Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.
Crowdsourcing Big Brother in Lancaster, PA
Uh, I read the article and it sounds like 10 self-appointed people running the show with 12 volunteers. How in the hell is that crowdsourcing?
... one operating outside my elected official's jurisdiction would be a true horror show.
Don't even get me started on a who will watch the watchmen rant. Such a monitoring activity operating at all upsets me
My work here is dung.
'the innocent have nothing to fear'.... What the hell is that crap? When did that become the rally flag for the loss of freedoms? Next they will tell us that if they don't get these cameras, the terrorist win.... Oh wait!
"Jack Bauer Likes Surveillance Cameras." Well, duh.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
"'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.'""
Sheize: Ugly things are happening across the earth.
NO SIG
I'm sure it's not hard to find volunteers for this sort of thing. Anyone who is nosy/power-seeking/voyeuristic would enjoy watching these cams without pay.
How much more freedom do we have to lose before we do something about it?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
'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.'"
The ends don't always justify the means, Jack. How many people have to be tortured to death during an interrogation before you realise that.
So, what's the difference between this and a neighborhood watch? No, seriously, I'm asking.
There's a lot wrong with instilling fear, when you could be instilling responsibility. It all depends on how these are used - if you ask me it's too easy to abuse.
Queue snide remarks below.
Are you kidding? How about hope; love; tolerance - the greatest attribute of any civilization; freedom.
How is this different from being watched inside the store anyhow? We are always being watched no matter where we are and sometimes we don't even know it. Sooner than later, this will become the new norm, where scaremongers will run the state/country/world in the name of protection and the few people that object will be dealt with in the manner appropriate to the "law" of the land. We can fight it, and hopefully will keep it away for a couple of years.
You've got to keep an eye on those Amish. You don't want all your quilts and "As Seen on TV" fireplaces to go missing now, do you?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
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.
just put the camera feeds on local cable TV so that everyone can contribute..
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised (assuming the kids live in a nearby neighborhood). i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid, and i'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.
they ought to make the feeds publicly available, so parents could watch what is going on, as well as allow for residents to watch parades, public gatherings and other things from home.
people who get all pissy about this stuff make no sense to me.
...they should hire Amish sketch artists to monitor those of Pennsylvania Dutch persuasion.
If you ride through Lancaster, you are far more likely to run into a horse and buggy than you are a security camera.
This is my sig.
So no free as in freedom OR free as in beer?
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.
In the old days, you could get tarred and feathered for that!
welcome our new community based, volunteer overlords.
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...
If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
A chilling quote:
"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief. "It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues."
I am not sure "funny" is the term I would use to describe the change.
But then again, I for one welcome our new...actually I don't, screw them and the fear they rode in on!
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
When I first saw this I thought: "Great! A bunch of people are getting together to put the kibosh on this insane Big Brother scheme."
How wrong I was.
Instead we have a group of volunteers with dubious accountability and no public access to the video feeds.
If no one is around to see me running around naked, is it a crime? Because the camera is there watching, it could be. What if I pee on a bush? If no one is looking it wouldn't be a crime, but with camera's watching everywhere... And what about the children? What about those toddlers running around or getting their diapers changed in public, would those now be child porn? If it is child porn, who is responsible?
Living in an open society with 0 privacy would be ok IF the only things the camera's would be used for were theft and assault. But since our society seems to think it has the right to decide what is morally ok and put people in jail for things like having sex and doing drugs, it is not and never will be ok. When society gets to the point where I can shoot crack on the courthouse steps while having sex on the steps screaming racially degrading remarks and preaching the truths of the noodle god and nobody care, then and only then will camera's watching our every move be a good idea. Until then some prude with their panties in the wad is going arrest innocent people for child abuse, lewd conduct, or a number of other crimes that really aren't crimes just moral impositions on society.
"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
"Fear . . . and surprise!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
We need cameras in Lancaster. (I live here) Amish people are criminals too. Some Amish deal drugs. Drunk drive and stuff.
Sig? No thanks. I don't smoke.
"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"
-Benjamin Franklin
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
And thus, the free republic was ended soon after.
