Slashdot Mirror
Cameras Help Cops Catch a Killer
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?"
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?
In 2005, there were 16,692 murders in the United States. (link)
In 2005, there were 43,200 deaths due to car accidents. (link)
It has been shown that cameras increase car accident rates by between 7 and 24 percent. (link).
So, you tell me. With results like these, is there really a good basis for argument FOR these cameras?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
You have a guy in prison.
He'll tell you where the bomb is if you let him fuck your daughter.
So he fucks her and the bomb doesn't go off at the Lakers game.
With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against pimping your daughter?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
>You can't be tried for a law that doesn't exist. IANAL, but if it wasn't against the law when you did it, you can't be arrested for i
Correrct, but to continue the silly example... if they passed a law against picking your nose in public, and folks later saw video of you doing it, even though it was before the law went went into effect, there might easily still be consequences. You might not be arrested, but you rneighbors might watch you more closely now, and now that you're known to be "bad", that time you accidentally tripped into their Azaleas now looks like an intentional act. With just one largely irrelevant piece of info, alot of local damage can happen.
> These cameras aren't there to catch public figures picking their noses. Straw man, anyone?
Just because it's not intended to catch the nosepicker now, doesn't mean it won't come in handy later.
The poster's point is that while it is a privacy intrusion now, it doesn't feel like it; though it very well might feel like one in a later circumstance in a different light, so it will feel more like one later if you are the "lucky" one.
And yes, nosepicking isn't the greatest example, but it really doesn't matter. You can pick any action that could be looked upon poorly in some light at some point in the future.
> How does having better computers provide the manpower to watch more cameras?
The computer could recognize the person on film, and learn to recognize certain sorts of questionable activities. Now the computer only brings up a screen when something potentially fishy is going on. You've greatly amplified the usefulness of one human with the power of computing.
> What if the cameras are only there to watch for criminal activity? What if all other activity is disregarded? Does it make you pause to think that maybe you're a tad paranoid?
I ended up spending over $50k defending myself against a lawsuit whose only reason for fingering me was that I showed up on a nearby camera. Since judges often give wide latitude when deciding whether a plaintiff's case is frivolous, it was decided that I had to pay my own defense bills. Even if I was awarded the costs it wouldn't have mattered since the plaintiff couldn't afford it. (She's a paralegal, and thinks herself an attorney so she just filed and filed and delayed and delayed and demanded and demanded, etc.)
Had that camera not been there, or had she not have been able to illegally obtain the evidence (which turned out not to be used officially, but she used my location and time to find people who had seen me there and got them to say I was around... so throwing out the evidence didn't matter), I might still have some savings, and not have as much debt at the moment.
Was the camera setup to catch me? no
Was the camera setup to to allow her to watch surroundings? no
After the fact, she found out I might have been in the area, she was harmed in that area (and I am friends with her ex), so therefore I must have caused that harm. Did I do it? no
Did it cost me greatly? yes
Was law enforcemnt involved? no
Would existing laws preventing law enforcement from using these cameras for any purpose have protected me? no
It even cost my dad around $5k to defend a suit against him, since someone called her office within a few days that remotely sounded like him. (and since the camera "proved" that I harmed her, he must have been in on it)
And it cost my friend(roommate at the time) over $10k to keep custody of his kid, because since he was still friends with me, he must have orchestrated the whole thing, and therefore the child was in danger.
And neither of them even appeared on the recording... they were tagged just because they knew me.
Am I a little paranoid? Hell yes!
Does that mean someone's not out to get me? Hell no!
Being safe isn't a boolean true/false dichotomy. Safety, like security, is a matter of degrees, each degree costing us geometrically more than the last degree. At some point you are face-to-face with the Law of Diminishing Returns.
The problem with anything measured in degrees is that we won't always agree on when the limits are hit. Put differently, exactly how many lives must be quantifiably saved before it becomes worth it to see the government put a camera on every street corner? Everyone has a number. For me, the number is higher than that which I think this one serial killer would have killed. It's higher than the cost in lives of 9/11. It's not higher than the cost in lives of, say, WWII, however. Before I saw that many people kiled, I think I'd agree to the cameras. It's always a matter of degrees. My tolerance for risk is higher than most. I don't, for instance, see loss of our liberty worth it when traded for safety from terrorists. Perhaps it's becuase I underestimate what they are capable of. Perhaps not. Either way, the original question is a good one, but inevitably one that we can only answer for ourselves. I guess the beauty of our democracy is that in answering for ourselves we come to a jagged consensus that lets us make a communal decision and move on. It's worth noting that sometimes that consensus doesn't mesh well with our personal ethic (C.f., abortion, stem cell research, the war in Iraq, seat belt laws, and street corner government cameras). In the end, all we can do it make a personal decision and cast our vote. For my vote, I'll be pushing away from street corner cameras. If I'm on the losing side of the issue...well, it won't be the first time.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
Murder rates do not correlate with the availability of handguns. For an enlightening look at the history of gun control in the UK, read Fear and Loathing in Whitehall: Bolshevism and the Firearms Act of 1920 (PDF).
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Quotes are nothing but inspiration for the uninspired.
- Richard Kemph
Do not underestimate the power of the dark side of famous quotes.
- Bill Austin
No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture.
- Learned Hand
I like this whole quote thing!