Chicago's Camera Network Is Everywhere

DesScorp writes "Over the past few years, the City of Chicago has installed video cameras all over the city. Now the Wall Street Journal reports that the city has not only installed its own cameras for law enforcement purposes, but with the aid of IBM, has built a network that possibly links thousands of video surveillance cameras all over Chicago. Possibly, because the city refuses to confirm just how many cameras are in the network. Critics say that Chicago is becoming the city of Big Brother. 'The city links the 1,500 cameras that police have placed in trouble spots with thousands more—police won't say how many—that have been installed by other government agencies and the private sector in city buses, businesses, public schools, subway stations, housing projects and elsewhere. Even home owners can contribute camera feeds. Rajiv Shah, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has studied the issue, estimates that 15,000 cameras have been connected in what the city calls Operation Virtual Shield, its fiber-optic video-network loop.' There are so many camera feeds coming in that police and officials can't monitor them all, but when alerted to a situation, can zoom in on the area affected. The ACLU has requested a total number of video feeds and cameras, but as of yet, this information has not been supplied."

Comments

city of big brother?

[Anonymous Coward]

London has been that way for years.

Re:city of big brother?

[iron-kurton]

That's why America declared independence.

Re:city of big brother?

[JoshuaZ]

Yes. This is very bad. It means the Americans must also be constructing interlinked networks of basilisk guns. http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.html. They must think that the awakening of the Great Old Ones is near. Maybe it will occur in December of 2012?

Re:city of big brother?

[wolfsdaughter]

Ia Ia D'aley fhtagn

Re:city of big brother?

[ae1294]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Re:city of big brother?

[nacturation]

Like its partner city Philadelphia, Chicago is the City of Big Brotherly Love.

Re:city of big brother?

[SEWilco]

London has been that way for years.

Well, yes, but those are Chicago's cameras in London.
I read that Chicago's camera network is everywhere.

Re:city of big brother?

[xaxa]

London has been that way for years.

No, it hasn't.

From the article, "[Chicago] links the 1,500 cameras that police have placed in trouble spots with thousands more--police won't say how many--that have been installed by other government agencies and the private sector in city buses, businesses, public schools, subway stations, housing projects and elsewhere. Even home owners can contribute camera feeds." -- but in London, any part of the government that's installed cameras has to say where they are (example), and private sector cameras aren't linked up to anything.

Re:city of big brother?

[mcgrew]

But where are all the signs that say he's watching? Clearly, Orwell was an optimist. The reality is worse (minus the "rats in your face" cages, of course)

Re:city of big brother?

[jpcarter]

I think you mean "The City of Big (Brother is Watching Over My) Shoulders."

Re:city of big brother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Baltimore already has a buncha cameras like that as well.

Re:city of big brother?

[h4rm0ny]

But where are all the signs that say he's watching?

I can't speak for Chicago, but in London there are posters like these. I'm not kidding with you - they're actually real. Someone in power has a sick sense of humour and a lot of confidence in what they can get away with.

Re:city of big brother?

[mcgrew]

I'm envious. The most they do here in Springfield is occasionally mention some crime cams; they're not saturated like Chicago or London, but there are plenty of red light cameras nobody mentions or notices. And no "Secure beneath the watchful eyes" posters. Man, that thing's spooky!

Orwell was a Brit, wasn't he?

That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

The corrupt democratic machine has ruled Chicagoland for years. Obama was part of it.

More importantly, the experience with England clearly shows that cameras don't do much to prevent crime. Isn't there anything useful that Chicago can spend their money on?

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[tuxgeek]

Typical crack pot post
You must have been sleeping the past 8 years
Bush and the repubs started the police state trend in 2001.

Actually it has been going on for many years but got into full blown wire tapping & surveillance with bush & co

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical crack pot post
You must have been sleeping the past 8 years
Bush and the repubs started the police state trend in 2001.

No, it long predates W. The FISA courts started up under Jimmy Carter.

And the fact remains, Chicago has had a large, powerful, very corrupt democrat machine in power for a very long time.

I remember Jon Stewart sadly joking that you have a greater chance of going to jail as governor of Illinois than as a murderer.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[tuxgeek]

As I stated, it's been going on for years
I'm not defending Obama, just stating the obvious fact of the matter
Although stories like this will bring out the "Obama did it conspiracy" crack pots

The police state America really got under way with Patriot Act, DHS, AT&T wire tapping, etc etc under bush/cheney

Although if I lived in Chicago, I would probably welcome greater surveillance as a deterrent to violent crime. Glad I don't ..

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Shakrai]

Although if I lived in Chicago, I would probably welcome greater surveillance as a deterrent to violent crime.

Might prove cheaper and more effective to end their obnoxious and unconstitutional ban on private handgun ownership.

Just sayin'

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a constitutional right to own a handgun? really? where is that stated?

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Shakrai]

Try the 2nd and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see handgun mentioned there. Ctrl-F yields no results in the entire document. How odd.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the "the right to bear arms of your choosing shall not be infringed" amendment.

How's that nuclear warhead shooting range coming along?

(Posting because "well you can choose something else" has been used to trample on rights since forever (eg "free speech zones"), so therefore it would be natural to say that the law only allows you to arm yourself with BB guns, but your "right to bear arms" has not been infringed because you can still bear BB guns.)

(Posting AC because I believe I have the right to bear any gun of my choosing but not the right to bear a nuclear warhead, but cannot explain the Sorites paradox that separates those choices and don't feel like getting into some inane argument over cannons, RPGs, Davy Crocketts, et cetera.)

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are obviously completely ignorant about the history of the constitution and the meaning of basic english.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[tuxgeek]

Might prove cheaper and more effective to end their obnoxious and unconstitutional ban on private handgun ownership.

Agreed! Private handgun ownership is a great deterrent to violence.
In Fairbanks we all own handguns. We even have the right to carry them concealed (no permit required) anywhere w/ exception of federal buildings such as the courthouse, banks, & schools.

Point being, we have very little violent crime. Fairbanks is pretty redneck w/ no gangs. I doubt if gang members would last long here. Thinking of robbing everyone's favorite liquor store? You won't even make it out the door ..

I seriously doubt handgun ownership will work in Chicago though. I would imagine the population would be reduced dramatically overnight if handguns were permitted, which would also solve most of your crime problem, after you clean up the spent carcasses.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[shutdown -p now]

The second amendment is about militia members having the right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

What qualifies as a militia? If the government can decide that certain groups are and aren't militias, that defeats the whole purpose of the second amendment.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[yamfry]

I have a friend who feels that we should ban all forms of firearms for civilians and government and that it should be mandated that all people carry and know how to use a sword. It would be a serious crime to interfere in a sword-fighting duel. Obviously unworkable, but it's fun to think about.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[IonOtter]

Point being, we have very little violent crime.

Yes, but you have man-eating grizzly bears, crazy maverick lipstick pigs, 10 months of winter and 2 months of cold weather. None of the criminals are desperate enough to live there.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[element-o.p.]

