Slashdot Mirror
Cambridge, Mass. Moves To Nix Security Cameras
An anonymous reader writes "Citing privacy concerns, the Cambridge, Mass. City Council has voted 9-0 to remove security cameras scattered throughout the city. 'Because of the slow erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11, it is important to raise questions regarding these cameras,' said Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge city councilor. Rather than citing privacy, WCBVTV is running the story under the headline 'City's Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands.'"
Where's the tag!?
libertarian: (n) socially liberal, financially conservative; neither left, nor right.
How is this costing money? To remove them? That tv station must be hard up for content.
There Can Be Only One...
Security cameras are just for show - they aren't really useful for anything else than figuring out that somehting had happened and to provide some amusing clips on YouTube.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Perhaps they can put money in the stimulus to pay for removing them and then for re-installing them next time someone gets mugged.
Your rights online? Seriously? This is about the removal of cameras in meatspace. I fail to see how this affects "my rights online".
There is NO expectation of privacy when you are in public. Security cameras, when placed in common public areas are no problem. Heck, I can video tape you all I want on a street corner, as long as it is for my own private amusement.
It good to hear that at least one city council has worked up enough back-bone to stand up to law enforcement on this issue. I hope the Chicago City Council comes to a similar conclusion and convenience Mayor Daley that this is a waste of money and shut our surveillance system down in lieu of hiring more officers, if necessary. Unfortunately Mayor Daley pushes public surveillance pretty hard.
Remove? Um. Simply turn them off.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
They could have said "City's Move To Nix Security Cams May KILL YOUR CHILDREN!"
I mean, remember poor Caylee?
Cambridge MA is full of a bunch of nerds and malnourished artist types.
What's the price of our civil liberties these days?
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Just turn them off! Tax payer money to install them, tax payer money to remove them.
This will at least make it cheaper when the next mayor/council reverse this decision and want to put them back.
Regardless of the debate about privacy, as soon as a mayor or important rich person in the community is assaulted, in a crash, looses a kid, etc where the cameras would have helped, these will get reinstalled.
Might as well make it easier on the taxpayer!
Cambridge, Mass. Moves To Nix Security Cameras
Did anyone else think this meant they were installing security cameras running BSD?
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
In the United States, call signs are three letters plus a prefix letter denoting east(W) or west(K) of the Mississippi river. The type of broadcast on that frequency is denoted after a dash. Therefore the station you are referencing is called WCBV-TV not WCBVTV
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
It isn't stated explicitly, but it appears that the city used part of the grant already to install the first few cameras.
It isn't that the physical removal will cost money, but that they may have to reimburse the feds for the grant money now that they have opted out of the program.
Also, this is not certain -- which is why it "may" cost thousands.
You said it more succinctly than I was going to.
Because it would be easy for the government to cherry pick a few shots of you at certain times and use them as evidence to convince a stupid jury that you broke a law.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - Cardinal Richelieu
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Thought they were moving from windows security cameras to *nix security cameras. Looks like just plain nixing cameras altogether is the best move. Further proof that nix is better than Windows.
a good place to commit crimes in public. Thanks, slashdot!
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Grandstanding reaches new heights!
News at 11
If you dig around long enough, they argue that the real purpose of the cameras is to "help in the case of a city evacuation". The images from the cams suck though. I'd expect better if they wanted to secretly spy on us. Perhaps the only things these will catch is the next group who tries to install LightBrite guerrilla advertising in the Porter Square.
Honestly, I'm not too worried if the Department of Homeland Security catches me biking to work in Cambridge. What I don't like is the traffic cameras that send you tickets when you run red lights. Those suck.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Though I personally am not particularly concerned about traffic cameras, I think I can address one of your points.
The difference between cell cameras and traffic cameras is that traffic camera video is all pooled together and can be used to track someone (by license plate) with relative ease (compared to cell cameras). The issue isn't that the pictures are being taken, it's that there are so many being controlled by one organization.
It's not so much the threat to liberty that's an issue but rather the fact that it can be potentially abused by someone with access to the data.
To follow you wherever you go, I would be arrested for stalking.
Even if I suspected you might be a terrorist.
