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.'"
Yes, never prevented anything.
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'
"No, we are fiendly with al-quaeda. We are at war with China"
We have always been friendly with al-aueda.
Oranges and lemons, said the bells of St clemens
When will I grow rich, said the bells of St Patrich
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
... 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?
How are they going to justify the Big Brother system in New York?
But this is progress. As such, the burden is now on those like you to justify standing in the way of progress. Why are you such a reactionary luddite technophobe? Don't you want rapists and murderers to get caught? We should embrace this and all other technologies which will usher in a brave new world...eh...um, yeah!
Seriously though, this is the mentality in a technocratic culture like ours. Tools are worshiped above and beyond any consequences that might proceed from their introduction. For once, I am sort of glad that there are some cranky old men and women sitting on the bench in many places, critical and suspicious of law enforcement and regulatory technology that many others unthinkingly rush to adopt. Many times, admittedly, such elderly crankiness produces decisions that turn upon misunderstandings of the technology. Much of the time, however, their cautious distrust of technology can retard the whole-scale embrace of new invasive techniques and devices for at least a little while. I was pleasantly surprised, for example, when the justices ruled that thermal surveillance cameras of a residence were a 'search' that required the standard warrant and probable cause.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
But they can be used to combat both crime and terrorism. Using two distinct words in one sentence to describe to two different notions is not dangerous. If you're worried about them being contracted to mean the same thing, then maybe you should focus on that, instead of people legitimately using them in their intended meanings? The police combat crime and terrorism - is that dangerous?
...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.
By coincidence? Are you really that daft? The kidnappers weren't stupid. They KNEW there was a blindspot there.
And you actually think Reality TV has any bearing on reality? Most of it controlled, and the rest, merely because they KNOW they are on camera, is altered. And if you're talking about those 'Scariest Police Chase' shows, the narrator makes up most of his 'facts' on the spot. They're even less truthful than the evening news.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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.
If you are the victim, which would you choose? To see your attacker stopped in his tracks or wait for his arrest while lying in the morgue? Mall camera catches 2 men kidnapping woman
This system works well in London. It's like street crime vaccine. :-)
Only people with paranoia don't like it
Whoever modded this offtopic have no clue, and hasn't read 1984.
please mod parent up
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
Actually, I'm not confusing the two. The article is. Presumably you yourself don't know anything about the subject, since you are too.
The 'Ring of Steel' is not a 'a network of thousands of surveillance cameras that line London's intersections and neighborhoods'. It's a bunch of sort-of-roadblocks which are on most vehicle entrances to the City of London - London's financial district, and very different from Central London. By this I mean the road narrows to a single lane with a bend in it to slow down vehicles, and there's a little booth where (sometimes) police sit and watch you. They keep an eye out for suspicious looking vehicles like 'panel vans' or similar which have been used by the IRA for bombings. Often they are unmanned. The cops might occasionally ask you where you're going, but AFAIK there's no routing logging or looking up of number plates.
There are also cameras as part of the Ring of Steel, but just to film vehicles at these ways in to the City. Note that the Ring only protects the City, which wasn't a target either of the 2005 bombings and failed bombings (except in as much that one of the bombed tube trains, the one at Moorgate, was probably inside the City when the bomb went off), nor of the recent failed firebombings in West Central London. It was set up in the early 90's, when the IRA were very active in London.
As for the 'network of thousands of surveillance cameras' that they are talking about, well it's difficult to say because there are a lot of CCTV cameras in London, installed by many different organisations; local authorities, traffic cops, companies on their private property etc. But I think it's a fair assumption that they are referring to the Congestion Charge cameras, since there isn't to my knowledge another citywide network of cameras, other than the ones on the public transport system, which obviously don't line 'intersections and neighbourhoods'. These are at every street entrance to the Congestion charge zone, a much much bigger area which covers every part of London that could be said to be central; shopping districts, theatre district, all main govt. buildings, royal palaces etc. and track the number plates of every single car going in and out. They also cover many, many locations inside the zone, to catch people who got in without being recorded or who live in the zone (they still have to pay). There are also vans fitted with cameras which drive around filming number plates. The data is kept for quite a while, for billing and penalty recovery purposes among others. There are in fact guys who walk around suburban residential streets outside the zone, taking down all number plates looking for people who have been in the zone without paying (I've met one on the job). The cameras are kept on all the time, even though there is no charge after 7:30 pm or in before the morning rush hour.
When the system was set up, the Greater London Authority promised they would not pass on the information to the police. Then they started to allow access to the police to look at the video afterwards if requested. Since the recent failed terrorism attacks, they now allow the police to watch in real time, but only for preventing and investigating 'threats to national security' - they can't use the info against normal crime.
HTH.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
With so much crime-preventing technology everywhere, the criminals will have but one choice: to infiltrate the police...
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
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'm of the mind that you've little right to privacy in a public place.
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.
