workers, factory workers who are better connected than the richest businessmen in the city. In some sense, its the universal equalizer.
Chicago politics are great; great in a neverending-amusement way. But while you can bitch and moan about civil liberties in relation to these cameras (I'll be there right along with you), pay attention to what actually is being done here: The innovation here is CENTRALIZATION, not INSTALLATION.
Anybody who has been to Dublin can't help noticing that there are cameras all over. I felt bad about it, actually.
In the heavy traffic of central Dublin, I was just getting off a bus, and I noticed a guy lying on the street. I don't know exactly what had happened, but he was a motor cyclist, I suppose he had been hit by a car. People were running over from screaming "someone call an ambulance!" and things like that. He had a helmet, but appeared to be unconsious from where I was, on the other side of the street.
I was appalled at what I saw. Poeple were just standing there, pretty much paralyzed. Nobody did anything sensible, beyond shouting "somebody call an ambulance" and some actually picking up their phones to do it.
Nobody checked if he was breathing, if he was indeed unconscious. Nobody got him into a stable position. Some took his hand apparently made a pathetic attempt to find a pulse.
I was on the other side of the street, and crossing was a non-trivial matter. Nevertheless, witnessing how twenty people were standing there obviously having not the slightest clue how to deal with the situation, I finally made my way over. When I got over, about 5 minutes after the incident, a doctor had also managed to get his way over. I pulled away. At the same time, I could hear the first ambulance, but it apparently got stuck in the traffic.
He was in plain view of several cameras. Did it help him? Not a single bit. If he couldn't breath, those five minutes would most likely kill him, or at least severly damage his brain.
Real security is not about cameras. It is about having people around you that are capable and willing to help. Security isn't about a government or people employed to look out for you. It is about each and everyone of us. Ensure free airways, do CPR if necessary, and don't stop unless a doctor orders you to.
Real security is about every one of us acquiring the skills to help a fellow human in a critical situation. Take a course. Not wait for someone to do it in five minutes. Do it. Now.
BTW, I think he woke up just as the doctor got over.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Perhaps one of the most beautiful programs to come out of NPR, This American Life did a fantastic bit about how people of all backgrounds in Chicago reacted to former Mayor Harold Washington.
h tml
Read & listen to the program at http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/97/84.
My father was on duty at the Northwestern Memorial Hospital ER when he came in on a stretcher; apparently, he was DOA, there was no obvious foul play. He'd been sick for years. Too bad, the guy really got things done. "Even though he was black." (Listen to the program.)
"But always she's the spectre of uncertainty I first endured, then faded, then embraced..."
1. Attach a laser pointer to a tripod and point it into the camera, while hopefully disguising yourself adequately.
:)
2. Attach a transparency of the goatse guy to the front of the camera, taking care not to interrupt the laser for too long.
3. Remove your tripod-mounted laser and go home.
After this, I can pretty much assure you this will be a less than attractive target for bored security guards (after the charm wears off).
Mal-2
P.S. This should work for red light cameras too, and you won't even need the laser. You just have to be able to get to them and you'll be out of their field of view. They're typically pretty far off the ground (to see over cars more than to protect them) and will require a much larger Goatse, but doing this should present an interesting dilemma to the city when it comes time to write up tickets.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
If all the camera feeds go straight to Police HQ where they disappear into vaults forever, they will be, at best, totally worthless and more likely to be abused
It's simple. Have everyone fill out a Freedom of Information Act request for every recorded video feed for a given month, and repeat every month. The act allows you to sue the government if they don't deliver in a timely fashion.
The mob and the Teamsters got him elected. We all know that the Teamsters and every other union scum got out there and had dead people voting.
Pedestrians have the right of way on most streets under 35mph
I love it when I try to cross the street in pouring rain and pricks in their cars honk at me. I'm the one getting soaking wet yet I'm inconveniencing them.
This was the funniest shit I've read all night, kudos anonymous trool.
" 1. privacy violated"
Personally, I won't feel truly safe until the government has fitted video surveillance throughout my house so that if a nasty burglar breaks in the nice governemnt operatives will see what is happening and will be able to come quickly over to protect me.
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Minnesota and Wisconsin get a lot of Chicago criminals. It happened in the '30s during prohibition. It's been happening again with gangs and drugs, and it'll get worse when they turn on the cameras. Sure, it will clean up part of Chicago, but it will just push the problem somewhere else. It's like turning on the lights, and watching the cockroaches run. The cockroaches aren't taken care of, they're just not visible anymore.
On a positive note, I'd think that law-abiding citizens would appreciate the cameras in their neighborhood. Some of these neighborhoods are screaming for help, especially when it's quicker to get a pizza delivered than it is to get a cop to respond to a breakin or a mugging. The hoodlums will quickly leave. The problem just moves elsewhere.