That is one interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and since it supports the (corrupt) politicians' agenda (pacify the masses while hoarding as much wealth and power as possible), it is the currently supported interpretation. Needless to say, it is not the interpretation I believe the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Allow me to explain.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, state that a "well regulated militia" is the justification for this Amendment, but keep in mind that this was a radical concept when it was written. As well as stating the right they wanted to grant, they also included their justification for granting this right to the people. They then state that this militia is "necessary to the security of a free State." Consider for a moment what environment this amendment was written in: the framers of the Constitution were essentially planning treason against the Crown. Without the right to own firearms, there would have been no Revolutionary War because the only people that could possibly have fought would have been the British Army....makes for a very short Revolution, don't you think? To them, it was essential that free men have the right to keep and own weapons so that the people could replace the government when/if it became corrupt or oppressive, just like they did. Unfortunately, after 200 years, we have decided this only means that it is necessary to have a military force to protect the nation from foreign invaders, which is, of course, exactly what our politicians want.

The text of the 2nd Amendment continues, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." Not "the Army" nor even "the Militia", but the people. This is about as clear as it can get: this right is explicitly granted to the people of the United States of America. Seems to me if Washington and Jefferson and Franklin, etc., had intended this only to apply to militia members, they would have said, "...the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people to understand?!?!?!

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[ancientt]

There are plenty, including members of the Supreme Court, who disagree.

Check your history for context. The term "militia" roughly equates to the the modern National Guard;

The historical context indicates clearly that the term "militia" equates to all able bodied citizens*. Aside from that, there is the troublesome comma which separates and supports both the militia and the individual right.

I think the language is clear but read and consider these:

• http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_second_amendment_and_the_i.html
• http://www.afn.org/~afn01750/politics/2ndIndividualRight.html
• http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

Note that they do not all support the idea that an individual should have the right, but they do all examine the historical context in detail and support the premise that the individual right is granted by the second amendment both as it is written and as it is interpreted by the federal judicial system.

Thousands upon thousands of pages have been written supporting both sides of the argument. As the amendment stands, as it is interpreted and also as it is taken in historical context it does grant an individual right. Our elected officials have the ability to amend the constitution, repeal that second amendment and even replace it. If they do so, it could be changed so that the right would no longer be one of individuals, but they have not and are unlikely make such a change.

* - what we consider able bodied citizens has changed since the amendment was written, we now include the poor, include women and do not allow slavery. This is an example of how the constitution can and should be changed.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

To top it off, in Indiana, all men between 18 and 42 (I believe) are consider part of the state militia. So, yeah, either way #2 applies.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun ownership (and carry) would work wonders in Chicago. With no more easy targets, many felons would simply leave. Is it Minnesota or Wisconsin that also has very strict anti-second amendment laws? They might see a population increase (and not of the good kind).

Remember, the crooks already have guns, even in Chicago. Criminals don't care to follow the law, after all. De-criminalizing firearms can only hurt the criminal, and help the legal citizen.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[jbengt]

The corrupt democratic machine has ruled Chicagoland for years. Obama was part of it.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Obama was not part of what is known as "Chicago machine politics".

More importantly, the experience with England clearly shows that cameras don't do much to prevent crime

Even more importantly, most of the police cameras are at street corners generating traffic ticket revenue.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[jbengt]

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people to understand?!?!?!

The part where their kid gets shot by someone bearing arms.
(mods, please note, I'm not arguing a point about the constitution, I'm answering a question. Even though it was probably meant to be rhetorical, the question has real answers)

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[podwich]

The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to shoot an innocent child. There is a difference.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[jbengt]

You started a great roiling discussion about the constitution here, but do you really think arming law-abiding citizens with handguns will lead to a reduction in murders? It's mostly gang members shooting other gang members (and the frequent accidental shooting of bystanders that goes with that) with automatic weapons. Law-abiding citizens practicing self-defense don't usually enter into the equation.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[theaveng]

It always amazing me how people don't know how to read simple English. The sentence is clear, and can be rewritten like this without altering its original meaning: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The original document that was submitted to Congress read like so: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country. But no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

What is the militia? According to the Founders it's the whole of the people. According to Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

There's also the Rights enshrined in State Constitutions, which perforce, supersede the U.S. document. My state says this: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." Nearly all the states have similar phrasing. It is an individual right.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

bullshit. Regardless, the 2nd doesn't say that arms are for the militia, it says that the militia is one reason for having arms.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[theaveng]

Even if the Second Amendment was repealed, your right to bear arms (guns, knives, mace) will still be protected by the Ninth Amendment at the national level, and your State Constitution at the local level.

Here's a disturbing video. Some college students were filming a "movie" for school, and even though they received permission for the shoot, the cops come along and aim GUNS at them! Jeebus! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC6fsEyXlJ8

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Way more kids are killed in swimming pools than from firearms and nobody wants to ban those. Seriously, this is hardly a serious threat, and I can hardly support writing laws based on the hysterical screeching of someone who watches too much CNN.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[theaveng]

I know a lady who watched her parents get shot-down in a McDonalds by a criminal.

She is now a *stronger* advocate than ever for the right to bear arms. Quote: "I obeyed that stupid, stupid law, and left my gun in my car, and watched my parents die. I was helpless. Now I ignore the law and carry my gun in case I should need it again." I agree. I'd rather be armed so I cn shoot criminals (like that Muslim psychiatrist) than just sit by and watch helplessly.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[theaveng]

Not part of the Chicago machine? Um. Okay. Quoting USA Today:

"Quit job as financial consultant to become community organizer [ACORN employee] in Chicago." "Illinois state Senate, 1997-2005" Nominated to Senate by Governor Blagosovi...Blagodji...Blagosive... the impeached governor.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[zippthorne]

Why does it have to be stated anywhere? Owning and even operating (responsibly) a handgun doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights on any front.

Therefore you must come up with a reason why the constitution allows the government to restrict ownership since nowhere in the constitution is the power to regulate firearms ownership explicitly stated, and the 10th amendment specifically forbids the government from any powers not listed.

Also, the 2nd amendment further explicitly forbids the government from restricting ownership AND use of firearms.

Also, the 10th amendment probably means that the 2nd amendment applies to the states as well, considering the wording. And if it doesn't, the 14th does.

So, you'd better have a pretty solid legal theory that allows the government to do such.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Obama was not part of what is known as "Chicago machine politics".

Yeah, right. That's why Obama bought land for his Chicago house from Antoin "Tony" Rezko, at a ridiculously low price, with below market financing. Rezko was later sent to jail for corruption, fraud & bribery.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[dryeo]

You do realize that as British subjects Americans had the right to bear arms enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1689 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 . Though it was only for self-defence and only if you weren't Catholic.
It was also a strong British tradition that all Free men were part of the militia and were expected to maintain their own arms, at least back when the main arms were long bows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#Origins

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL the right to bear arms ? Seems like the 2nd amendment has already been downgraded to 'the right to bear small arms', and the 2nd amendment is now being used to support the gun industry rather than to preserve rights or the ability to fight against tyranny of the government.