5 years ago I was cycling home down a side street in London back to where I lived in one of the not so rich parts of town (Hackney) and 4 teenagers ran up to me and dragged me off my bike, kicked me in, and demanded my wallet. Luckily a woman in a flat overlooking the road saw what was going on and shouted down to tell the kids to stop, and I shouted up for her to call the police. The kids got scared and ran off with my bike (incidently, for the first time in my life, I'd like to say "thank you Nike!" - when I was a teenager Doc Martins and steel toe capped boots were the fashion - I am so happy troubled teenagers prefer soft padded trainers for kicking people in the head these days, probably saved me a lot of damage). I got up just as a Hells Angel kind of guy came past on a motorbike and I flagged him down and asked him to chase the kids - well I started climbing on the back before he could say no! and he spotted the kids going into a dark housing block stairwell. For some mad reason I chased them in, and I think they were so suprised to see me, combined with the fact that I was covered in blood and swearing at them and my friendly biker was outside pointing his headlight in and revving the bike engine, that they let go of the bike and I marched outside (phew, laptop and other valuables still in the panniers). Friendly biker drove his bike alongside me until I was back on the big roads and by chance a French couple were cycling past and stopped to check out I was ok and agreed to cycle home with me.
When I got back I reported the incident to the police, and got myself sorted out at the local hospital.
The police had CCTV footage of a lot of the above - but they said the footage was too poor to make a positive identification.
So there ya go. CCTV didn't stop the crime in progress, and it was completely useless to catch anybody afterwards. What saved me from getting completely beaten up, helped retrieve my possessions, and got me home afterwards was a random mix of good hearted locals and passers by.
Keep talking to your neighbours and help people you see in trouble, one day it could be you. I don't know any of the names of the people who helped me - but thanks to all of these kind strangers. Don't rely on CCTV, even when they've put it in, it might be useless.
CCTV in Hackney didn't help me....
No ... Really Kool-Aid, and a lot of us appear to be drinking it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Those people blow themselves up when they attack! What will the cam do but record it for the evening news? Yell at him "stop, or I record you!"?
Cameras don't prevent crimes. No single camera in history stopped a junkie from taking a granny's purse. No camera will ever prevent a terrorist attack.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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 don't think you understand me fully.
My post was directed at the quotation in the description about CCTV surveillance rarely stopping people in the act.
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.
It's always a prevent terrorism vs. protect privacy argument by politicians, but for the most part, this is a fallacy. The cameras can't physically stop people from committing crime any more than the RFID scanners at the mall keep you from shoplifting. It's the threat of those devices alerting authorities nearby enough to stop or apprehend you that makes a difference. In all likelihood, these cameras will be deployed with no additional manpower to do anything in real time with the information. They'll likely just help authorities prosecute crimes after the fact or figure out what occurred (as happened with the London transit bombings). When you ask people about this privacy vs. prosecution tradeoff (if there's anyone left to prosecute), many fewer people respond "put us on camera" than when you claim it can help "prevent terrorism."
The best part is that the system will protect the new Freedom Tower. It's not a Ring of Steel, it's a Ring of Freedom. I don't think we've taken the Freedom Fries legacy far enough. We should have Freedom Checkpoints at the airport, and Freedom Routers to sniff our e-mail, and Freedom Inquiries into our financial records. We spread Freedom all over Iraq and look how well it turned out.
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 ?
and the cops run them
"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'."
Perhaps this guy should start doing his job then. Because strangely, each time MI5 (or whoever does it, the Scotland yard people), catches a terrorist, or anybody attempting to do something bad, we see it on TV, and those images we see are CCTV, which they can use as proof.
"Crime prevention" means that at the end, there is no crime, so its probably difficult for them to arrest and prosecute a long bearded guy who was seen putting a gas bottle in his car boot. As far as i know Anyone can own gas and anyone can have beard - the hair that grows naturally on your face-. However that same guy might move around, and, knowing where he is going, the secret services people or just the cops might install other devices to hear them say "I plan to get rid of the queen" or "hey lets go bomb McDonald's ! ". On another hand the same guy could have a friend who ran out of gas a mile away and just wanted to give him a hand, something one can easily see on camera and think "shit we gat the wrong guy".
Will they also deter public expression (street theatre, etc) and protests in public spaces like parks? One of the great things about NYC is that cool stuff goes on in public -- it would be a shame to see that curtailed. And, quite frankly, Rudi and Bloomy were the two worst things that happened to NYC in a long time.
Fortunately, the other great thing about NY is that all laws aren't too vigorously enforced.
-b.
Time to start wearing a fake beard anytime im outside, just to piss them off.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is getting a little out of hand; painting 7-11s to look like Kwik-E-Marts was one thing, but this is a bit too far. Guys, I've already seen Bourne Ultimatum, don't need this stunt...
geek. lawyer.
FTA "Kelly disagreed, pointing out that it is practically impossible to know what has been deterred. 'We don't know acts that may have been planned that -- because of the surveillance and deterrence systems that are in place -- did not go forward.'"
Good lord, is Homer the New York City Police Commissioner?
Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight! the Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning dad.
Homer: Thank you honey.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: uhuh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: uhuh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Maybe I should try selling my ROCK based anti-terrorist system to all major cities of the world.
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
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.