I'd like to see a comparison: NY City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani hired 10,000 police officers, vs. Daley's installation of a big video surveillance system in Chicago.
-- No sig for you!
" you post first."
So, what was your post then?
Fun Fact: $0.03 of spraypaint instantly disables $1000.00 of security camera.
Being in a public place doesn't mean you lose your right to privacy.
The Police State should be dismantled BEFORE it's produced.
I just read about Meigs Field after reading your comment and found it to be really interesting. Read up!
Meigs Field
Richard M. Daley
Because knowledge is power! *shoots self*
I think it would be a great idea, providing anyone could watch it on the internet as they pleased.
...with tomorrow's release of THX 1138 - Director's Cut. If the cops can watch crime as it happens then they'll probably prioritize what they respond to whether or not it serves the interest of the victim. Maybe instead of a chicken in every pot we'll eventually have a camera in every bedroom. I pity the person behind the monitors that will have to watch all this stuff.
Didn't we learn in High School that having a Big Brother isn't neccessarily a good thing? A camera on every street corner is exactly what any totalitarian government wants. Wouldn't knowing that someone may be watching you at all times freak you guys out?
The decision to deploy the camera networks may have something to do with the incident in which the Dave Matthews Band tour bus dumped a load of crap on some tourists taking a river tour. The only proof the city had was some lame video from a security camera. Now they have to test the shit for Dave's DNA.
WANTED: Good sig, funny, concise yet somewhat esoteric.
Ok, everybody's got something to hide.
But in public?
If a place is public enough that cameras CAN be installed, just what exactly are people trying to get away with at that location?
I mean really, people. What are we hiding?
-AC
It is extremely easy to defeat these cameras. In fact, many of the cities that already have their spy-cam setup have been struggling to deal with it.
This tech is everywhere. You can buy several of them in many malls for under 20$
Its called a "hoodie." Its a sweatshirt you wear, and when you dont want to be identified by cameras, you PULL THE HOOD OVER YOUR HEAD. As all these cameras are mounted above human reach, all you need to do is pull the hood over and look down, and the angle is enough to obfuscate the view of one's face.
no
There is Poltergeist-like evil in that place. Downtown's built on an Indian burial ground, BTW, similar to what triggered everything in the movie. I experienced the malevolence myself on many, many an occasion, but the best was when I bought my girlfriend some earrings at the Art Institute. The clerk put them in a box, taped it shut, then put it in a bag and stapled that shut at the top. I watched her do this. Then I walked out to the Planetarium and back to my hotel on Michigan Ave. I opened the box to see the earrings again, and they were gone. The box had still been taped, the bag stapled. They just vanished into thin air.
I'm telling you, there's something that just ain't right about that town, and no number of cameras will ever be able to capture it (except perhaps for a faint distortion somewhere in the images...)
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
How can a burglar rob your house, if it's protected by cameras?
:D
How can you be mugged, if the cameras have you covered?
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
This is the same guy the Dems sent to steal the 2000 election. He failed, but not for lack of trying to count and recount the selected ballots. His family has a long history of stealing elections in Ill. Keep him and big brother up there.
If enough cameras are set up, will they become the new way to look for girls to date? Will this be ChicVoyer.com? See a hot chicago-chick and follow her from camera to camera to her house. Will they mount some of the cameras low, so we can get the "up skirt" view too?
... of David Brin's Transparent Society, which basically says that since we can't avoid being watched, we should also demand to watch the watchers.
I think it's the most positive outcome we can hope for with the trend toward ubiquitous surveillance.
+++ATH0
The St. Louis Police Department is planning to install, if funds are available for the project, cameras within south St. Louis. They see London as proof the concept works.
Everyone please learn to think beyond the most evident problem. I agree a private network would be abused, but let's say we make that network public. What do you think is going to happen to a public recording of a rape?
Suddenly the victim not only has to deal with the horror of having been raped, but has to deal with the embarrassment of having the crime broadcast across the internet.
This is simply a BAD idea.
Hmm...one more victim for that webcam hijacking virus! Maybe that whole traffic control and street camera thing in The Italian Job will actually be possible! Imagine that...
$> man woman
$> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Animal protection activitists would get in posing as buyers to video tape the conditions. Then the activists reported the abuse to the authorities. The puppy mill owners have tried all sorts of legal means to keep the activists out. Longer story short, it is now illegal in Missouri to video record in an animal breeding business without the consent of the owners. So what is the greater good, protect businesses from those who don't agree with their business practices or to protect the right of the public to know and possiblely oppose the business practices?
Daley knows cameras can play a role in crime dectection from experience. He had the Adler Planetarium camera that could be used to view Meigs blinded by a huge light during his midnight raid on the field. The citizens of Chicago should install a camera on Dick Daley to monitor his vadalism 24/7 of city property.
I am just commenting on what was posted previously that chicago is better because it is greener and property values are higher than they were twenty years ago because I have been away from Chicago basically for twenty years and I disagree.