I agree. Another point which is of paramount importance: who's in control? Why not take the camera's and make them viewable by all, with a backlog of several days? Let people use them as well. Increase social control. Or would this cause some kind of backlash? One could imagine, for instance, dominant insecure alpha men continually tracking their wives as they go shopping and whatnot, while the wives are oblivious. And everyone tells little white lies about where they've been (some not so white, of course). But would that lead to an increase in domestic violence? Or would it mean more crimes would be solved, since more eyes are tracking the streets? Should you take a halfway stance, that only registered users - and ones with a clean police bill - are allowed to use them? My $ 0.02
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
Just a thought, and maybe my tin-foil hat is too snug, but could the local govt find themselves removing these cams because the _police_ didn't like the notion that _they_ might be filmed in public doing things they shouldn't do, like, I dunno, beating protesters? I'm not saying that's happened, but where's the outrage from the police and the protestations that they need these cameras to "protect teh childrenz"?
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
I read nix and thought, "Oh there installing cameras that run linux..."
When they installed them was the headline "will cost millions"? Didn't think so...
No sig today...
Now it might be interesting if by some government mandate that all security cameras (homes, businesses, ATMs, etc.) were banned in Cambridge. As any recordings made by any of these cameras can be subject to subpoena, does it really matter if the city itself is sprinkling a few more around?
So unless they want to mandate that all of these cameras have to be removed, it really doesn't mean all that much. In a busy downtown area you are likely to be visible in three or four cameras at the same time from different businesses. Add a street-facing ATM machine or two and we have quite a few cameras. All with recordings able to be seized by law enforcement at any time.
Do I believe the city can successfully pass an ordinance against privately operated cameras? No, I don't think they have a chance of getting that to stick. The material is too important for insurance purposes already.
So what does this really matter? Probably makes less than a 1% difference.
Sure, the tapes should have a very short retention period (month, year max) to avoid muckraking and other character assasination. Accessing by individual rather than event,place&time is clearly stalking and ought to be punished as such. Unfortunately, oversight of police is generally deficient. But correct this problem, not deprive them of tools.
bceause the "gubmint" is in a conspiracy to frame you
Uh, after enough police scandals, prosecutors knowingly prosecuting innocent people (withholding exculpatory evidence showing that the person did not commit the crime) and D.A.s declaring that they only believe in DNA evidence when it claims a man is guilty but not when it shows that the accused was either of the two men who raped a woman... I think its fair to say that the people in government are more than happy to frame anyone they wish.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Anyone else read the headline and think that Nix was a camera brand and they were switching to them? Sigh long day...
I don't think taking them down will solve the problem. They are there for safety reasons as well and I think this is a good thing. What I don't understand is that since the public is paying for these cameras then why can't the public see through them on a government website?
It would almost guarantee that someone would be looking through the cameras at any point in time. This could lead to a faster arrest rate if any crimes occurred within view and someone were watching live. Also, the public wouldn't have to go beg for video for a car breakin (for example) if it just existed online and they could check.
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
its not *the* cameras, its how and why they are used! where do you draw the line? do you consider this a threat to your liberty? http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/11/localgovernment.ukcrime
damn, where are my mod points to mod you up!
Rather than citing privacy, WCBVTV is running the story under the headline 'City's Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands.'
If you watch the news, any news, most of the folks in "journalism" are liberal and want bigger, more intrusive government. They can play the stupid games claiming they're "main stream" but it is BS and we all know it. The government is the best path, because the masses are stupid and can't be trusted. So why would you expect them to tilt their headline any other way? Removing the cameras is an anti-government/less-government move. Liberal* is not the same as Libertarian, which is what I think the submitter is expecting from the dinosaur media.
While I think /. tends to lean left from the way the summaries are spun to the multiple negative responses I got from a comment a couple of weeks ago saying I didn't want federal gov't to run healthcare - I still get the impression that a lot us in the /. crowd are probably as much libertarian as anything else.
-Horatio
* Liberal, Progressive, Modern, or whatever they're calling themselves these days. I can't keep up.