I think massive anonymous recording might actually be good thing. We're already in public and people are looking at us and potentially filming us anyway. Google street view seems like a good thing. Consider when a crime actually happens--say a group of renegade cops clubbing some innocent mentally ill person for jollies or a person shot or killed in a robbery. That video could be useful in court. Some years ago I picked up some trash off a sidewalk and tossed it in the nearest dumpster--it was behind an open gate on the private property of SCE. A guard spoke on a speaker and said "Thank You". Almost soiled myself...that was 1996...
Just the name Jack Bauer instils fear in broke Pennsylvanian caffeine junkies looking for their next fix.
--------------------
I spell differently.
That seems to be the situation we are faced with. You visit the liquor store three times in one week and the cams note it. But who cares? If you didn't do anything bad. But wait until some lawyer obtains the camera footage to destroy your reputation in court over a totally unrelated matter. You'll think differently then. This whole thing is creepy. In the UK you can't wear a hat or hoody in a pub because the mandatory spy cams can't make out your face and the watchers don't like this. Very creepy.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
I all for public surveillance only if we, the private citizen also get to have cameras on those who are doing the surveillance. Only then is it completely fair. Public surveillance is inevitable, just like we see in the UK...we might as well get used to it and make sure that the playing field is equal, that the government doesn't have a leg up over its citizens.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
... are your three main weapons?
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
But....Jack Bauer...my other fictional moral compass says that "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." I'm so confused!
The problem is not monitoring itself, it is selective monitoring. If these cameras make the video available over the 'net for anyone to see and record, than it cannot be used to persecute some people while protecting others. I also firmly believe that whenever a politician advocates the installation of monitoring cameras, the first camera installed should be aimed at their bedroom window and the video made freely available to everyone. If they don't have a problem with being treated that way themselves, then nobody else should either.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The story of Adam's Block is instructive. Someone set up two good high-resolution cameras looking out at a high-crime area in San Francisco's Tenderloin, and put them on the Web. Viewers could comment in real time, and log interesting events for later interest.
The drug dealers were angry. There were death threats. The camera owner finally had to take the cameras down and move.
I work in Lancaster (off New Holland Ave) - I believe one of the cameras is mounted on my building - the lot it overlooks has random car window smash & grabs every couple months, due to the close proximity of a high school. There has been no discussion about the monitoring system at all as far as I can tell.
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?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
...when you can just go smash 168 expensive security cameras. Maybe even send some volts down the wires to fry the gear on the other end. Maybe just destroy and vandalize the hell out of the private businesses who support this and allow the cameras on their property.
Money beats Moralizing every day and twice on Sunday. Make snooping expensive for the snoopers.
Many areas use cameras sitting on top of the red lights to activate them. They don't record, they simply detect motion. Those of us who ride motorcycles are rather appreciative of that as induction loop sensors (those cuts you sometimes see in the road at intersections) usually don't work for us.
SIG: HUP
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
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
That is... if it breaks the news. Consider the journalist with this story contacting the major for a comment, and getting this message: "Publish this and we will publish the video of your wife going to the abortion clinic."
"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," -- Jack Bauer
O rly? Allright then:* I will come over, catch you, and rape you for one week straight. Including your whole family. Then I will burn down your company. With you. Veeery slowly. And piss on your grave. Then I'll start the really sick things.
Do you really think there is nothing wrong with saying that?
REALLY? ^^
* This paragraph is there for demonstration purposes, and does not reflect my personality in any way. I don't think I have to mention this. But I know some /.ers are really *weird*. :)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
'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.'"
I nearly choked on my coffee when I read this. I wonder if Jack Bauer thinks anything is wrong with instilling terror.
Mind boggling.
Step 2) Run facial recognition for someone you know. Step 3) ... okay, you see where I'm going with this. But honestly, what's stopping someone from running recognition software on this puppy in order to spy on someone?
Actually, I think this is a pretty darn good idea - private citizens looking out for each other, using technology to do things that before would have required a much larger dedicated group.
Optimally they'd let anyone see the camera feeds, but at least it's not the government
I don't see this as being any different from other neighborhood watch kinds of effort, where a community comes together a little closer to make everyone a little safer by simply knowing what is normal and not just passing by if something funny is going on.