Think of 500 NRA members with their pea shooters being scattered by a helicopter gunship (or for that matter, since they are more popular now, a missile from a UAV!)

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

Point being, we have very little violent crime. Fairbanks is pretty redneck w/ no gangs.

Hmmm....based on wikipedia, the population of the Fairbanks metropolitan area is roughly 100,000 while the population of the Los Angeles (famous for gangs) metropolitan area is roughly 10 million. Fairbanks is a hundred times smaller than LA!

Imagine, if you will, that Los Angeles is made up of 100 cute little Fairbankses all packed together but that a few of those cute little Fairbankses aren't actually so cute - that anyone who has the means to move a couple miles to a cuter little Fairbanks does so (leaving only the desperately poor and hard-core criminals in these unfortunate not-so-cute little Fairbankses). That would be LA for you.

In LA, you take the worst-off 1% and you've got yourself an entire Fairbanks worth of people who are either desperately poor or hard-core criminals (all living within a few blocks of each other). If I was betting man and I had to put my money on either "lack of handguns" or "difference in population" for the reason that LA has more gangs than Fairbanks, I'd go with "difference in population" - but that's just me.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[KibibyteBrain]

It also would never work in Chicago because it seems most people in the city who don't already have illegal guns used to commit illegal acts here hate guns. While it is still a law of oppression, it is a popular one. The 2nd amendment doesn't work if its not more than just a right to bear arms, but a responsibility to learn how to defend yourself with one properly and to actually bear it, which almost no one in Chicago would do.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[PitaBred]

10 months of winter and 2 months of mosquitos.

There, fixed that for you. Yes, I have family who live in Alaska, and I have been up to visit them. I think I still have welts from over a year ago.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[PitaBred]

And there are laws against murder. What's the problem?

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[swillden]

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people to understand?!?!?!

The part where their kid gets shot by someone bearing arms. (mods, please note, I'm not arguing a point about the constitution, I'm answering a question. Even though it was probably meant to be rhetorical, the question has real answers)

That's not a real answer. At least, it's not a very compelling one. The number of kids who are killed by firearms every year is very small. In 2006, for example (the most recent year for which the CDC's database has published data), 409 kids ages 0-14 were killed by firearms. That number includes deliberate homicides, suicides, accidents and deaths with undetermined intentions.

Of course, those 409 deaths are individually tragic, but compared to all of the other things that kill kids, firearms don't contribute significantly to child mortality. Heck, swimming pools kill nearly twice as many kids as firearms, and swimming pools are far, far behind automobiles. It should also be kept in mind that 3/4 of those deaths were homicides, mostly by adults, so even if there were no guns available many, perhaps most, of those children still would have died.

Weighed against the right of free people to defend themselves and their children, and their right to retain arms as a last-ditch defense against tyranny and invasion, those regrettable deaths simply don't measure up. Indeed it's not even unlikely that removing firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens might increase the deaths of children whose parents are unable to defend them. Even the Brady Campaign acknowledges that approximately 100,000 Americans defend themselves with a firearm each year, and other studies put the number up to 25 times higher.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[misexistentialist]

You can't argue with irrational/dishonest people. They either want to eliminate guns out of blind fear or out of some sort of socialist/totalitarian agenda. Even if the right to guns were restricted to militia members, they would then twist and lie so that "militia" can only mean government forces, since singling out guys like McVeigh for the privilege of gun ownership would be obviously unacceptable.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[MartinSchou]

Are you seriously trying to compare a city with a population density of 12,649/sq mi with one of 981.9/sq mi?

Not only is Chicago almost 13 times as densely populated, it has 81 times the population.

I wonder if either of those could have a massive effect on crime levels.

Try comparing similar cities next time. Like maybe some 35k population city where private handguns are illegal. Or perhaps a city with the same population as Chicago but handguns are allowed?

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you have less violent crime per capita, because Fairbanks is cold as fuck.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Shakrai]

The part where their kid gets shot by someone bearing arms.

Lock up the people who commit those crimes and we wouldn't have to worry about them occurring as often as they do. Depending on whose numbers you believe anywhere between 60% to 80% of first-time murderers already have violent criminal histories. That seems to beg the question of why are they getting out of jail in the first place?

I have no problem with rehabilitation for non-violent offenders but once you demonstrate that your moral compass is so fucked up that you are willing to use violence against your fellow human beings then I don't think we owe you anything more than an 8'x10' and the chance to break big rocks into small rocks.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[locallyunscene]

Fairbanks, AK's population according to wikipedia is 35,132. I grew up in a town that size without everyone owning a gun and also practically no violent crime.

Chicago has 2.8 million people in the city proper and over 9.5 million in the "metropolitan area".

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[2obvious4u]

Think of the Children!

And whoever thinks children are "innocent" has never had a child of their own.

And it is amazing how an emotional story carries so much more political weight than statistics.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[maudin8]

I am so F***ing sick of people invoking the "protect the kids" rally whenever there is a need to justify a new law. The internet censoring, guns ect... It's really simple, if you're going to be a parent on purpose or take the chance that an accident could happen, be prepared to take responsibility YOURSELF to raise your kid. The powers that be need fear to convince you to agree with them, and that comes from ignorance. nuff said.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not lock them up. Why should they get free food, a place to live, a place to further work on their criminal activities?

Catch them, convict them, then kill them. Fewer violent criminals means a safer society. If society actually killed the murders instead of giving them life, we would have fewer convected killers in jail. Fewer people in jail. Jails could then be a place to teach people to be better instead of houses of criminals training to be better criminals.

Criminals that steal a car, they get jail time. The ones who walked into a store and started shooting and killed people, they get the gas chamber. Also putting criminals to death in a 'plesent' way is also too good. Their death should be just as violent as the acts they comitted.

captcha: counters heh

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[DustyShadow]

Just like you don't see abortion in there. Or contraceptives. Or gay sex. But, let me assure you, it's in there somewhere. You just aren't looking hard enough.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[element-o.p.]

Should we also ban cars because kids sometimes get run over? Not to mention that, if we decide that something the authors of the Constitution thought was important actually seems to be a Really Bad Idea, then we need to change the Constitution -- not simply ignore it because we don't like it. That path leads to lawlessness and anarchy.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[ojustgiveitup]

I doubt if gang members would last long here. Thinking of robbing everyone's favorite liquor store? You won't even make it out the door ..

That sounds like violence to me...

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[I_M_Noman]

Consider for a moment what environment this amendment was written in: the framers of the Constitution were essentially planning treason against the Crown. Without the right to own firearms, there would have been no Revolutionary War because the only people that could possibly have fought would have been the British Army....makes for a very short Revolution, don't you think?

