Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance Camera Network Coming To New York?
yapplejax writes "New York City is seeking funding for a multi-million dollar surveillance system modeled on the one used in London. Police in the city already make use of the network of cameras in airports, banks, department stores and corporate offices — an arrangement used in cities across the country. This new project would augment that network with a city-wide grid. 'The system has four components: license plate readers, surveillance cameras, a coordination center, and roadblocks that can swing into action when needed. The primary purpose of the system is deterrence, and then an investigative tool.' But is it necessary? Steven Swain from the London Metropolitan Police states 'I don't know of a single incident where CCTV has actually been used to spot, apprehend or detain offenders in the act.'"
the purpose of the network of number-plate-recognising cameras we have across this city isn't to surveil and 'deter' us, but to charge people who have to pay a congestion charge to drive through the city centre at busy times.
How are they going to justify the Big Brother system in New York? Not only do they not have such a fee, but if they did it would be easily implemented by tolls on the bridges and tunnels that are the only way of getting to Manhattan from outside.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
... It has been used many times in the UK to stop crimes in progress. For instance, I saw a TV show where the new speaking CCTV cameras interrupted some guy getting the shit kicked out of him. The attacker realised he was on CCTV and ran off. The camera operator simply followed him from one camera to the next, constantly reminding him he's been videotaped, the cops have his description and are en route, and that he really can't get away. He was caught. CCTV is a great technology. People are hesitant to accept it because it can be used inappropriately or illegally, but then so can any law-enforcement technology - does that mean we get rid of police cars, police helicopters, police computers, or even the police themselves? Shooting society in the foot by refusing to tackle corruption when it occurs, and instead taking the easy route of just crying foul when inherently useful technology is made available, is not helping anyone. CCTV, at its worst, gives police a way of seeing a recording of a crime that has happened, and at best gives police a view of a crime in progress. If the problem is the police might mis-use it, then your problem isn't with CCTV but the police. It would be in society's best interests to fix the problem, not limiting the police's efficiency. The cries of "1984! 1984!" are woefully inaccurate, as these cameras are not in our homes, but in our streets, a place the police are 100% free to go. The police have a mandate to use all available technology to protect the public - CCTV is just another tool in the toolbox.
The article says, "Police officials say the surveillance cameras can help combat crime and terrorism..."
When you start using "crime" and "Terrorism" in the same sentence to justify the actions of government, I think there's a big problem on the horizon. How long will it be before the two are used interchangeably?
...the only people I've ever met who were genuinely keen on these systems were police officers and the guys who sell these systems.
The term "do-gooders" comes up a lot in converstions with them, and never in a positive way.
Personally, I only object to the redundancy. Saying that the police will combat 'crime and terrorism' is just like saying they will combat 'crime and murder', or 'crime and counterfeiting', or 'crime and burglary'. Terrorism is just one of many crimes the police are expected to combat, so saying 'crime and terrorism' is redundant.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Not quite correct. Terrorism is subtly different to crime, in that these two behaviors are treated differently with respect to operational methods and policing powers.
Expect to see the defined set of terrorism behaviors gradually supersede that of crime behaviors. As sure as a over-sized violin, you'll then be dispensed with any perception of redundancy: You'll only need to refer to terrorism.
I also find it amusing that people always bring up 1984 in regards to CCTV when the main point of 1984 wasn't the surveillance but the use of propaganda and a false war to keep citizens in tow.
Apparently we have that problem as well.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
... the criminals will have but one choice: to infiltrate the police ...
... that's always been the case. Either they infiltrate the police (difficult but not impossible) or, more commonly, simply buy them off or blackmail them. Either way, cops are supposed to be held to a higher standard but frequently are not.
... is it worth the economic and social costs?) but it will have little effect on the big boys. We could probably get the same effect on the small-time hoods by just putting more cops on the beat, and it would probably cost less money and have less impact on privacy. I don't know, but the blanket assumption that "cameras=less crime" is as unproven as "fewer guns=less crime". I don't trust anything anyone says on either subject, because everyone seems to have an agenda that precludes honest and rational discourse.
But
Widespread surveillance may have a positive effect on petty crime (or it may not, I've yet to be convinced either way, and even if it does
What will probably happen is that the State will find a way to monetize privacy. Don't want a camera in your home? Well then, you'll have to pay a Risk Tax, because, well, everyone knows that people who live unmonitored lives are more likely to commit crimes, and those people should be forced to pay for the social costs of their privacy. Or something like that. I know, go ahead, laugh. Make jokes. But that's the kind of mindset that rules our government(s) these days. I know this is America, but I've long since shed my comfortable belief that bad things can't happen here, because too many of them already have.
Really, it's time to take the rose-colored glasses off and see the people in power for who they truly are. It ain't pretty.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Privacy is a right based on defending yourself against prejudice and [info]predators. It is not any right to break the law. There is no right to break the law if you won't get caught.
In a public place, a reasonable person has no expectation of privacy and ought to conduct themselves to public standards. There might be an expectation of anonymity in our modern big cities. Historically unusual and decried. While anonymous writing is protected (but can be pierced), anonymous actions cannot be without lawlessness.