There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
it's times like these that my heart is restored with a faint and distant hope for "civilized" humanity. but then I remember the extreme and rampant corruption of the federal government don't forget: a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down - that's why they gave us barack obama nothing's changed but the cover of the book now all you kiddies shut up, watch your tv, and drink your carbonated sugar waters. daddy needs more control.
she was the daughter of a wealthy florentine pogen read em and weep was her adjustable slogan
how about focusing on freeing up those granted by the constitution instead of poking holes at a relatively harmless law that isn't in violation of the law of the land? come back around when you've made some real movement in civil liberties and not token gestures.
and you are modded 5 insightful?
i must be some sort of alien, as i can't fathom this sort of paranoia. to me, what you just said strikes of insanity. i really hate to break this to you, but no one really cares about you that much. you're not worth the effort. and neither am i
anyone who IS worth the effort: "they", the government, were they that wrathful, can just fabricate anything they want. such that the existence or lack of the cameras provides no protection either way
the salient feature of your rationale, to me, that is insane, is that the government is some sort of domineering force hellbent on subjugating you for... no real reason at all. just because that's what governments do? funny, i though governments governed
to me, the government is made up of bumbling well-meaning but clueless bureaucrats, not archvile evil mastermind stock hollywood villains, which is the only basis by which what you just wrote has any validity
i seriously question your sanity and those of everyone who rated you up. and yet, there it is: you are rated up, and i am rated down. i am the oddball, not you
i'm utterly awe struck at this
what the hell is wrong with the world that so many people live in such irrational fear of their own government, as you obviously do?
irrational fear, that's all i see in your words. alternatingly hilarious and scary. i fear that so many so-called men are such cowering pantywaists when it comes to the meanign and purpose of their own fucking democratically elected government
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
say something about Stevie Nicks?
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
is a double edged sword
it can be used as proof to exonerate you from frames and punitive blind prosecution in more ways than it can be manipulated to make you seem culpable
if it is the word of the government versus a citizen, the citizen needs witnesses on his side since the government is seen as more credible. i'll take street cameras supporting my version of the story over a scenario of just my word versus the government's word, any day
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Oh hello, this is the UK. I say, would you mind lending us some of your politicians? We'd be very much obliged.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
before cameras?
as if removing the cameras protects you from this pettiness?
the way i see it, the more you record, the more you observe and keep as objective records, the more the truth has a chance to come out in the end
without anyone recording anything, all one has to go on is he said versus she said
and in fact, in this specific case you cite, rather than just some government spook following them around, now we have electronic records of the local government's involvement
in other words, the existence of this snooping can now be used to prosecute the local government, just as surely as ti was used against the citizens
see that? double edged sword
before such recordings, it was just people's words against each other, and the government always gets more credibility versus some random citizen's words
without the electronic records, the government could get aweay with this despicable behavior free and clear
but now, in the end, the local government's pettiness is observed just as much as their creepy surveilance observes
so thank you for your anecdote. it supports my assertions
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The problem is not the cameras themselves, it is that the person who decides what video should be saved and what should be deleted has too much power. A much better solution would be to stream the video from every one of the cameras live over the internet, and allow everyone to record it at will. Then you could rely on citizens to monitor the cameras instead of paid government employees. In a broader sense, it is not laws that piss me off, but rather selective enforcement of laws. As a general rule, any loss of privacy the government forces on us should first occur to the government decision makers. Security cameras should go up first outside the city officials' bedroom windows, at their workplace, and any other location they frequent. Only then should they consider spying on others.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
4 plus million bucks for 8 wireless cameras? Where to even begin with that one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the sort of abuse you allude to exists before or after cameras?
obviously, this sort of abuse existed before cameras, and does not need cameras to exist
now the question is: do the cameras enable this sort of behavior?
i say: it does
so... i am agreeing with you?
no, because now we also have PROOF OF THE ABUSIVE GOVERNMENT BEHAVIOR
where before the cameras, it was just unproveable unaccountable government spooks in the shadows, it was just he said versus she said in the court of law, and the government always has more credibility than some random yahoo being abused
now, we have governments doing abusive things to their citizens (which they did before the cameras) and now we also have DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE ABUSE
your fallacy is you see these cameras enabling abusive government behavior... that somehow never existed before?
no: this abusive behavior always existed, and would exist with or without the cameras. all that changes with the cameras is a solid objective track record of the abusive behavior
its a double edged sword
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Alright, so I may not be posting an popular opinion here, but I *do* think that camera's add security. And I am speaking from experience, too. When I was robbed, the police was able to apprehend the thief by watching the footage of a security camera at the local shopping mall.
Liberty comes with risks, and they only way to negate the risks is to give up liberty.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin
sigh..
Now that you have seen some people in city council do the correct thing, we need to do our part and support them for it, as well as let them know why we are supporting them.
This may easily be used as political fodder against them in the future, and it is our job to ensure that does not happen.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
I often feel stress when subjected to surveillance whether electronic or by officials. I don't have a guilty conscience, don't steal, etc.., and I object to being treated as a potential thief or thug. Volunteering for this in exchange for traveling or buying cheap toilet paper is quite different from being monitored in public spaces.