Wasn't the Constitution written after the end of the Revolution? Nullifies this argument.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[tuxgeek]

Yes, but you have man-eating grizzly bears, crazy maverick lipstick pigs

Very true
Just keep thinking about the dark & cold, this is what keeps most away and the state pristine.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[tuxgeek]

Not sure about the wikipedia citation of 100,000
Most would be military from 3 nearby bases
Just keep thinking the worst you can about Fbks
Whatever it takes to keep you in LA and not here

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[tuxgeek]

I left the big cities years ago for the exact reasons this branch-off-thread is about.
Over population always leads to excessive violence in society. Always have, always will.

I can deal with the cold
It's living in a war zone I have problems with

Today we have an expected high temperature of 10 below, and expected murders/rapes/muggings of zero
I can deal w/ that

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[AndersOSU]

Do you consider rape a violent crime? Fairbanks has 4.5 times the national rate of forcible rape.

That's what happens when it's cold almost all year round - less crime in the street, more in the bedroom.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Phoenixlol]

jbengt wasn't really going for the "kids fuck up and shoot each other" argument methinks... was saying people use guns to shoot other people. A point you inadvertently echoed. The difference is they think the answer is less guns, you think the answer is more guns.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[AndersOSU]

More fun with statistics. Fairbanks has 1.75 times the national rate of violent crime... So maybe it's not as safe as you think.

You're about three times more likely to be murdered, marginally less likely to be robbed, twice as likely to be assaulted, and marginally more likely to be burgled than the national average.

So I take back what I said about the cold fairbanks has crime problems in spite of the weather. I guess even criminals adapt.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[AndersOSU]

Fairbanks has a higher rate of violent crime than Los Angeles.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

The second amendment is about militia members having the right to bear arms.

You're an idiot. Go read the United States Code definition of militia. I'll even include a helpful link since you're such a moron:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[mcgrew]

ACORN is not part of the city machine nor its government. The State Senate is not part of Chicago city government. The impeached governor (Just call him Rod like everybody else in Illinois, because nobody can spell his name) was part of the Chicago machine. From wikipedia:

Barack Hussein Obama II (/brk husen obm/ ( listen); born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office, as well as the first president born in Hawaii. Obama previously served as the junior United States Senator from Illinois from January 2005 until he resigned after his election to the presidency in November 2008.

Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama ran for United States Senate in 2004. During the campaign, several events brought him to national attention, such as his victory in the March 2004 Democratic primary election for the United States Senator from Illinois as well as his prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He won election to the U.S. Senate in November 2004.

He began his run for the presidency in February 2007. After a close campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Clinton, he won his party's nomination. In the 2008 general election, he defeated Republican nominee John McCain and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009. On October 9, 2009, Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[h4rm0ny]

They either want to eliminate guns out of blind fear or out of some sort of socialist/totalitarian agenda.

What the shuddering fuck is it with the US indoctrination about Evil Socialism? Socialism is an economic model focusing on public ownership. It has NO implications for gun ownership for or against.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[swillden]

jbengt wasn't really going for the "kids fuck up and shoot each other" argument methinks... was saying people use guns to shoot other people.

That's what I understood him to say, and what I responded to. The figure of 409 deaths in 2006 isn't restricted to just accidents, nor only to deaths inflicted on kids by kids, it is all firearm deaths of children in the year.

A point you inadvertently echoed.

There was nothing inadvertent about it.

The difference is they think the answer is less guns, you think the answer is more guns.

That's oversimplified to the point of being outright wrong.

I know that less guns won't significantly decrease the child death toll, because guns already play an insignificant role in child mortality. I have some reason to believe that more guns will reduce violent crime overall which may lead to some reduction in child murder, but might be offset by an increase in child suicide and perhaps by accidental firearms deaths (unless firearm education continues to improve).

The key point, though, is that whatever reduction in child deaths might be achieved by banning guns (even if we ignore the fact that most guns used to kill people are already illegal), it would be a bad trade against the corresponding loss of liberty.

It would be like reducing the number of trampling deaths caused by shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater by banning theaters.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware that the primary purpose of a swimming pool was to kill someone.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[Phoenixlol]

Dude, I wasn't arguing with you. I was saying whether or not someone who's killed by a gun is a child is irrelevant. Guns are for killing things and deterrence (and to give some guys and galls ego a stroke). I happen to be satisfied with the status quo, at least where I live. Concealed permits are pretty easy to get.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[IonOtter]

This got modded troll???

Obviously whoever modded it down has never lived in the North Woods. Upstate NY has got blackflies, which are just as bad as mosquitoes. The mosquitoes in AK will kill you by sucking out your blood, but blackflies will kill you by driving you to blow your brains out for relief.

Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats...

[swillden]

Dude, I wasn't arguing with you. I was saying whether or not someone who's killed by a gun is a child is irrelevant.

Okay. The post I responded to specifically addressed kids, so I responded in kind.

I happen to be satisfied with the status quo, at least where I live. Concealed permits are pretty easy to get.

I agree that shall-issue is a good compromise.

Good

[Monkeedude1212]

Maybe the amount of rats that infest the city will finally go down. And I'm not talking about rodentia.

Use it or Lose it

[BlueBoxSW.com]

They're going to have to disclose them, sooner or later, if they want to use them as evidence.

With the cameras, wireless technology, and storage so cheap, I've got to think Chicago won't be the first. Some areas in Philly sure could use something like that.

The SBIR program issued several requests to do something similar in Bagdad, although I don't know if it ever got done.

They wanted the ability to see a car of bad-guys do something, and follow them in reverse-time back to their hideout.

Re:Use it or Lose it

[Anonymous Coward]

gcmtravel.org has many idot/tollway cameras (as well as traffic/construction data etc), though they only show still shots through the web, a lot of them are full tilt/zoom cameras routed to the idot control center.

Re:Use it or Lose it

[Sir_Lewk]

Some areas in Philly sure could use something like that.

Fuck you, some of us here still enjoy our relative privacy.

Re:Use it or Lose it

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you enjoy your murder rate, too.

Re:Use it or Lose it

[Anonymous Coward]

Some areas of Philly? Dude, that city is a steaming pile of dung and should be monitored 24x7x365...

Richard M. Daley needs to go.

[Anonymous Coward]

From the toll road he leased away to a private company, to the parking meters he did the same to, to this. Enough already. We need a new mayor. And a new contract with the police union.

Re:Richard M. Daley needs to go.

[DarthBart]

Don't forget that lovely midnight raid on Meigs Field that ended up costing the city $1,000,000 & change in FAA fines and repaid grants. All in the name "ZOMG TEH TERRISTS!!!!!"

A little over 40 years ago

[Cornwallis]

the cry in Chicago under Mayor Daley was "The whole world is watching..."

Now it looks like his son is having the last laugh!

Monitoring

[MichaelSmith]

We had about 200 traffic cameras in my last job. Experienced operators would let the video switch cycle between cameras, one per second. If anything strange happened the change in the regular pattern would be immediately clear.

Going beyond 200 cameras per person would be difficult IMHO and you couldn't pick up small incidents this way. It was mainly for big changes in traffic patterns like a car crash.

