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.'"
... 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?
Data is not being logged *now*, nothing is stored in computers *yet*. Which do you think is more difficult: convincing the public to install a public surveillance system, or changing how that system operates once it's installed?
That depends on how the police are regulated. If they have decent civilian oversight, then the recording of data can only happen if the population wants it. It sounds like your real beef is with an unregulated police force that can do what it wants, not with CCTV. Perhaps you should try focussing your efforts on fixing the real problem?
... 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.