The cameras in the UK look ridiculous, like a leftover Dr Who prop, but they add a tinge of oppression to the atmosphere. I entertain a theory that excessive enforcement promotes incivility; that when treated like criminals, people are more likely to behave in kind.
Obesity is easily blamed for every bad thing that has increased over time. But why has obesity increased? Much of the increase is due to a redefining of obesity. And why is a person who used to be above normal now obese? Because then we can justify medical intervention at the cost of thousands of dollars. And that's profit, baby!
because the 20-30 odd government employees with access to those cameras are part of a monolithic airtight conspiracy of evil masterminds with the immovable goal of completely destroying your privacy, just for the hell of it
your DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government, believe it or not, is composed of mostly well-meaning dimwitted folk who are, believe it or not, actually trying to do good by you. there are bad apples. but they are not alone, and they are discovered. well-meaning folks make colossal mistakes. but they are also discovered, and the mistakes are cleaned up
no wait, i'm sorry. they are emperor palpatine and agent smith. yeah, that's it. i apologize for shining a little sunlight of reality into your b-grade hollywood paranoid fantasy life about the government out to take away all of your liberties while they laugh maniacally
carry on, ignore me. i'm some sort of nutcase, obviously, for not believing my government is out to get me
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
there is a concept called "discovery". in which the evidence the prosecution or the defense has must be shared with the other party
but why do i think that protects me? they control that to. "they" control everything. its an airtight conspiracy of criminal masterminds. all out to get me!
zzz
more edification for you:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1125851&cid=26834453
mindless paranoia and cynicism is not a valid substitute for real intelligence
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Nice checklist. I missed some of those stories.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
http://www.pumpkin-porn.com/zombies/
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I think you may have hit the head on the nail with that one. These days, it's irrelevant what the public thinks or wants, but about organizations protecting themselves.
I realize this is highly generalized, but it's the view I have of society as a whole lately.
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
...just wait until there's a murder or rape or whatever at a location that -was- once targeted by one of the camera's they're taken down, and ( the victim('s family/friends) and ) the media blow(s) the story up of how they *might* have had something useful from those cameras -- but thanks to them being taken down, they'd now have nothing.
It'll take a real level-headed city council to argue that taking them down was still the right thing to do.
today, madoff is being punished
meaning, wrongdoing is wrongdoing, and will be found, and punished
not: wrongdoing is the permanent unstoppable force that defines how you and i should think about our captalist financial institutions and democratically elected governments
its as simple as this: corruption works in sofar as the people accept it. the more people accept it as a fact of life, the more corruption there is. the less who accept it, the less there is. to figth corruption, you must not accept it. and which of us is arguing for its acceptance here?
the only one in this conversation accepting, and therefore remaing compliant and unprotesting to corruption, is you. i am the one saying it will be fought constantly, and will never be accepted or define our reality. you are saying it will always be there, and defines our limits. therefore, by your acceptance of this evil, you are helping it exist
freedom is not something that once fought for, remains untouchable. freedom is something which is constantly being eroded, and must constantly be fought for to exist, for all time. therefore, i am still fighting it. meanwhile, you have given up, and accepted the loss of your freedom
which means you're a cynical useless asshole. very common and typical. cynicism is never a replacement for intelligence
stop giving into cynicism. speak of hope and beating back corruption, be a fucking man. don't be pathetic and weak and arguing for the acceptance of limits on your freedom. that is all you are doing right now
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
IANAB, but as I understand it, paying off debt destroys money so that's probably the last thing they want to do.
fnord
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
That's not really a problem if you have a lawyer that is smart enough to ask for the whole tape.
The washington city paper has a story on the waste of resources, known as the survelience cameras in DC.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=36798
I certainly know that they have not helped with murders around the block from my house. Essentially, the cameras are never pointed in the right direction at the right time, and have never had the tape used as evidence for court purposes.
Yes, I would prefer they get away. The only way to insure 100% retribution is with 0% freedom. I'd rather walk amongst killers than be treated like one.
.
I agree that this should be completely legal. I also agree that you're just an unbelievable dick. Maybe you should seek therapy to rid yourself of your insecurities.
Rats and stoolies are usually not held in high regard by anyone.
So no government in history has ever subjugated its populace? And if you agree it can happen, why would you think it will NEVER happen again? Because if it can ever happen again, remember the data collected today will still exist then!