Re:Monitoring

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not designed to have operators watch the cameras in real-time. The IBM system runs video recognition on the streams and indexes the results to create a massive video database. The database can then be queried to bring up relevant clips, for example "show all video containing red cars with a letter X in their license plate".

The idea is to eliminate the human effort involved in doing searches through hundreds of thousands of hours of video footage.

How does this compare to London?

[swordgeek]

London has had the status of having the most CCTVs per capita for ages. Does anyone have a comparison between the cities?

Re:How does this compare to London?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would there be a comparison, the public does not know how many cameras are connected. The only number provided is a college professors estimate.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[debrain]

Indeed. Not that it's had any discernible effect on crime rates in London.

In my humble opinion, the money wasted on video cameras would be better spent on health & education for the poor, incentivizing smart people to become police officers by paying them more, and vocational rehabilitation of offenders.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[Totenglocke]

In my humble opinion, the money wasted on video cameras would be better spent on health & education for the poor, incentivizing smart people to become police officers by paying them more, and vocational rehabilitation of offenders.

Or the money could be given to decent people who can't afford to move to a better city.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[CannonballHead]

vocational rehabilitation of offenders.

I was with you until there. I'm not sure some offenders actually want to be rehabilitated. Seems repeat-offenses, especially of violent or sexual crimes, is pretty high...

Re:How does this compare to London?

[StikyPad]

"Smart" is not a desired quality in police officers.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[h4rm0ny]

Seems repeat-offenses, especially of violent or sexual crimes, is pretty high...

Spend a few years locked up in a confined, overcrowded place with a lot of other moderately violent people and no contact with women, and you'll bet people come out keyed for violence and with trouble relating to women.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[CannonballHead]

Spend a few years locked up in a confined, overcrowded place with a lot of other moderately violent people and no contact with women, and you'll bet people come out keyed for violence and with trouble relating to women.

So what caused their "trouble relating to women" in the first place?

Rape isn't having "trouble relating to women," by the way. It's having no respect for women (or men, or children, or whatever).

I'm all for rehabilitation, if possible. I'm also for justice. Rehabilitation should occur after justice. Rehabilitation does not negate justice. Sexually violating a woman, scarring her emotionally (and physically, for that matter) for life, completely messing up her life, etc... that's a lot to be punished for. Now, if the problem is that you fundamentally don't think punishing for a crime is the issue, that's a different topic...

I personally don't think people in prisons should be allowed to simply live off taxpayers (in other words, have some sort of labor that they can do to help the country in some way. No, not concentration camp style). I think rehabilitation should come after you have paid for your crimes - rehabilitation is not justice. Basically... if you punishment for rape (as the example here) is low, then it shows what society thinks about women (or rape victims in general) and what respect society as a whole has for their fellow humans. And if "oh, but he shows good behavior now" lowers your punishment, then that means that society has deemed the "wellbeing" of the victimizer to be somehow more important than justice for the victim.

I have very little sympathy for murderers and rapists. Probably about as much sympathy as they had for their victims. Just reading about what they are willing to do, especially men to women, sickens me... and reading about so-and-so getting out after 15 years (or less, on good behavior) is very sickening. It brings up, hm, feelings of injustice.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[Blakey Rat]

London has had the status of having the most CCTVs per capita for ages. Does anyone have a comparison between the cities?

This whole point of this article is that nobody knows exactly how many cameras the city is looking at, since they won't disclose the number.

So I'm pretty sure nobody has a comparison between the cities.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems repeat-offenses, especially of violent or sexual crimes, is pretty high...

Actually, those are greatly dwarfed by simple burglary. A few months in jail and now their hands are in another jewelry box.

People who commit violent crimes tend to be repeat offenders, especially violent sexual crimes, but they're usually put away long enough between crimes to keep their rap sheet fairly short.

Nonviolent sexual crimes (eg date rape not involving drugs or intentionally getting a girl drunk enough to sleep with your ugly mug, statutory rape of a reasonable age [eg that football player who got arrested for a blowjob from a classmate], incest [usually illegal at all ages]) have some of the lowest recidivism rates around, especially in the cases of the guys who turned 18 a month before their girlfriend.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[h4rm0ny]

I only have time for a quick reply and wont be online for a few days, so I'll just comment on a couple of points.

It brings up, hm, feelings of injustice.

Several points in your post such as this indicate that the benefit of imprisonment to you is that it makes you (as you put yourself in the role of the victim) feel better. I'm not sure revenge is a motive for imprisonment that I agree with necessarily. I'm more in favour of restitution than imprisonment which only turns out people far worse than they went in for the most part, as well as often forcing them into the very circumstances when they come out, that led them to commit the crimes for which they were put in. It's not easy building a life after prison which is a strong contributing factor to repeat offenses. I suspect from your post that you see a large difference between yourself and criminals, whereas I see the difference between criminals and non-criminals to be in large part the circumstances people find themselves in. You may disagree but if that's the case, you must explain the disparity in crime rates between different demographics to me.

I personally don't think people in prisons should be allowed to simply live off taxpayers

This is prejudicial language. These people are not "allowed" to live off taxpayers. They are forced to do so. You would find very few indeed that wouldn't stop doing this and leave were they allowed to. It is a common complaint that prisoners get to live off taxpayers but it is logically incorrect to blame someone for that which you yourself force upon them.
Thirdly, you talk in the abstract but draw conclusions in the specific. Repeatedly you illustrate how bad prisoners are with reference to rapists and murders, but apply consequences to everyone. You need to consider what portion of inmates are actually there for such crimes as opposed to those who are in for theft, drug use, and other less emotive things. My point is that prison produces worse criminals than they otherwise would be and this is backed up by numerous studies. To refute it, you need to do more than refer to a specific subset of criminals and say that they are already bad. If you wish to draw a distinction between different groups of prisoners, that is a different matter and you may find me in some agreement with you. The usefulness of prisons to my mind, is primarily in those cases where they protect others from someone that would almost certainly commit further crimes.

I would write more, but don't have the time.
Regards,
H.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[Sebilrazen]

Seems repeat-offenses, especially of violent or sexual crimes, is pretty high...

Spend a few years locked up in a confined, overcrowded place with a lot of other moderately violent people and no contact with women, and you'll bet people come out keyed for violence and with trouble relating to women.

So that's why tech support has all the trouble with the ladies.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wonder what the hell justice actually is when people talk like this.

Is it justice for the victim or their family, justice for the criminal, or justice for the community. These can be very different things, and are often not something you can actually balance. If I accidentally kill someone, then justice for me is to go free, after all it was an accident. Someone is still dead though, and justice for the family might very well involve me getting the death penalty, after all that's an eye for an eye, intention or otherwise. Justice for the community is something else entirely, since the community is more concerned with me re-offending or with discouraging other people from killing people. Everyone talks about justice, but I've never found anyone who can tell me how we can possibly achieve it.