People who are afraid of cameras need to read David Brin's "Earth".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Thankfully, fast food and television don't have sustainable business models, long term.
The problem will correct itself, as the fast-food-eating TV watchers die off, to be replaced
by quick-thinking vegetarians who will outlive them.
"Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I could see checking security cameras in an area when a serious crime has been committed there, but why watch when nothing important is going on? Are we gonna need to supplement public restrooms with booger picking and butt scratching areas? or will there be cameras there as well? What kind of freak can watch people going about their normal business for hours on end without croaking from boredom?
Those of you who are local and want to put a stop to this by legal and ethical means, get in touch: stopthecameras@mail.com
And not just the ones in the article, but ALL camera feeds for public places should be on Internet. If the public don't have anything to hide, neither do the police/officials, etc.
I enjoy the "security" they provide, but they are eye sores on our beautiful antique buildings. I should walk around and take some pictures of the monstrosities attached to brick walls and lamp posts...
Think about that for a moment, if you will. Would you let me follow you around, wherever you go, as long as it is in public places, of course, and not private establishments. I.e. I wouldn't follow you into your house per se - though I might stand at the side of your house on public property and catch a glimpse of you through your windows (you do have curtains, right).. I won't follow you into your place of occupation presuming that's a private company, etc.
I will follow you around the moment you leave your house, go into the street, get into your car, follow your car around, follow you into the library, check which books you're checking out, follow you into the pub, follow you out the back door that you might otherwise use to leave quietly, follow you all day long.
If you are not okay with that - then you shouldn't be okay with 'security camera' footage being shared between random individuals - or even the world - who have no business whatsoever seeing the feeds from those cameras, and being able to piece them together. Because that is -exactly- what the cameras allow, given enough cameras.
It's bad enough that some governments do this - but at least they have some limitation as to what they can do, what footage they can request from non-gov't cameras, etc. (for now, anyway). Like it or not - the common man is far more likely to abuse such a system (vigilantism, etc.) than any reasonably benign government is.
they are a COA... putting to shame what HOA's do to people all the time. So how far down the road before we have enforcement of "community standards"? It isn't who is monitoring me that concerns me most, it is who decides what is monitored and what is reported. Who has access to what is recorded and what rights to those recorded are afforded them? Though I do disagree with you in one regard, elected officials tend to be above the law meaning that you have little true voice. At least with a "private" organization you can have the government be your watchdog over them and their actions.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Come on - that HAS to be a pseudonym!
I was in a chip shop in Manchester England late one night when some young thugs tried to start a fight because a fella objected to them jumping the line. They said quite openly that the only reason they didn't beat the head off him was because there was a camera pointing at them. This was in the same year that some poor night clubber was beaten to death in an early morning disturbance over a bag of chips (French fries). Manchester has a vibrant nightlife, but it is heavily policed and I was always grateful for that. Do not underestimate the power of drunken people in large groups. Without some innovative approaches to law and order, it would be impossible to have late night bus services and the thriving club scene.
It's all well and good living in leafy suburbs where crime is almost unheard of and declaring that survailance is an unnecessary restriction on freedoms, but some people live in areas where this kind of thing is needed.
In her seminal book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs described how the design of city streets can influence crime levels. The presence of other people on a street, or the perceived presence of people who might be looking out from their windows, is enough to keep crime at lower levels in residential areas. Deserted areas such as back alleys, sprawling parking lagoons, or empty retail or office parks late at night, are all much more dangerous. The design of many American cities in recent decades has seen some short-sighted car-centric planning methods that has led to an increase in the number of these dangerously barren areas. In an ideal world, these single-use zoned areas would be retrofitted into mixed-use zones where there is a permanent human presence. In the real world, cameras are the next best thing.
Older cities like San Francisco have much of their area populated at all hours of the day and night because they were built before the days of single-use zoning. Is the presence of people on the street a curtailment of civil liberties? What's the difference between a camera recording an incident and an eyewitness who can later give testimony? The only difference that I can see is that the camera can't be intimidated and doesn't need to be put into a witness protection program.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Fear is never a good motivating factor! I am all for private CCTV cameras to protect people and property. I am NOT in favor of government surveillance. If you want to hire a private firm to watch your property and relay the information to the authorities, by all means, please do. But if you allow government to do it, you have just given up your right to privacy. Once you give up a right, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get it back. Look at what the Patriot Act did to our freedoms.