Several times.
Shooting the Brazzillian electrician was the most famous one, where the CCTV footage to show the man walking through the barriers not running like the police said went "missing".
yeah, with the way things are going, I looked at the headline and thought it was news because they were installing new POSIX-compliant cameras...
How many fucking millions did it take to put up these cameras in the first place? How much does it cost to maintain them, yearly?
Dumb-ass brown-nosing 1984 loser "journalists" should be asking these questions. They won't.
Nor will they ask whether the cameras have solved or deterred even a single crime. Because they don't fucking care about liberty in the first place.
The fourth estate is basically a zombie wing of the GOP at this point. Reporters and producers may be "liberal", but in my experience they are pretty middle of the road (having personally known quite a few). Editors, owners, and executive producers, on the other hand, are decidedly right-wing. They are rich assholes, aristocrats, and lawyers, and occasionally, rich conservatives (because they like their money) with liberal sympathies who can't understand what actual people are upset about; the rest of them are worse. And they get to decide what gets published or put on the air.
Liberal media my fucking asshole.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Security cameras do not invade privacy. They film people in public places. Anyone seeking any degree of privacy while in public is just plane off the wall crazy.
why not making CCTV public for everyone to view?
Come on, that is such an incorrect title for an article on SlashDot.
Straight away I read it as "Cambridge, Mass. Moves to Linux Security Cameras"
So I thought, what distro? Then read the summary and thought, why would they install Linux, just to remove them.... Oh, I see. "Nix" as in "Remove".
Mod down for bad copy!
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Am i the only one who read the title and simply assumed they were moving thier security camera operation on to a ZoneMinder?
Cambridge, Mass. Moves To Nix Security Cameras
Did anyone else read this as they forget the * on *nix? Here I thought they were changing their security camera's OS's. Huh.
Failure formatting five FAQs of financial facts.
I'm in favor of cameras in public places, because they keep an eye on the police. Police will often lie about what really happened.
Why is it, that the people, who criticize the cameras from two opposing angles:
are never seen arguing with one another?
I mean, if the video is as bad as you describe, why is People's Republic of Cambridge extending all this effort at removing them? They aren't citing the cost of maintenance as the reason — so they don't consider the devices useless — but instead give a (decidedly bogus) reason of "civil liberties".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You guys need to think BEFORE you type. Cops on the scene of a crime need video to see what happened. Shall I make it more simple for you? 'They' don't give a shit about watching you. Most of these systems are not an active surveillance tool IE: No one is on the switch. F.Y.I. no security worker can deal with more then 10 or so monitors at a time. And don't even joke about computer aided threat recognition. As Scary as this sounds the false hits on a large metro system would render the system useless. The idea is to provide information to solve the crime not prevent it or stop it 'mid stream' so to speak.
Go back 100 years, pre-high-mobility and you weren't being watched by police & cameras, you were carefully scrutinized by townsfolk. They had nothing else to do, and rumor and prejudice ran wild. Even the cities had less anonymity.
Between nosy neighbors and police, I'll take police every time.
no camera: hearsay case. word of cop versus word of citizen. end of story
camera: as PROVEN IN THE CASE OF THE BRAZILIAN IN THE UK, now there is a TAPE somewhere which objectively proves official misconduct. that tape is hidden, destroyed? but this is a compounding crime, this is another crime that can be pursued on top of the original shooting! the camera HELPS FIGHT OFFICIAL MOSCONDUCT
ie, you are GLAD the camera is there because it HELPS fight the official misconduct
are you ready to concede? you are in your OWN WORDS pointing to the camera providing evidence agains tofficisal misconduct. so you are HAPPY the camera is there. right?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that cameras in a public place are a good thing. you just alluded to camera tapes popping up and proving misconduct. you just proved what i said, that one random bad apple in the system can't get away with hiding proof. so thank you for proving my point! ;-P
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
in countries with freedom of the press and democratic voting, bad apples are reported, and fought
meanwhile, in places like china, the govt controls the press, and is not held accountable to the people, because there is no democratic feedback. in such places, the will of the people is constantly being oppressed. because the government doesn't represent the will of the people, it only represents the will of the ruling elite
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
by the matrix you-are-nothing-but-a-duracell-battery argument
how can i possibly win against such earthshattering stoner insight into reality?
are you broadcasting from zion?
zzz
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it