Personally I think that prisons ought to be more about rehabilitation than punishment. Focus on transforming people from criminals into productive members of society, if they're not finished transforming don't let em out, if they are do so. Make them do some productive work for society while they're in there to pay for it all and put in some sort of minimum sentence to ensure that one time offenders actually pay some sort of price for their actions and we'd probably be good to go. For some people this would involve drastically shorter sentences(things like juvenile offenses where the criminal as just a stupid kid) and for some people it might involve drastically longer ones(sex offenders most specifically).

The current system is just idiotic. You stick someone in a cage for X number of years and then you let em out whether they're ready to be let out or not. This sort of idiocy leads to repeat offenders because the folks who went in are if anything worse when they come out. A system where a sexual predator is locked away for 20 years and then let out, no different than they were when they committed their last crime or where someone is still in jail at 30 for some crime they committed when they were 16 and didn't really understand the consequences of their actions is broken. Crime incurs a debt, that's for certain, and that debt has to be paid, but paying your debt doesn't automatically make you safe to return to society.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Not that it's had any discernible effect on crime rates in London.

The article provides no basis on which to draw that conclusion. There are other problems with the data set and conclusions, but the simplest question to ask is what percentage of crimes was detected prior to the introduction of CCTV?

It's also worth noting that London doesn't have a single camera 'network' per se. Each local authority is responsible for its own cameras.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the future... Cheaper technology and the temptation to monitor is increased. It would be nice for the public to be able to get city maps, showing CCTV system in use.

Of course any system like this would make it easy for people that could access the camera network to spy on anyone. If they didn't have good intentions, this would be bad news. What if people planning on terrorist attach could access the computer systems ehh?

So who is responsible??? Would the admins be responsible for security - NOPE, not in the US and I suspect not in the UK either. Instead they will blame the 'hacker'(see the case of Gary the scapegoat McKinnon). So I don't trust the compitence of the goverment (US or UK) and as a result I don't agree with monitoring everyone using CCTV.

If EVERYONE knew what camera's they were being recorded by and who owned them, we could all request a copy o the video with us in it (Data protection act). The practice would soon have to stop as it would be too time consuming and expensive. I don't agree with casing criminal damage (vandalising cameras).

Re:How does this compare to London?

[CannonballHead]

Don't know why you got modded troll. Stupid mods. :)

Several points in your post such as this indicate that the benefit of imprisonment to you is that it makes you (as you put yourself in the role of the victim) feel better. I'm not sure revenge is a motive for imprisonment that I agree with necessarily.

Not exactly. I agree, it probably did sound like that, but that wasn't my point. I view imprisonment as an attempt at giving a just payment for the wrong they have done. Society places "weights" or values certain things an associates the "badness" of a crime based on how much they value what that crime did to what they value. Based on this, "justice" is "served" (quotes because it sounds so cliche, hehe) by payment that is appropriate to what the crime is. What's appropriate? Well, that seems to be generally decided by society. But rehabilitation does not really seem to be any sort of payment for a crime. It's more trying to keep over-payment for a crime from happening, it seems.

very circumstances when they come out, that led them to commit the crimes

I think we differ a bit in our view of human nature. Circumstances my lead the person to the crime, so to speak, but doesn't force him to do it. Circumstances can never be blamed for crime, IMO. Perhaps taken into account, but not blamed. Especially in the case of things like rape. What, you were forced to rape a girl? OK, so maybe there are certain circumstances where they could be blamed partially ... i.e., you were put at gunpoint and told to do it or something like that.

I suspect from your post that you see a large difference between yourself and criminals, whereas I see the difference between criminals and non-criminals to be in large part the circumstances people find themselves in.

You'd be surprised at my worldview, perhaps I didn't explain/show it well enough. On that topic, my view could be summed up with a quaint religious phrase: There but for the grace of God go I. In other words, there's on difference between us as far as being human beings go. Choices definitely differ. Circumstances certainly do, too, but that doesn't explain the many crimes committed by people whose circumstances were either chosen by them or certainly weren't the typical "he was in a slum, he had to" reasons.

You may disagree but if that's the case, you must explain the disparity in crime rates between different demographics to me.

And you have to explain the huge crimes that happen by millionaires and other wealthy people who have everything they want, or can buy it if they don't have, too, right? :)

These people are not "allowed" to live off taxpayers. They are forced to do so.

That is a good point. Touche. With the accent that I'm too lazy to put on it.

You would find very few indeed that wouldn't stop doing this and leave were they allowed to.

Heh, that's not what I meant, but that's true. :)

It is a common complaint that prisoners get to live off taxpayers but it is logically incorrect to blame someone for that which you yourself force upon them.

Also true. I'm in favor of changing what they are forced to do - how about that?

You need to consider what portion of inmates are actually there for such crimes as opposed to those who are in for theft, drug use, and other less emotive things.

I agree... which is the whole point about being just and having punishments that fit - not exceeding is included - the crime.

My point is that prison produces worse criminals than they otherwise would be and this is backed up by numerous studies.

Then we need to figure out how to both be just - to victim and cr

Re:How does this compare to London?

[Budenny]

This is a futile effort to compete with London, and indeed with the UK, on this dimension. You may not have realized that one of Britain's great tourist attractions is that it is the most surveilled country, and London the most surveilled city, in the world. People come from all over to experience the magic of proper surveillance, at which we lead the world. There are so many cameras in London that if they were all actively used, everyone in London would be watching them all the time, and there would be no-one to surveil, because we would all be surveilling.

This is why, if you watched the recent Queen's speech, you would have been informed of a remarkable innovation in political thought. The UK government has committed to reducing the deficit by half, and it has also committed to reducing the number of people surveilling to no more than half of the population at any one time.

In order to do this, it is proposing to install people counters in all places where the cameras are watchable, and if the number goes over 50%, as it often does nowadays, then the last entrants will have their names taken and incur heavy fines.

To avoid the problem of people giving false names, face recognition software will be installed at all cameras watching surveillance centers.

This is widely reported as a brilliant initiative, which will cement the British surveillance lead, and ensure that for the next few years, tourists will continue to flock to London, confident that they are seeing a world leader in surveillance.

And causing civil servants in other countries to go home in a state of furious rage, muttering to themselves and their bemused wives about the growing surveillance gap, and worse still, the widening meta surveillance chasm.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[swordgeek]

"...incentivizing..."

Ugh. You just lost my support.

Re:How does this compare to London?

[RMH101]

What, you mean Slashdot? Didn't you hear, the lower your UID, the worse it gets...

Center of Crime

[spydabyte]

Chicago is notorious for mob crimes. Only makes logic hollywood sense to start big brother there, where the FBI was focused in the 1920s...

Criminal Prosecution

[hex444b]

I think this is pretty great, seeing how it can aid in the quick prosecution of criminals, provide evidence for a whole array of crimes... and all that jazz.

Re:Criminal Prosecution

[Anonymous Coward]

do you really thing that is either (a) what the footage is going to be used for, or (b) the real reason for them actually doing it?

A new stimulus program?

[Alpha Soixante-Neuf]

That's 75 new high tech jobs created just in surveillance using existing infrastructure. Vote for the big brother stimulus package today!

Re:A new stimulus program?

