Crowdsourcing Big Brother In Lancaster, PA

sehlat writes "From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 165 public surveillance cameras are being set up to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition' of volunteers. The usual suspects, including 'the innocent have nothing to fear' are being trotted out to justify this, and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention: 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"

Comments

Re:Following the UK's lead...

[2names]

"How much more freedom do we have to lose before we do something about it?"

As long as people have enough to eat and are sufficiently entertained they will willingly relinquish freedom. Fast food restaurants and television are killing this country.

Lived here for years...

[Anonymous Coward]

So strange to see my hometown on the front page of Slashdot...

The Los Angeles Times article states:

"Perhaps most surprising, the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate about whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy."

I've lived in Lancaster for years and haven't heard a thing about this. I just searched our local newspaper with no results.

There's no public debate because as far as I know this is the first time it's even been mentioned. I saw the cameras go up, now I know the story behind them... thanks to a random mention on a tech news site linking an article from a newspaper on the other side of the country.

I LIVE in Lancaster and I didn't know!

[Kaitiff]

I LIVE in Lancaster, and I had no idea! They said 'the people didn't object' hell I didn't even KNOW! This is such a horribly bad idea... I thought Britain was Orwellian with their surveillance camera system, but to have put this in place and for most ppl to not even KNOW about it.. that by definition is a police state! Outsourcing it to some agency is monumentally wrong. I think I need a pocket jammer system just to go to the public library...

You've bought the rhetoric.

[mister_playboy]

Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?

Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?

Because you have no accuser to confront in court?

Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?

Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue?

Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement (government-only) fines?

Re:You've bought the rhetoric.

[jweller]

1. Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?
2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?
3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?

These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.

In MD at least, the ticket does go to the car owner, and not the driver. The red light camera ticket I saw had only a picture of the rear of the car, and you could in no way identify the driver.

4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?
Citation needed.

this page has 5 studies that conclude that accidents increase
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/

Re:You've bought the rhetoric.

[Anonymous Coward]

it.

4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras? Citation needed.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rear-end+collisions+increase+at+intersections+with+red-light+cameras

Re:You've bought the rhetoric.

[rantingkitten]

These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.

I don't know about where you live, but this is not the case in Atlanta. My beloved Volvo recently died so my stepfather was nice enough to loan me his car for a week while I shopped around. I apparently ran* a red light in his car, and the ticket ended up going to him. The picture was only of the car, from the rear, without any way to see who was driving it. He had to get a notarized letter saying he was not the driver, and go through a bunch of idiotic paperwork, to get the ticket transferred to me. Of course, we're friendly, reasonable sorts, so this was not an issue, but what if I turned around and claimed that no, I was not the driver either? The camera itself has no way of determining who is telling the truth, but the state sure as hell isn't going to just drop the matter.

Furthermore, the issue of "you have no accuser to face in court" is absolutely correct. Many judges agree. You can't just say "Well, it's on camera," because all I see in the picture is the back of a car, which may or may not be driven by me, and in some of these pictures, depending on camera placement, you can't even tell where the picture was taken.

Even if my face is clearly identifiable in the picture, it's still not taking into account mitigating circumstances which a cop might notice but the camera won't. Maybe I saw some lunatic approaching from the rear at 50mph and wasn't slowing down, and decided that getting out of his way would be a really great idea. Or, less dramatically, maybe it's four in the morning, with visibility for miles and nobody around, and I've been stuck at the same red light for six minutes for no reason. I've done that, got pulled over, and the cop let me go because he realised it was absurd. I've seen judges in traffic court let infractions like that slide with similar excuses. A camera would not have been so forgiving.

4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?

Your requested citation, sir. It seems rather obvious anyway -- if you instill into people the fear that they are going to get ticketed, they're going to be a lot more stompy on that brake pedal if there is even the slightest chance they won't clear the intersection. And like it or not, people follow too closely, and do not expect the guy in front of them to suddenly hit the anchors. Maybe the accident will be the fault of the guy in back, but that doesn't chance the fact that an accident occured. The cameras and laws just ignore the mechanical realities of the situation.

In general drivers are not suicidal and will not deliberately run red lights. If there's a problem at a certain intersection with many drivers blowing through the light at the last second, maybe the answer is to adjust the damn timing, not try to profit from it.

* I had pulled out into the intersection to make a left turn, the light changed, so I went. Apparently the state would rather I just sit there in the intersection like a jackass. :P

Re:Nobody expects . . . "The Lancaster Inquisition

[Locke2005]

"Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms!"

Re:Ahhh, Slashdot

[schon]

if the goal is to reduce the number of accidents caused by people driving through red lights, then installing the cameras and lengthening the yellow would be the optimal solution.

No, if the goal is to reduce the number of accidents, the optimal solution would be to install the cameras, leave the yellow lights at the correct time, and install countdown timers before the light changes to yellow so drivers have a good idea of how much time they have to get through the intersection.

That's how it's done in my area (in fact, some intersections have the countdown timer with no camera) and it works pretty well.

Re:No different

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

The embarrassment factor isn't a problem. The blackmail factor is a problem. "Oh, councilman Smith. How are you planning on voting on Proposition 32? Really, that's too bad. I'd hate to see this tape of you and your mistress going into a room of that sleazy motel get out into the public view. ... So you've changed your mind on your vote? Wonderful news."

If there were clear rules on when and why people could get access to the camera footage (only after a crime has been committed, only the footage that covers the area where the evidence indicates the crime took place, and only for official police use in investigation of a specific crime) then that would be one thing. Taping all public property 24/7/365 with little to no control over who can access the footage ... that worries me. Power corrupts, and absolute (surveillance) power corrupts absolutely.

Re:Ahhh, Slashdot

[R3d M3rcury]

You can probably blame insurance companies for this one.

Actually, blame the government and car companies for it. It's actually kind of a fun story.

Way back when, the government mandated that the auto industry come up with some kind of "passive restraint system" for cars. Well, of course, the auto industry didn't like this. So the deal was made--the auto industry wouldn't have to have some kind of "passive restraint system" if the states that made up 80% passed a mandatory seatbelt law.

With that, auto industry lobbyists went to work getting all the states to pass a mandatory seatbelt law. The problem is that it actually was a pretty tough sell. The solution was to make it a "secondary enforcement"--the police cannot stop you for not wearing a seatbelt. But if they stop you for something else and notice you don't have a seatbelt on, they can give you a fine. There's usually no insurance issues, points on your license, or anything like that. So as long as you were a "good driver" (and remember that more than 50% of all Americans consider themselves 'above average drivers'), you didn't have much to fear. But it still fit the criteria of "seat belt law", so it counted.

Now the courts eventually threw out this "deal" and said the auto industry had to provide a passive restraint system anyway. Of course, the laws were already passed and it's tough to get a law repealed--especially a law that "saves lives."

Re:Ahhh, Slashdot

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Just a correction, Minnesota does have a primary seat belt law now. It went into effect on June 9th, so now the police can pull you over for not wearing one. Also as noted by the MPR article the fine is $25 so it sounds like a nice way to close the budget gap for local cities.