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.'"

Comments

suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[A non-mouse Coward]

Where's the tag!?

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[SocratesJedi]

I agree with you that increasing efficiency would ideally end up being a good thing. My primary objection is that the laws are not written to be enforced 100% of the time. Should every single person who exceeds the speed limit by 1 mph even for a few seconds get a ticket? Should every jaywalker get ticketed every time even when there is no traffic to speak of? I'm not too keen to see either of these happen.

Efficiency in law enforcement is great, but I'm not sure the efficiency of our policy makers in writing reasonable laws has quite caught up with our new technological abilities to enforce the law.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

You have got to be shitting me. Guess you don't recall the days when a cop actually walked his beat and knew the neighborhood. Far more effective than these invasive cameras which in practice record the crime as it happens and don't actually prevent anything. Ask our Nanny State British cousins how much they like their cameras.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[StikyPad]

Last I checked, CCTV receives overwhelming public support in the UK, regardless of its effectiveness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/07/ukcrime

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[Psmylie]

"For the most part? We know they are inneffective and almost all are not even watched."

Unless there is a couple making out, or a fine looking woman in a short skirt bending over, then suddenly the person watching the camera gets REALLY attentive.

For those who say that there is no expectation of privacy while in public, I say fine and dandy, that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. My opinion is that there is a huge difference between something being witnessed only by people on the scene and something that is recorded permanently on camera and can be shown to people who weren't there, even many years later.

The difference, for example, of being seen doing something embarrassing that becomes water-cooler gossip for a bunch of people you don't know, which is quickly forgotten, or of ending up on some reality-TV caught-on-tape type nonsense which your kids might see 10 years from now.

Sorry, went off on a tangent. Yeah, UK response to the bombings in WW2 was nothing short of heroic. I wish my own countrymen and women would show the same backbone over the much smaller threat of domestic terrorism. But that's kind of the point. Liberty comes with risks, and they only way to negate the risks is to give up liberty. That's what these cameras are doing, in my opinion.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[plague3106]

IMHO - yes. Then I'd know I can only do 65, instead of wondering if 70 is "probably" okay, but maybe not, but maybe it is, but who knows? I prefer certainty. If it turns-out that arresting people are 66 is too stringent, then solution is to rewrite the laws to make them effective, not to just ignore them or apply them randomly.

Um, no. You'd likely get a ticket just for not letting off the gas enough going downhill. Clearly stupid. Laws which are ignored to be stricken; it's obvious people don't want them, and that they fail to reconize human behavior.

BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy Giuliani cleaned-up downtown New York. It may seem anal, but in the process of arresting jaywalkers and subway barrier jumpers, he also caught a lot of thieves and murderers.

Well, I'm sure we could catch thieves and murders if we just allowed police to randomly search houses too. That doesn't justify making petty criminals out of almost everyone else.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why laws like speeding, anti-drugs, and other issues exist is not to benefit society, but as an alternative revenue sources for states and cities. It saves taxes so locals like the laws and don't want them repealed.

In most states, a speeding ticket will cost about $200, but states like Texas and Arizona also will force out of state drivers to pay $100-$300 a year for three years if someone from out of state gets more than two tickets. This is easy cash from people who are are unwilling or unable to stay around for a trial.

In Arizona, it's common to have a road that has a speed limit of 65. Then a sign stating school zone that is valid at times of day (no flashing lights) and a speed limit of 25. Of course, there are 1-2 patrol cars nearby. This isn't for the children of Arizona's safety. This is to get a $1000 ticket from unwary tourists, plus bail money when the PD arrests the person for reckless driving.

Drug laws are also in place for ensuring revenue, especially forfeiture laws of assets. These laws make money for everyone but the stoner caught with the dime bag. From the attorneys, to the local city who gets a free car or house due to forfeiture laws, to the prison system (which is privatized), it is a whole economy that hinges on possession of controlled substances having very high penalties.

These laws are a proven income source, and no judge will ever rule against them if they want to remain on the bench. In fact these type of laws are multiplying. In 1-2 years, if someone even alleges piracy or IP infringement, computers can be seized and become city property via city means.

Accuse me of sounding Marxist, but laws also serve the purpose of keeping those who are at the top of the food chain in power. Just look at how our dear media industry gets laws and treaties passed (which bypass government checks and balances).

It would be nice to see a paring down of laws to pretty much mala in se laws, but this likely will never happen... too many people benefit from the current system.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[TheLink]

See that's the thing about cameras, they can be useful.

I'm personally OK with having cameras EVERYWHERE as long as:

0) They are maintained by a separate independent organization from the police, and council.
1) Everyone can watch each other, whenever they want.
2) You know who is looking at what (you have to sign up for an account).
3) An secure archive is kept (so if people fake footage, you can countercheck).

Currently the problem with "public" cameras is the public don't get to use them, only people claiming to work for the public get to use them.

There are too many cases where the police/authorities make a mistake, and for some reason the _all_ the cameras covering the incident weren't working at that time.

Re:Costing Thousands?

[Who Is The Drizzle]

The people who are going to be dismantling them and removing them are probably not doing the job for free.

Great News

[chicago_scott]

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.

May cost thousands?

[fahrbot-bot]

Remove? Um. Simply turn them off.

Re:Costing Thousands?

[CastrTroy]

But isn't that offset from the cost of maintaining and watching the camera network?

Re:When will you get it right?

[StikyPad]

Once maybe. If you do it systematically, it becomes stalking and/or grounds for a restraining order.

Re:When will you get it right?

[chicago_scott]

I'm assuming you're a private citizen, so you most likely don't have the power or the resources to abuse this system in quite the same capacity that the government has the ability to. Government and is priorities constantly change.

Re:When will you get it right?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

That's not really the issue, and you've missed the point.

There is a wide gulf between having no expectation of privacy and accepting a surveillance culture.

Re:When will you get it right?

[bagboy]

Then I think the "right to privacy" route is the wrong track to take. Instead, any removal should be based on protections from abuse. Otherwise you begin to trample on "rights" in the other direction, ie. How long before it is an invasion to take pictures in public if others are captured in your image. It's all about a good balance.

Re:Costing Thousands?

[pixelpusher220]

You forgot:

Tell people we're turning them off: $0

Raise taxes to pay for the cost of operating them in secret: $0 (it ain't *their* money!)

Still using cameras to spy on law abiding americans: priceless

Re:could someone please explain to me

[characterZer0]

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

Re:Costing Thousands?

[Hordeking]

Why don't they just deactivate them and leave them in place? That shouldn't cost too much, I wouldn't think...