[MichaelSmith]

Really just low tech jobs. You are just using human brains as pattern recognition devices. They could outsource the whole job to India, or these days use AI, which might be more expensive.

Re:A new stimulus program?

[Alpha Soixante-Neuf]

Not if you're trying to pass a bill they aren't. Uses technology (including the wheel, the stick, or straw) in any way to carry out your daily activities: that's high tech jobs for the economy!

Re:A new stimulus program?

[theaveng]

Where do I apply?

No on second thought I'd rather work at Walmart. At least there I could flirt with the cute 20-something girls. "Do these shoes fit me?" No. Bend over and try these on instead. "Thanks!" Ahhh yes that's a good view.

Re:A new stimulus program?

[Deosyne]

Your Walmart is a radically different place than any Walmart that I've ever had the misfortune of wandering into. Typically, a chick bending over in Walmart requires the use of safety harnesses, traffic cops, and hazmat gear.

Obama is from Chicago

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure he fully supports invading everyone's privacy.

Oh wait he does, he extended the patriot act and has kept in place all the intrusions of privacy Bush set up.

Watch out UK!

[Das Auge]

So you thought you could outdo us on Big Brothering, but we're catching up!

Public Disclosure?

[MarkvW]

I wonder if you could get the raw footage in a public disclosure request. A lot of fun mischief could be had with that data.

Re:Public Disclosure?

[MichaelSmith]

I think there was a band in the UK which filmed a public performance that way. They just applied for the footage after the performance.

Re:Public Disclosure?

[Chad Birch]

The band was The Get Out Clause, that's a link to an article about it. And the music video in question.

Re:Public Disclosure?

[ptbarnett]

I think there was a band in the UK which filmed a public performance that way. They just applied for the footage after the performance.

The band claimed they obtained the CCTV footage.

But, they really didn't. It was just a publicity stunt:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1048686_band_in_the_frame

Apparently, it worked. Lots of people remember the video and the claim of how they got the footage. Very few seem to be aware that the alleged source was subsequently refuted.

Re:Public Disclosure?

[icebike]

How could you possibly?

They won't even admit to the total number of cameras, let alone where all of them are!!

Why in a democracy should the number of cameras be a secret?

In what sane system do local police have SECRETS anyway? Why should they, other than for witness protection or undercover operations?

Yet they refuse to say how many cameras they have and where they are.

Rather than trying to get the footage, try getting the count and location first.

Good luck with that.

las vegas has more camers in side the casinos

[Joe The Dragon]

las vegas has more camers in side the casinos.

also they have cltv there is that the feed that is not uses for csn+ and has cltv 24/7?

I want cltv on direct tv in Chicago land.

I formally request access to the logs...

[BobMcD]

Mr. Orozco dismisses worries about privacy abuse. The department logs in all users and can monitor what they are doing, he said, assuring accountability. He also said access to the command center is tightly controlled. He declined to discuss specifics of who is allowed inside the center.

Awesome! In that case, I formally request access to the logs.

Re:I formally request access to the logs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Orozco dismisses worries about privacy abuse. The department logs in all users and can monitor what they are doing, he said, assuring accountability. He also said access to the command center is tightly controlled. He declined to discuss specifics of who is allowed inside the center.

Awesome! In that case, I formally request access to the logs.

HMM

WTF

Re:I formally request access to the logs...

[noidentity]

Well, only people who are logged can read the log. This is to protect accountability and uhhh ensure log integrity.

Re:I formally request access to the logs...

[jamesh]

Business plan:

1. Find out where a camera are pointed
2. Perform some antic in front of the camera that no camera watching monkey could resist putting on youtube (eg "Man getting hit by football in the groin")
3. When it appears on youtube, take them to court
4. Profit!

Re:I formally request access to the logs...

[sconeu]

As the ancient Romans might have said (assuming they spoke modern English): "Who shall log the loggers?"

Re:I formally request access to the logs...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Almost:

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/06/band-shoots-free-video-with-surveillance-cameras.html

In that case...

[KingSkippus]

In that case, let me mount a camera pointed at your house. I'll be able to watch you come and go, I'll know when you're at home and when you're away, I'll sometimes catch glimpses of what you're doing through the windows, I can watch you in your sweaty glory while you're mowing your lawn, I can watch your friends and family when they come over (yay, Uncle Bob is there!), I'll know whenever you get a package from Amazon, with good enough resolution, I can probably even see who some of your mail is from. For good measure, I'll even record it all in case I want to go back later and watch something interesting.

Wouldn't that be great? You'd be able to rest easy while I'm always watching, knowing that you don't have to worry about being robbed.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds good. where do i sign up ?

Re:In that case...

[Monkeedude1212]

While I see the point that you're trying to make - I really wouldn't mind that. If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested. Why would someone be AGAINST security cameras being pointed at their property, when other people pay hefty sums to set them up for security?

To be honest, I think being able to go down to my local police station, saying "My house got broken into this weekend, could you guys check the tapes" would be WAY more convenient then the quote unquote "inconvenience" of being watched.

What pray-tell, directly disadvantages the average citizen if they were to be watched at all times?

Re:In that case...

[KingSkippus]

sounds good. where do i sign up ?

...says the Anonymous Coward.

Re:In that case...

[Shakrai]

I really wouldn't mind that. If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.

Yeah, because nobody innocent has ever been arrested.

Why would someone be AGAINST security cameras being pointed at their property, when other people pay hefty sums to set them up for security?

Maybe because they value their privacy more than the value the "security" of video recording?

What pray-tell, directly disadvantages the average citizen if they were to be watched at all times?

I guess that depends on how good looking your wife is and what sexual positions you use ;)

Re:In that case...

[KingSkippus]

If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested. Why would someone be AGAINST security cameras being pointed at their property, when other people pay hefty sums to set them up for security?

Man, I could write a book about that. Seriously. It would take me at least an hour to explain if you really can't see what's wrong with what you're saying. Out of personal convenience, I'm going to let someone else hopefully field this one.

Re:In that case...

[FrankSchwab]

I don't know whether to congratulate you for the best troll post I've ever read, or to quake in my boots because you are serious.

Just, ... wow.

Re:In that case...

[h4rm0ny]

If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.

What if you want to do something illegal? What if something you do is made illegal? What if you want to do something that isn't illegal but is disliked or held against you by others, including those in power. What if the government starts doing things that you disapprove of and you want to discuss it with people but you know everywhere you go and everyone who comes round is monitored and recorded. What if you have an affair? What if your partner has an affair? What if a policeman has a grudge against you? What if the minimum wage lad paid to watch the cameras has a grudge against you? What about when all these things don't apply only to you, but to your neighbours and your friends and your family until everyone is living with the knowledge that they're being watched all the time or at any time? Do you think the climate of fear and of being judged the whole time wouldn't stifle life? Look at what has gone on in even such a blessed country as the USA just in the last half-decade and consider the use constant surveillance would make if the government wasn't your friend (or more precisely, if you didn't consider the government your friend).