If stuff like that shows up in my neighborhood then I'm going to build a IR & LASER camera blinding system. Anyone want to help with the design?
Or as was brought up on The Obama Forum
"If people don't have anything to hide then they shouldn't be worried, prove that you're innocent by having a camera in your house."
http://www.theobamaforum.com/showthread.php?t=11257
1) Flood the volunteer lists with people who will sleep, facebook or otherwise not watch the cameras. Old school denial of service attack.
2) Install cameras in the monitoring center that gets monitored and shared with other monitoring centers. See if people seeing themselves creeps them out.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
LOL! That was funny. I think you've just stated succinctly, the point I was trying to make earlier.
I have a rock that keeps tigers away. Haven't been attacked yet!
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
So, to summarize the posts that resonated with me, and my own impressions:
It's too bad they're NOT crowdsourcing Big Brother. If the camera feeds were open to all citizens, with a system in place to track and lock out inappropriate uses based on votes from other citizens, there might be an argument that this is equivalent to the chance you'll be seen in a public place anyway.
Instead they're hiring non-LEOs (which means they're not as restricted as someone in a that sort of job ought to be), and letting them spy on people. The guy they reference in the article seems harmless enough, but his attitude disturbs me. And what happens when (not if) the citizen spies start abusing the system?
I'm sure the people running Iran right now agree completely, and if they win the power struggle going on right now, they'll be putting a similar camera system of their own in every city in Iran to spot dissidents.
...to make lude and inappropriate...
Wow man...you can make ludes? Far out, dude....make me some.
I haven't had a lude in decades!
You are a complete idiot.
1. "Lewd' is the word you are unsuccessfully looking for.
2. By your definition, there must not be many 'good' Americans.
3. Your attitude opens the door for me to to rip your arm off and shove it up your own ass after beating you to death with it when you make a lewd gesture to me.
I may not be able to teach you to respect your fellow citizens, but I can damn sure teach you to fear your betters, assclown!
P.S. free survival tip:
Don't bring a lewd gesture to a gunfight, as you will very briefly regret your foolishness.
Also, learn the language you are trying (inadequately) to use, dumbass.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
This will be off-topic (well, flaimbait, for sure), but I find it very interesting to note that in the last several days of hitting this site, YRO articles are peppered with passionate, uneducated jabs at "Internet Libertarians" or "Slashdot Libertarians." And occasionally there would be a link to Wikipedia, pointing to an entry on Somalia, surely in jest. I haven't seen any of these "Somalia Bombs" yet today in this article.
Allow me to say, this is the 1st I've heard of these cameras, so no surprise there's no public outcry. There will be now, at least from this part of the public.
"If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear."
"Yea, really? If I've done nothing wrong, WHY ARE YOU WATCHING ME?"
On a side note: I've bought beer at the store (Jack Bauer) they mentioned - never again!
Side note 2: The article mentions getting someone getting busted for drinking beer in Farnum Park. I, too, have drank beer in Farnum Park, on numerous occasions, the last time just last Thursday while playing basketball. Or...wait...actually it was brandy.
a single camera doesn't take away freedom as such, cameras{pl} do. For instance does the local minister have the right, and freedom to hang out in a strip club, or visit a adult movie store, etc? Do these clubs have a right to maintain some anonymity for their customers? Should PETA, right to lifers, stalkers be allowed to build their own networks of cameras to kill/injure those they don't agree with? Putting out a single camera this is removed simply with any type of mask. When you tie hundreds of cameras together at one location, someone with a vendetta can now track them from start to finish. Or just claim they tracked you from start to finish as their "job" and make up lies that you can't defend against. It is shown cameras are largely in-effective in capturing criminals, only helpful in prosecuting (unless the crime raises to a level where enough media will publish the video.) So having people constantly looking for crimes, social morrie transgressions 24/7 is taking away freedoms.
You know those old people whose joy in life is to spy on neighbours to see if they are being sinful or in breach of the public decency?