The vast majority of police work is forensic in nature. So what if the cameras don't result in the suspect being nabbed while the crime is in progress. Whether the suspect is nabbed on the scene or elsewhere the fact remains they were identified and apprehended. Good luck arguing "I din't do it" when the camera has you on the scene and in the act. I don't expect privacy in a public place and if I'm somewhere I ought not to be doing something illegal any right to privacy is, I would argue, overidden by public safety concerns.
Having said that I will guarantee that the cameras inq uestion will eventually be used to track vehicle presence in the city for revenue purposes. Its inevitable and utterly predictable.
IBM
And there is the crux of the problem. You already accepted that terrorism is a crime (civilian issue).
There are portions of the government that treats terrorism as a military matter (Republicans: Guantanamo Bay prisoners are military issue, they don't get civilian treatments like someone picked up for murder would) and others that treats terrorism as a crime (Democrats: Hey, why don't Guantanamo Bay prisoners have habeas corpus?).
You need to be very careful of this dichotomy and read critically into what is stated. When crime and terrorism are identified separately, they're not doing it to be redundant. They're stated as a matter of belief about whether or not terrorism is a crime. For law enforcement folks, terrorism prevent is a matter of public safety. For the military types, terrorism is a matter of target identification so they can blow the terrorist away.
No buddy, I am saying people, building a community that looks out for each other (because alas there will always be at least a few idiots), is the solution.
I am saying CCTV is not the solution.
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.
we'll finally be safe. Now if we could just get a network of surveillance cameras covering every square foot of the United States! That would be great.
expandfairuse.org
Geez... our infrastructure is falling apart and instead of fixing the 80 year old steam lines, sewers, and electric cables it is time to invest in a DIGITAL CAMERA network. At least the odds are that a camera will get a good shot of the next exploding steam line, collapsing bridge, or truck eating sink hole. Well, unless of course the power is out because the electrical grid is down, but I am sure these cameras will have the finest battery backups.
The Department of Homeland security budget has clearly achieved Borg status.
I believe gun crime went up in the UK after they banned handguns.
But yeah, it surely is terrible when law-abiding citizens are allowed to defend themselves. We can't have that. Violence is always wrong, except when done by misunderstood criminals who had a bad childhood. Then it's okay.
I absolutely hate London's spy cam network. I find it sick. I expect this of England historically but i do not expect us to copy them! Didnt we fight to not be like England?
America is dead. I like England in general, so i guess its not all that bad hehehe... I for one welcome our all seeing, all knowing, constitution killing, lobbiest controlled government.
I wonder about countermeasures-- for example, everyone dressing alike and hiding their faces. Presumably they'll have to ban that too, or treat it as indication that you have something to hide. And, unlike London, there are plenty of people in NYC who will be willing to disable the cameras.
And what happens when communities organize and tell the authorities that they don't want the cameras?
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
plain, nondescript hoodies to be the new hot fashion in the Big Apple!!
Just one example, just one, showing how installing cameras in public places would be a bad idea.
There are so many examples of why they are good, yet noone can site an example of how they are bad.
If they were going to pass a law saying it is illegal for citizens to film each other in public, people would be screaming about how horrible it would be, but installing CCTV in public places where it could be used not only for preventing crime, but also as evidence, or for reviewing past security mistakes, is somehow not right?All I want is just one example...
Gun crime in the UK is going up. But the question would be - was this directly due to handguns being outlawed, or are there other factors to consider? Can you prove a direct correlation? What about the massive amount of guns that started moving across Europe after the Soviet Union fell apart?
Gun crime (and injuries and deaths) in the UK is still significantly lower than in countries where guns are commonly available for legal purchase.
In the UK it is legal for "law-abiding citizens are allowed to defend themselves" - you are allowed to use "reasonable force". Very few people ever get prosecuted for using "unreasonable force".
Personally I am glad that our school kids don't have to carry weapons just to go down to the sweetie shop.
Buddy, it sounds like you've never had to face violence and think about it. I have. I didn't like it but I've not turned into a bitter vigilante as a result and I think that's probably a good thing for me and the society I live in. I don't want bloody vengeance. If it's good enough for Gandhi and Jesus Christ and a whole bunch of other folks people seem to respect, it's good enough for me. I think you're full of hot air. As they say, put up, or shut up. Tell me your story.
Anyone else read that as, Steven Swain from the London Metropolitan Police States? ;)
You're dodging the issue by appealing to irrelevant bullshit. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of how much or how little I've experienced violence.
And now you're suddenly talking about vigilantism which has absolutely nothing to do with this.
To those who mocked the camera situation in the UK with 1984 jokes, I would like to say a big "fuck you". Oh, and watch out for the telescreens. Thanks for listening.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
Nobody's stopping you leaving buddy... I believe there are 8 flights a day UK ->USA. What's keeping you?
City Government are not competent to use such a system for any purpose other than generating revenue and growing the cancer of a bureaucracy still further.
I wonder how they plan on keeping the cameras from being stolen? :-)
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
8? There are 4 a day LHR->JFK, and 5 a day LHR->EWR. And I haven't even started on other US destinations or other UK airports with flights to the US.