Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cameras Help Cops Catch a Killer

Posted by kdawson on from the panopticon dept.

CrazedWalrus writes "Philadelphia police recently captured a serial killer with the help of a combination of Homeland Security and private surveillance cameras. Police examined video from 50 different cameras and pieced together relevant footage from 12 of them, and eventually were able to identify the murderer. Once caught, he confessed to several other murders spanning the past eight years. Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?"

9 of 754 comments (clear)

  1. Same as always by jevring · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because some intrusive technology was used for good at one occasion, doesn't mean that it completely turnes the tides on the discussion. it's still an intrusive technology.

    --
    Move sig!
    1. Re:Same as always by Triggnus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin Smart man.

      --
      The belief that you know a thing is a most perfect way to prevent learning.
    2. Re:Same as always by Keys1337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." -George Washington The cameras won't sacrifice liberties, sadly those liberties have already been sacrificed. The cameras will just do a great job cracking down on those trying to ignore the mommy/daddy state. It will make a great news story when they catch a real criminal but most of the time they will be used to give citations to people drinking a beer on the beach, riding a bike without a helmet, smoking, crossing the street when the light is green and the red hand is blinking. I'm certain just about everyone could be cited for something while driving or walking around town during their everyday routine. The fact that you don't get cited today is not because government is reasonable, it is because they don't have the tools to get a really good grip on you.

    3. Re:Same as always by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The correct answer, of course, is a middle-ground. Video is a useful thing, but there is a line that you don't want to cross, where your life is documented on media that the current power structure maintains and mines. There are things you don't want your government to be able to do, even when it would help law enforcement. Why? Because a corrupt and hostile government (which any government can turn into over time) will use that information to narrow their focus on potential opposition, and eliminate it.

      So, you don't stop corner stores from using cameras, nor do you stop someone from filming their own property, but IMHO, there should never be a time when walking down the street means that you're caught on multiple public and privite video feeds. There's no reason to document my life in that fashion, no matter how many serial murderers you hold up as examples. A serial murderer can only kill so many people... unless they control the military. Serial murderers who controled militaries litter history, and will litter future history books as well. THEY are the primary concern. Any move that prevents the smaller problem by enabling the larger one is NOT a solution.

  2. It is always a tradeoff by YouTalkinToMe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I never understand the comment "with such a good result, can we argue against X?".

    The point is, you can always justify any intrusive technology by pointing to the good results. "If we lock everyone up, there would be no crime! Can you argue against that?"

    We always have to look at the tradeoff between the intrusion on our freedoms and the the results that the technology brings. As for cameras, I think that in some cases/locations they make sense, but that (for example) the UK has gone way overboard. But that is just my opinion.

  3. Re:I don't have a problem. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A real policeman watching the criminals with his eyes can also grab hold of said criminal and stop them from doing the misdeed.
    A policeman watching over camera is just a reviewr for britains worst police movies 74.

    I would rather the money be spent on real policemen doing a real job at policing.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. Public Vs. Private by evilviper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most people don't object to privately operated security cameras.

    As long as the cameras (and personally identifiable data in general) are hard enough to access that they will only be used to prosecute major crimes, most people would be perfectly happy. After all, since the beginning of time, officials could interview other witnesses and find out who was doing what, and when.

    The privacy concerns really come into play when the cameras are online, and easily accessible. Then it's a force multiplier for the authorities, allowing them to track hundreds and hundreds of people with only trivial effort, as well as prosecuting every trivial violation of the law the cameras see.

    In other words, it's not the cameras, it's the databases.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  5. Re:I don't have a problem. by YouTalkinToMe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference is one of quantity and duration. The "policeman watching you in person" will quickly forget if you aren't doing anything out of the ordinary. The camera (potentially) results in a permanent record.

    "But why is a permanent record bad, when I'm doing nothing wrong?". You aren't doing anything wrong today, but what about under the laws of tomorrow? What about if you later become a public figure, and they have tapes of you picking your nose? Is it suddenly a privacy intrusion then?

    Also, with better and better computer processing, ALL of the cameras can be watched ALL of the time. This is a quantum leap above what "the policeman on the corner" is capable of. What if the police had officers on every corner, and were taking notes 24 hours a day of everything that happened, everyone who passed by, etc. Would that make you pause to think? That is where we are headed...

  6. Re:Here is the reason... by lewscroo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, how about if I decide instead of just looking at you for a short period I decide to watch you and follow you around everywhere you are in public? I mean, you are in a Public space, so I have the right to follow you around everywhere you go. And heck, why look at you from a distance, instead I'll just follow you one step behind you so I can watch every detail of what you are doing. Do you not think you would be able to file some sort of harassment suit against me even though all I was doing was simply following you around everywhere you went in public, or get some sort of restraining order to prevent me from being so near you? There is certainly differences between casual observations and direct watching, recording, archiving of everything you do.