I think a massive surveillance camera network would create a safer, more open society so long as one key condition is met: the public and the police share access. I should be able to hit nyc.gov and view any camera at any time, including past recordings. Give me that and the police can install as many cameras as they want.
There is no question that CCTV recordings have been useful in the prosecution of crime here in the UK (just go down to the average court room and see how often CCTV is used in evidence). Occasionally cameras have detected crime in progress, and allowed dispatch of police. And ANPR (automatic numberplate recognition) cameras may help with detection, deterrence and intelligence.
The question is, at what price ? Is the erosion of our liberty (our right to go about our lawful business without the state intruding) acceptable ?
Are these powers ones that we would trust the state with, no matter who is elected ?
>I also find it amusing that people always bring up 1984 in regards to CCTV when the main point of 1984 wasn't the surveillance but the use of propaganda and a false war to keep citizens in tow.
The main point was that if you give the government that much power over your lives, they will abuse it. The surveillance *was* one of the main points - you never knew when Big Brother was watching for subversive activities.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The reason I made the distinction is because "terrorism" and the so-called "war on terrorism" isn't just a local police issue. It has the force of a huge bureaucracy (DHS) as well as the military behind it.
The problem with security cameras lies between the chair and the keyboard. One operator can watch up to eight monitors displaying nine images each for up to twelve minutes. After that he'd better take a half hour patrol, because his brain's mush. Your example is one of those rare moments of serendipity where everything worked. It's not likely to be repeated more than a couple times a year. By the way, very, very few CCTV cameras are installed with audio features unless the vendor happens to be friends with the purchasing agent and so can ramp up the price.
Analysis software is still considered bleeding edge technology, and as such doesn't work well most of the time. It's good for a situation where lighting is constant, activity is regular, and backgrounds are plain. In other words, it works well for finding people loitering in stairwells, and sometimes prowling parking garages, but is useless on a city street. I know this for a fact, since one of our customers just coughed up $50,000 for the top-of-the-line system to automate 130 of their cameras. After three months of tuning it in (by the manufacturer, not the guards) they've turned off monitoring of 3/4 of their cameras because the false alarms were constant and the actual incidents were getting missed.
By and large, I'd have to say that NYC is jumping the gun on this technology, probably by about a decade.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Carrying a concealed firearm is not an automagic "get out of street crime free" card, you have to know how to use it (under stress, not shooting at paper at the range on a sunny day), and just as important, when to use it. You cannot go kneecapping anyone who makes you nervous on the street, but you also do not want to wait until you are getting pummeled when it would very easy for one or your assailants to disarm and shoot you.
Also, let's not for a second pretend that the police, media, and public would view you as a hero for shooting a kid in the kneecap. After all of this friends testified that they were on their way to volunteer at the homeless shelter and this angry mean bastard on a bike tried to molest one of them and then shot him in the leg as he tried to escape, you would be vilified in the media and possibly facing hard time. Ironically only video cameras would be able to exonerate you (unless you had witnesses, but street thugs tend to avoid place with lots of witnesses).
Point being, if you are going to carry a gun, get lots of training (should be mandatory). It should be more/better training that police officers get. I've been to ranges with many of them and their safety practices and general incompetence regarding their sidearms is often downright frightening. Also assume that if you do fire on someone, you are going to spend the rest of your life in jail (makes no difference if you are in the right or not). So do not do so unless it is a matter of life of death (not bruised ego).
Finkployd
In order to these network of cameras prevent terrorist attack, the police should already know a suspect face, a suspect license plate, etc. to trigger an alert before the disaster.
Needless to say, that suicide bombers will be most likely not on a watch list (if they are there already, they are supposedly more closely followed anyway). It's easy to rent or buy a vehicle totally legally - again there is nothing to raise the flag before. Again, if there is a specific intelligence on specific persons there are much better ways to track them than generic surveillance network.
Most importantly, cameras won't work to prevent suicidal terrorist attacks as a deterrent: the terrorist plans to die anyway, there is nothing to deter.
It may help to investigate after the fact - but the terrorist should be really stupid to get on tape any outside connection beyond the suicidal cell members.
What camera networks can do is to catch petty criminals, deadbeat parents, people who owe taxes, spouse cheaters, etc.
Camera networks won't be very useful to prevent suicide bombs to go off. They are priceless though to make the public believe that the government does everything to protect the nation, they are priceless to award some businesses with great contracts, financed by the public.
Most importantly, the images camera networks collect from suicide bombers are priceless when it comes to get them on television networks, where they are going to be played over and over again to condition the public to feel threatened and get public support for easier ways to limit freedoms.
Thanks but no thanks pal. I'd not carry a gun even if I was allowed, and I'll vote against any law that says people should be able to carry guns. We have too many guns in the UK as it is, and I don't think the solution to violence is enabling everybody to hurt each other even more.
If you could get those teenagers found, I'd not turn round to the police and say "please kneecap them". I don't think that will solve the problem. I think that way you end up with somebody who is less likely to get a job because they are disabled, I will have to pay their disability support and hospital fees for the next 30 years out of my taxes, and they are more likely to be a drain on society rather than a positive contributor, they are more likely to turn into a f*cked-up psycho of an adult.
If punishment is required, punish them with something that helps the local neighbourhood rather than costs the neighbourhood money. Get them to do some community improvement work.