This will let them go into overdrive. Litter not being binned, excessive kissing in public, essentially everything will get reported. The timing is perfect for the aging generation of baby boomers.
You can then put them on intravenous drips.
Killing/injuring people is already illegal. And that's an important point. You make the wrongdoing itself criminal, whether it's that, or misusing images (say publishing non-criminal images them in the press).
A screwdriver is usually used innocently as a useful tool. It CAN be used to break into houses. You make breaking into houses illegal, not using a screwdriver.
Many murderers have been caught with CCTV evidence.
You are right, the only people who should be afraid are the ones who try to be decent citizens. It would be rude of us to wish inconvenience on violent thugs.
In addition to being a flying projectile (harming others in your car) as others have mentioned.
As long as hospitals are required to take care of people whether or not they can pay, and as long as we do not have universal healthcare.....
I'd prefer to have people buckle up. One of the reasons health care is so expensive, is to offset the cost of all the dumb asses.
I'm not total anti-camera, but this is ridiculous. Sure, everything is fine and dandy right now, but what if we start passing ridiculous laws, enforcing those ridiculous laws become even easier. Smoking a crime in public? Cameras process an image of you smoking, identify your face, automatically print out your ticket and email a copy to your phone. Homosexuality is criminalized? A same-sex couple holds hands in public, camera records it, notifies the police who swiftly arrest said couple. Don't laugh at this, even Ron Paul claims that sodomy laws are not unconstitutional and states have every right to criminalize it. Since we seem to be stepping closer and closer to a "mob rule" mentality in this country, the possibilities of the majority criminalizing the minority are endless, and this only makes it easier and more oppressive.
My question is, how does someone "opt-out" of this kind of surveillance? You can't! In order to survive, you typically have to go outside into public space, using public roads to get to/from work or the grocery store. By choosing to survive, we are consenting to being films? If you want to "opt-out" you'd have to be a complete shut-in.
Limits need to be set on the increasingly prevalent introduction of cameras into every crevice of public life. There should be a limit to the number of cameras or viewable area from cameras per sq. mile. Recorded footage from these cameras should also not be admissible in court, it should require an eye witness to back-up the claim. With computer generating imaging become increasingly realistic, it's going to become possible to create fictional footage which is indistinguishable from reality. You won't even need to commit a crime yourself to actually commit a crime, they'll just have footage of you doing it and unless you have an alibi you will be screwed.
We will live in a world where we will be constantly afraid of making a mistake, afraid of sneezing the wrong way.
The cameras are apparent to anyone who walks around the city. Each is marked with a prominent sign so they are not hidden. We have one installed near out church, I know of no one who has complained. I serve meals to street people at our church. The biggest fear these folks have is of being mugged by one of the many gangs of young thugs. The cameras have given them some space of relative safety where they can walk or just hangout without the fear of being beaten up and robbed. Personally I feel the cameras have made an improvement to the city and I wish that more were installed.
your an idiot if you think cameras will stop crime. I lived in the uk, specifically in cambridge and the crime rate in london is just as high as places that have no cameras. as a matter of fact, it was suggested to us that if you got mugged you more than likely were not going to survive because they would stab you in the back, and take your wallet while you bled to death. just more proof that the police's job is not to protect you but to prosecute the criminal. just wait till dear old jack gets his head blown off and the cops cant find the "male in the dark hoodie" bet he'll be singing a different tune... oh wait.
Regarding the legislation of micromanagement: Many believe that if it's better for a person to do something, like wear a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet, then they should be required by law to do so. If this viewpoint is accepted and implemented, then as surveillance becomes omnipresent and combined with computer facial recognition and statistical analysis, it will become illegal to take any action other than that which the monitoring system has deemed optimal. There will be one legal course of action in any given situation, which has been predetermined by a committee-designed piece of software after its analysis of billions or trillions of hours of video data. Taking a different rout to work than has been determined for you would be wasteful, and is therefore illegal. Attempting to pursue a career other than the one that you have been determined best suited for would be inefficient, and is therefore illegal. Refusal to procreate with the mate that has been chosen for you, or procreation with an unsanctioned mate, would result in suboptimal offspring, and is therefore illegal. After all, why should the children suffer for your selfish emotions? If you show signs of discontentment with this lack of Independence, you will receive "counseling" to help you better conform.