The point of the "credit thing" is that while home ownership is suppossedly higher, it really isn't.
Things may seem better than twenty years ago since it is hard to have perspective on such change over this time period. You are so rushed, you don't even have time to comment on it. I am in the unique position to comment on the past twenty years of change by having been absent since 1983. It's like I just stepped out of a time machine. I have a clear view as being both an outsider and an insider.
I don't know if it is a problem in every city. Places like Portland, Oregon and Provo Utah come to mind when I think of cities that are getting greener. Even Milwaukee which has grown as much if not more than Chicago over the same period of time looks and smells cleaner than it did twenty years ago.
Greener and massive growth don't coincide very easily.
Clark County Nevada is getting "greener" and that is not necessarily a good thing.
The subway is stinkier. Places like Cabrini Green are still there even though the Chicago Tribune reported their demise and most Chicagoans believed they were razed over a decade ago. Sure Chicago is great if you can afford to live on the Gold Coast. Go a few blocks west and Chicago, a Chicago just as real to a much larger portion of its population, is anything but green.
There are worse places to be for sure. But I don't seem to be inclined to buy into all of the rah rah propaganda.
The Chicago Police force is still infamous for its human rights abuses. Jon Burge will probably walk and his cronies won't ever be touched as they collect their pensions without impunity. Maybe the Daley's are just Chicago's Medici family -- a necessary evil.
As far as the cameras are concerned, unless they are truely publicly accessible they will be privatizing public space. They may stop crime but so will more effective policing: get the cops out of cars and on the street, stop petty crime and and really cleaning of the city. The reak of urine and sewage is a real health and quality of life concern.
Things might be getting better in some respects, but it still has a long way to go before I'd use the term 'greener', unless you are refering to the definition implying naivite.
but I think having government controlled cameras everywhere is a frightening prospect. Granted, it is already hard to go any where and not be seen by a camera, this just feels a little too "Big Brother" for me.
As one in the GA community who "will turn red and rant for hours when one goes and mentions Meigs or Daley" (Never Forgive, Never Forget), I agree with all of your points save one.
... well, not pothole per se, but large imperfection) ... but easily treated as a soft-field departure (get the plane into ground effect, and accellerate on the cushion of air to rotation speed before climbing out). I believe the two planes that remained after I departed were both flown out ... one several days later, as the owner had been from out of town and had to get back home, only to return on the weekend IIRC.
... resulting is significant delays over what Meigs once offered. Every patient who dies as a result of their replacement organs taking a few minutes too long to arrive has Mayor Daley to personally thank.
There ware about 15 planes stranded at the field. It costs a LOT of money to have a $250,000 Piper disassembled, shipped, re-assembled and then have the airframe re-certified.
As one of the planes stranded at Meigs following Daley's illegal vandalism of public property (I was the 3rd to last plane to depart the airport), to my knowledge none of the planes had to be disassembled and trucked out. Certainly my stance was that, if the FAA had not made a special exception to allow us to depart the taxiway and my plane had been disassembled, the city would have bought the plane (either willingly, or as an offshot of a lawsuit I was fully prepared to bring). Once the wings have been cut off and reassembled, the aircraft will never be quite the same again.
However, I (and the twelve or so planes that took off before me) took off on the taxiway. It was a bit exciting (the taxiway was bumpy, cracked, and had the occasional
"Murderer" is a good description of the third-world two-bit mobster/political thug running Chicago (wanna bet a Casino ends up replacing the airport, not his wife's pet park project he claims to have destroyed it for). Just ask anyone trying to fly organs into any of Chicago's hospitals. Now they go via Midway, O'Hare, or Palwaukee, then via helecopter
And of course there are the failed rescues you refer to, where boaters who in the past would have been rescued successfully from Meigs drowned in the time it took the aircraft to get downtown from the outlying airports where they are now stationed.
Finally, one should mention how much less safe the airspace over downtown Chicago is (including the Loop and its biggest target, the Sears Tower). Less safe from accidents, and less safe from those hypothetical terrorists we are all so well trained to cower in fear of now. When Meigs was in operation, the airspace was Class D controlled airspace. You had to have permission to fly into it, which meant you had to have permission from (and be in contact with) ATC before you could fly an aircraft anywhere near any of downtown Chicago's big buildings.
Not anymore. With Meigs shut down, the airspace over downtown Chicago is completely uncontrolled. I can (and do) fly my airplane around the loop whenever I please, without permission and without talking to a single controller. Depart VFR from Schaumburg, fly the Eisenhower into the city (staying clear of O'Hare B airspace and Midway's C airspace), and circle the buildings to my hearts content without using the two-way radio once.
Which I do every so often, to show friends the spectacular skyline from close and, and sometimes just to piss of the arrogant little prick who illegally tore up my favorite airport.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy