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

Transparency

[StarEmperor]

Why is the surveillance done only by "a private nonprofit group?" In a truly transparent society such an array of cameras would be accessible by anyone, not just a select few.

Re:Transparency

[Profane MuthaFucka]

In a truly transparent society, there would be 10 times as many cameras pointed back at the govt. Look at how many cops get caught by private cameras. Look at how cops suddenly forget the rules about citizens being able to photograph any damn thing they want to on public property. That includes terrorist-attractive targets.

In a transparent society, you could photograph the Brooklyn Bridge without having a worry somewhere in the corner of your mind. You could photograph a police office arresting someone without worrying for your safety. And we wouldn't give a rats ass about who ELSE, government or civilian, has a camera - only that we have our own camera.

An example of cameras in our town

[stimpleton]

This seems to mirror the spiel before cameras were put up in the central city park called "the square" here in a medium city in New Zealand. The Square had problems with violence at nights, and really did become a place not to walk thru at night. It was intended cameras would be put in The Square and the police would monitor them at trouble times at night, and the city council would pay(hence it needed selling to the ratepayers).

The ratepayers fell into line very quickly and funding was given, helped by the robbery of an employee leaving working at just 6:30pm.

The first camera was installed at an intersection well away from The Square, not in it. The next camera was similar. More were installed. Then there was a headline, drunk drivers were being caught. It turns out they were turning the cameras to the streets surrounding The Square and watching up to 400m down side streets for patrons to leave taverns and pubs and directing police cars if "staggering patrons got into a car". When asked 6 months later why crime wasn't being reduced in the square the council said "oh, the ones there do not work, they havent been wired up."

A real snow job

Re:Ahhh, Slashdot

[BasilBrush]

So basically, you want to be able to get away with a crime you would be successfully prosecuted for if there was camera evidence. No sympathy.

Re:Following the UK's lead...

[blahplusplus]

"you don't have the right or freedom to do."

Histories greatest struggles have been about men doing things that their societies thought they didn't have the right and freedom to do. See the founding of america, women getting the vote, and on and on.

People don't see eye to eye on principles (see: copyright infringement vs theft), and the idea that there is one superior model to all others is a bunch of BS.

Principles are guidelines only and are subject to change as the environment, people and culture change around them. For instance, many of us can't imagine owning slaves or being able to legally mistreat slaves today as a *right* and a principle of *freedom for the owner*.

What is a right and what is a freedom is determined by people themselves.