...for the area. Anything that keeps the youth down and stamps out fun will fly there.
Many seem to take the viewpoint that if a person in on a public road, or in a public place, then they have waived their Fourth Amendment rights. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This means that unless you have seen something indicating that I'm more likely than average to have committed a crime or to be in the process of committing a crime, or you have a warrant specifically naming me and what is to be searched and what is to be searched for and why (which may not be issued without someone having seen something as above), then you have no right to search me, my house, my vehicle, my computer, my backpack or briefcase, or anything else that is mine or on or about my person. There is no clause giving anyone the right to search someone for being on public grounds.
"No one has the right to know who goes in and out my front door," agreed David Mowrer...
Wait a second. If anybody walking down the street can see who goes in and out Dave's front door, how is that private? Inside the door it's Dave's private world, but out in public it's, well... "public."
The difference I see between a surveillance camera and a person standing on the sidewalk is that when you see a person nearby it makes you consciously aware that you're in public, but when you are on a seemingly deserted street it feels sort of private. That sense of privacy is an illusion, but it is one we're accustomed to. A neon orange sign on every camera would solve that issue for me, but I don't know about the people who expect their right to privacy to extend into public places.
How can we ban outdoor surveillance cameras without banning other kinds of photography in public? We've discussed on Slashdot numerous times the rights of photographers to snap pictures of public buildings, copyrighted art and other things that are out in plain sight. Are we going to grant that freedom only to photographers who are physically present, and if so why?
Morales says he refuses all other requests. "The divorce lawyer who wants video of a husband coming out of a bar with his mistress, we won't do it," he said.
It seems that the guy doesn't know that a divorce lawyer can subpoena the video.
Any judge in any legal proceeding who decides that it's in the interests of justice to have the video can issue a subpoena for it.
That system doesn't just cover bars. It covers every public street. Even people who are single might not want a video record of everybody who walked through their door and spent the night with them.
Nyet, comrade citizen - we now implement, with the cooperation of the Department of Motherland^WHomeland Security, much improved system.
No more problems with legal delays, corrupt judges and juries, expensive lawyers, or overcrowded prisons.
Smile, comrade citizen ... in Soviet Amerika, camera shoots YOU!
We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society.
I think that's the most vital part of your article.
Quite honestly, it sounds good to me.
Our society is rife with abuses, stupidity, greed, cowardice and moronic hipsters floating around.
If it takes rural-style regulation of mores to get rid of these parasites, liars, creeps and low quality people, I'm all for it.
After all, if someone you could trust was in power, you'd feel better about power.
If your neighbors weren't reckless morons who could care less about what happens to you and your possessions, you'd feel better about living near people.
From years in several cities: people talk paradoxically in them. They rave on about how great it is to be in the center of things, but the focus of every action is removing themselves from the masses to someplace over which they have control.
It seems a bad psychology to me.
Futurist Traditionalism
A screwdriver is usually used innocently as a useful tool.
I take it your reinforcing my point. In my post, I specifically said having a camera is fine, it is a tool perfect. Linking together hundreds of cameras across wide areas for constant surveillance no good, make that act illegal, not the tool, agreed.
Many murderers have been caught with CCTV evidence.
That's always one of the knee jerk "it caught a murder, and wasn't painful, so any side affect less than murder is worth it." But again it is not at issue for my post, putting up cameras that record a maximum of 48 hours, and using them only to investigate a crime that happened, perfect. Bored people looking at footage, trying to find reasons to arrest/harass people is bad. With software maturing, and cameras+networking boxes shrinking + cheap storage, you realize if we say it is OK today for networked cameras for all, at some-point soon they will become so small, and cheap, that everyone can stick their own cameras covering every place they have ever been. then at anypoint someone wants dirt, they simply scan your photo, and will know every single place you have ever been, and exactly where exactly you are at, and where your headed. If you think that would be fine for yourself, thats possible. But, I can't see how anyone could think that is OK for a entire society. IE every public action always available for recovery at it's most embarrassing time?
