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."

Comments

"Mayor Daley..."

[boomgopher]

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?

Re:"Mayor Daley..."

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just one of those Chicago things. Chicago is one of the worst cities in the US in terms of under the table politics and they're kinda like the Chicago version of the "Kennedy Family". They hav ealways been "friendly with the right people and they're very good at keeping the right people around/under them.

The current mayors dad was the one that setup the dynasty in the 60's or 70's, and he did a very thorough job.

Still privacy concerns

[ElForesto]

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.

Re:Still privacy concerns

[Peyna]

If your window shades are open, the cops can look in. If they happen to see your stash sitting on the counter, they have probable cause.

The fact that the witness to the crime is not a person is irrelevant. If the videotape shows that you did indeed run a red light, and the facts are indisputable, what does it matter that a cop didn't see it? Just because a police officer didn't see it, doesn't mean that you didn't break the law.

Re:Still privacy concerns

[lan3y]

Here in the good old UK, there is a CCTV network in the town centre. I've been in the control centre and had a good old play around with it!

Apart from being fun, it was pretty educational. They use some kind of system (I'm low on details) whereby the windows of residential properties are actually blacked out with these worrying black squares when you pan over them.

The black squares appear on the stored video and everything.
Obviously the tin foiled lunatics will still hatch conspiracies about the black squares being removable, but I don't think you have to worry about some security guy jacking off over your sister getting changed :>

Re:Still privacy concerns

[Catbeller]

Actually, I know of a case concerning a camera and a window in Chicago.

I knew a consultant who lived with a couple of roommates in an apartment on Sheffield avenue, directly across from the Wrigley Field (Cubs, ya know) bleachers.

One of her roommates used to have a window facing the closed circuit security camera under the bleachers (don't know exactly where, don't know what kind of camera it was, either). The camera was remotely controlled, and the girl noticed that the camera swivelled towards her bedroom window when it was time for her to undress.

She documented it somehow, and quietly brought it to the attention of the Tribune company. Lawsuit was implied; she got lots of money. The camera behaved itself afterwards.

Now, I can here the rejoinders: "Hey, I'll get a camera to look into my bedroom and make a mint!"

Wrong, totalitarian-society-lovers. She moved quietly, with the threat of exposing the company, and settled for some cash.

Now if she had made an issue of it, the mighty Tribco could have tied her up in court for years, and might actually have won on the basis that she didn't close her shade. Who knows?

Now that these cameras will be everywhere downtown and the North Side, I'm wagering, the test cases will start in a few years, and the city will win all sorts of new rights to look into windows. We're a freaking totalitarian state in Chicago as it is. The courts are bound to Daley, and they support him.

Hell, the cops will be playing with their see-through-walls cameras soon. Do you think that mere visual cameras will be a problem for da Mayor? This man has no qualms about civil liberties. He believes in One Man, One Vote, and of course he has that vote.

Time to leave this damned city.

Re:Still privacy concerns

[Hrothgar The Great]

I'm going to give you the opportunity to actually think about what you just posted. A camera, across the street from your apartment, pointed right at the window of your apartment, 24 hours a day, is not analogous to a cop driving by.

It is analogous to a cop sitting in his patrol car all night, every night, for the entirety of the time you live there, able to examine any activity you perform at any time. I suppose you would feel comfortable in that situation, right?

So, is your apartment or house across the street from a "public place". My scenario is REALLY not all that unlikely if you think about it that way.

Already done

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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.

Using cell phone cameras

[ikegami]

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!)

How is this any different?

[RexRhino]

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!

Re:Privacy in public

[whovian]

here will be chilling effects on our 1st amendment right to assemble.

Camera aren't needed for this. Weren't there demonstrators in the vicinity of the Republican convention who were arrested apparently for no good reason, other than as perhaps a potential threat?

What's the Difference?

[ironwill96]

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.

And again, Chicago

[Trailwalker]

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.

Install cameras, Install extra rights

[t_allardyce]

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.

Only a matter of time for face recognition softwar

[matdodgson]

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!

MOD PARENT UP

[commodoresloat]

Excellent point. If the goal is to deter crime, rather than, say, to spy on people.

Lets clear this up

[ph0rum]

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.

Re:Fuckin' Daley

[wondafucka]

I work in an aerospace firm. We have a really suped up flight simulator with 3 10'x10' screens, a real cockpit complete with a full set of flight deck controls.

For whatever reason, this same flight simulator (or one that borrowed the map)is the default loadout.

Earlier this year, just before a customer meeting, I found out that you could fly the thing using just the throttle and the yoke (I figured you needed extensive knowledge of the rest of the hundred some switches and dials). Initially only one person was watching me, but eventually a crowd had gathered by the time that I had gathered enough speed to hit the diamond head building. The crowd was conflicted between laughing (which they would have done openly, four years ago) and gaping in horror. Someone laughably mentioned that I should go to jail for my act.