a) No, clearly I'm not reinforcing your point. And pretending I am doesn't progress your argument. Multiple screwdrivers are no more worthy of banning than are single ones. Nor are multiple cameras. If either is MISUSED, then the Misuse should be dealt with by law. CCTVs (multiple) intended purpose of deterring, alerting of and investigating crime is NOT a misuse, and so the law shouldn't be used to prevent the tool.
b) It's not a knee jerk anything. And calling something knee jerk doesn't progress your argument either. Mine is a perfectly rationally reasoned opinion, and based on experience of living in a country with lots of cameras (Britain), and thus being exposed to the results. Yes, including a number of murderers being caught and prosecuted based on CCTV evidence. And yes, that IS more important than most of the trival and paranoid complaints being put forward against CCTV.
When I lived in Lancaster, I had on average one car window broken out every 12-18 months. Nothing stolen, just vandalism for the fun of it. insurance never paid. Repair always came out of my pocket. I used to call it the vandalism tax. Drive around town early Sunday morning, and you should be able to easily find ten other cars with similar vandalism. Still, I resist this kind of surveillance. Sure, in a public place, there is no expectation of privacy, but 24-7 surveillance is ok only for God, and Santa Claus. It's a matter of trust, really, trust and politeness. Although I've lived here nearly all my life, I've never taken a picture of one of the Amish. They don't want to be photographed, and I am willing to respect their wishes. To be watching all the citizens 24-7 basically says that all are untrustworthy. Some are untrustworthy, but the ones who are trustworthy can be forgiven for resenting the lack of trust. Of course, the founding fathers felt that only a moral society was able to be a free society, as then individuals restrained themselves. This kind of surveillance is always evidence that a society is lacking the moral underpinnings to self-regulate. It can be as simple as the Hippocratic oath statement, "First, do no harm", or the golden rule. Now, instead of self-restraint, and self-discipline, we see narrcissism. I want something, so I steal it. I don't like you, so you must die. So we all end up as prisoners in a zero tolerance prison that used to be a medium sized town.
There are many legal actions people would prefer not to have on camera. Any new power being given to people in authority should always be viewed with suspicion.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
My money is on the Amish... but atleast we will now have it on video.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Interesting choice of examples here... PETA has never killed or injured any human. They've killed a bunch of cats and dogs in their "shelters" (as have most "humane societies") but as far as humans are concerned, they're harmless. If you have a counter-example, please provide a hyperlink.
My truck is like a series of tubes.
And I would assume similar results to this would be similar to Britans, IE it doesn't cut crime wastes money, and is ripe with abuses. Just because it was used to solve a crime, doesn't mean that it will prevent a single crime, or even solve a single crime that would have gone un-solved without the cameras. In the USA, cameras have pretty much only displaced crime to a different location, similar to Britan. Since cameras obviously are meant to temper people reactions in public, it is just a giant passifier that starts to erode freedom and enjoyment for all, and Britan is a perfect example why the US should put a end to this ASAP.
PETA members are fairly well known for mostly non-violent attacks, but still illegal and harassing actions. IE destroying fir coats with red paint, throwing flour on people they disagree with. They do go into trading human lives for animal lives with suggestions that all animal testing could be foregone (flat out saying anything that has passed all tests for human use, shy of animal testing, should not use animals, which I guess means straight to humans, and using force in attempt to progress down this path.)
So while I don't think PETA is pro killing humans, I sure don't want their views of human life animal life being enforced through the use of cameras to maximize their attacks (but I am certain they would use every tool they can to progress their cause.)
Not just a Microsoft tactic - it's a way of life!
you had me at #!
This is exactly sort of solution I've been suggesting to avoid concerns of Big Brother while creating better awareness and security. This particular instance might not take it as far as I'd like, but it's a step. OPEN THE PROCESS UP, let citizens monitor the cameras and "be the eyes" and the police react when they're called. That's the way it's supposed to work. What we have then is a lot more like an old-fashioned Neighborhood Watch brought forward into the Digital Age than a close resemblance to Big Brother.
should have been animal life is greater than human life (should have known a single >> symbol would be lost.)
distilling beer = instilling fear :P
Then I can wear a veil all day long.
Seriously, who would know I was a guy? Schoolgirls have stuffed bras for years, why can't I?
We all need to pay a price for our privacy, and my price is my self esteem!
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Welcome to oppressive surveillance British-style. If you really want to see Big Brother in action, come to the UK, where all town centres bristle with spy cameras, and the government recently ran a poster campaign suggesting that anyone who even took any notice of the cameras was a terrorist who should be reported. Pay no attention to the man behind the camera!
3% of street crime being solved by CCTV according to your article. That's not nothing. And as you point out that doesn't even cover the amount of deterrence value.
If you read the comments at the end of the page you ink to you'll find that some UK terrorist bombers were apprehended before they committed their crime because of CCTV.
Elsewhere in comments to this article I've linked to murderers that have been caught because of CCTV.
Note that the police inspector isn't suggesting that the cameras are a bad idea, but proposing ADDITIONAL technology that he things needs to be added to make it more effective.
In Britain over the last decade crime has fallen by over 40% according to the British Crime Survey. This is also the period of time that surveillance has become widespread.
Clearly you don't want to believe that CCTV works and will deny it till the cows come home. But they DO work.
There are many people that will resist all change. They are called conservatives. If they had their way we'd still be running around in animal skins carrying spears.
Take a photograph of certain indigenous peoples at one time, and they thought you'd stolen their soul.
"prefer not to be on camera" isn't a rational reason that should be counted as more important than the fact that the cameras detect and deter crime.
Are the people who are controlling the cameras anonymous? People are a lot less willing to be nosy if it's known they're doing so. If they're such noble, upright citizens, surely they won't object to having their names and addresses published in realtime.
"Now operating camera: Herbert Xavier of 211 W. Main Street. Assessed home value, $239,000. Previous arrests for endangering the welfare of a minor and public lewdness."
What goes clip-clop, clip-clop, bang-bang, clip-clop? A drive-by shooting in Lancaster, PA. :-p
Great, we have lost the battle. The socialists, after generations of subliminal programming, have won.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Those crazy Amish...what will they think of next? "Nobody knows electricity like the Amish!" - Homer Simpson, just before his Amish-wired treehouse bursts into flame.
If I were 20 years younger and a little dumber, I'd do a little vigilante justice and have fun shooting these cameras out with a bb gun. I'd also go for all the traffic cameras that aren't intended for safety, but only to collect files for people who go 1/2 second after a light flips from yellow to red.
Something no one else has mentioned is what better uses could have been made out of this funding. You see, most of this camera network is fiber optic and some of it is wireless. Why spend $3mil putting in 160 cameras when we could have used this fiber optic/ wireless network to provide high speed internet to the whole city?! THAT would have been a much better investment, but I'm sure Comcast would have had a temper tantrum.
> "I allege that SCO is full of it" -Linus
Honestly, how much more life can one beat out of a dead horse?
So, there is a number of CCTV cameras somewhere and a group of volunteers spend time looking at them? Big deal. And it really doesn't have anything to do with privacy that I can spot. These cameras are put up in public spaces - if people move out into public space, they can't expect to be private.
Don't get me wrong - I can see why it would worry people that e.g. the police record everything on cameras, because you can't go and check out the material to see if you are in there looking like you might be doing something you shouldn't, but that can be amended - don't you have a Freedom of Information Act in the US? Or better - put it all on a public server, so everybody can go and see what goes on.
I don't buy that nonsense about "If you are innocent ..." either; there are too many examples to the contrary, but there are hardly any circumstances that are only bad, it's just a matter of finding the good side of things. Couldn't it actually be quite cool if it was possible to check out what was going on downtown via live cameras? So perhaps instead of just crappy CCTV, what is really needed is good quality cameras?
The right to be left alone is pretty much the basis of the US legal system. Putting cameras everywherre is not a good way to deter crime, the risk of abuse is too high.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
"The right to be left alone" doesn't appear in any of the important documents of the United States. And ifit did,we could have fun debating what that means.
More relevantly: What you certainly don't have, and have never had, is the right not to be observed when in a public place. Nor the right to stop people making a record of what they have observed.