You acknowledge that the cameras grant power to the authorities. Consider also that the abuse of authority proceeds to whatever extent it is able to get away with. Permit authority to establish increased power over yourself, and expect that power to be taken advantage of.

If you want to understand why many of us dislike the cameras, just realise that we (a) consider the removal of our privacy to be a threat to our lives and freedom, and (b) are the sort of people who are always looking over our shoulder at history and seeing what dark periods we have had to fight our way out of each time we allowed the steady encroachment of forces establishing power over ourselves.

Re:In that case...

[wellingj]

Maybe that says more about the sheer helplessness and apathy towards their own life than you want it too...

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

what "privacy" do you have outside your house ? The police can easily do this RIGHT NOW and its legal for them to film the outside of your house 24x7. they do it to some criminals already.
you have no rights to anything that is viewable from a public place outside your property.

Re:In that case...

[commodore64_love]

And even if you ARE doing something illegal, you have no reason to expect privacy in a public domain. Do your illegal activities inside the house behind closed curtains.

What REALLY pisses me off is when various citizens, trying to protect themselves from police abuse or to document police activities, are told THEY are not allowed to use their video cameras. If it's okay for the government to watch us on the public street, then it's equally okay for us to watch THEM with our handycams. And yet time-after-time I see videos on youtube where cops tell citizens "turn that off or face arrest". These cops not only violating our rights to document what we see on public streets, they are being hypocritical, and need to spend a couple weeks in jail as punishment (violating constitutional law).

I also see these citizens placidly complying, but I'm afraid I'd be spending a night in jail. I will not comply with illegal orders from cops that violate my natural, innate rights to observe and report what I see in my own city

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcWFmGtsTxg - man arrested for taping in public area
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdlkKsyZY5w - woman arrested for posting video taken *inside* her own home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQvHWgaVACE - another wrongful arrest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NASIcf-LCyM - I can't find the original video but this guy was arrested for using a camera in a public hallway - the same thing local news shows do every, single, day.
and on
and on
and on
Why is it necessary to record the police? So you can document abuses like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM - Young man detained, refused right to travel, and interrogated because "you're carrying too much cash" ($4000). Last I checked it's not illegal to carry money from St. Louis to Arlington Virginia.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

If your life is so inconsequential that you have no enemies and no people who envy you, you might benefit from being under constant surveillance. On the other hand, how likely is that? Most people have crossed through other people's plans at some point, intentionally or not. Have you successfully contested an incorrect traffic ticket and pissed off a cop? Well, too bad he can see when you leave your house. How would you like to be in a "routine" police inspection every week until your "friend" finds something that will stick? What if a corrupt cop gives information about your regular schedule and the angles of the surveillance cameras to the people who break into your house? That doesn't even take into account the many implementation mistakes which cause video feeds to end up unencrypted on public frequencies or badly protected wire connections, which enable mischievous people to get to You-TV directly.

Re:In that case...

[psYchotic87]

While I see the point that you're trying to make - I really wouldn't mind that. If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested. Why would someone be AGAINST security cameras being pointed at their property, when other people pay hefty sums to set them up for security?

To be honest, I think being able to go down to my local police station, saying "My house got broken into this weekend, could you guys check the tapes" would be WAY more convenient then the quote unquote "inconvenience" of being watched.

What pray-tell, directly disadvantages the average citizen if they were to be watched at all times?

Your point of view is that if you're innocent, you shouldn't mind having every single bit of privacy taken away. This really pisses me off, as it is tantamount to saying someone is guilty simply by virtue of desiring privacy. Just imagine applying this exact same way of thinking to criminal law: you are guilty until proven innocent.

Re:In that case...

[CannonballHead]

At least he's not Anonymous Cowardon anymore. ;)

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who watches the watchers?

I see problems either way:
either,
a) through access to information laws, anyone can look at the video feeds, including examining where the police are at any given time, who makes deposits at ATMs and how do they get there from their home, etc. but there is oversight (if the police are beating someone for looking at them funny, it'll be evident [unless, knowing they're being watched, they do it behind an obstruction])
or
b) only the privileged few have access to the feeds, which means nobody else knows exactly what information they have, or how they're using it. Everyone knows that pictures can lie... moving pictures can lie at 30fps.

Re:In that case...

[dgatwood]

What pray-tell, directly disadvantages the average citizen if they were to be watched at all times?

Simple. There are many things that are not illegal but are still problematic.

Your wife wants to know why you have been getting home so late every night. She checks the cameras at your office and sees you drive out at 5:00, then park in front of a pay-by-the-hour hotel and meet a woman who is old enough to be your daughter.

Your boss asks why you were late to work. You tell him or her that traffic was bad. Your boss looks at the traffic records and sees that you left home late because you overslept.

You have a car accident because someone pulls out in front of you. The accident is not caught on tape, but about half a minute earlier, you are caught on tape traveling over the speed limit. The person who pulled out in front of you manages to get you blamed for the wreck even though you were not speeding at the time.

You are a pizza delivery boy. You deliver a pizza to the house of a mob informant. The mob informant is later found dead. The only person seen on video approaching the house (from the front) is you. There are no cameras pointing to the back of the house and no signs of forced entry. Guess who gets charged.

Someone gets murdered in a neighborhood along your drive to work. The neighbors see a person who vaguely matches your description get into a white minivan of unknown make. You also drive a white minivan. You happen to drive past a security camera that puts you a block away from the scene of the crime shortly afterwards, traveling away from the location of the crime. You have no connection with the victim, so you would not have been a suspect otherwise, but now the witnesses pick out your car in a lineup and they arrest you under suspicion of murder.

Put simply, there's a reason that you have to have probable cause for searches and seizures. It is specifically to prevent people who are unlikely to have any association with the crime from being charged due to random circumstance. Cameras significantly increase the risk of random circumstantial evidence being available and being introduced.

Also, the temptation is too great to use these sorts of technologies to try to have perfect prosecution of every crime down to the smallest infraction, which invariably causes serious harm to society. For example, in Eureka, CA, you aren't allowed to kiss a woman if you are wearing a mustache. There are tens or even hundreds of thousands of these silly laws on the books. Were it possible to record everybody doing everything, then everyone would have record of these pointless crimes. Make the wrong person mad and suddenly they can abuse that to fine you $150 for picking up litter in a national forest in New Hampshire... or worse, fine you for driving your car on a Sunday. (Apparently, operating machinery on a Sunday is illegal in New Hampshire.)

And surveillance doesn't generally prevent crime. It just shifts it to some other place that isn't being watched so carefully. It's just like burglar alarms. They don't prevent people from breaking into houses. They just cause people to break into other people's houses. Unless they are ubiquitous, they are useless, and if they are ubiquitous, they are also prone to abuse.

Finally, people tend to act in ways that mimic how they are expected to act. If you treat people like they are law-abiding citizens, most non-sociopaths will behave accordingly. If you treat people like criminals, a fair number of people without any natural criminal tendency will tend to act the part. Don't believe me? Check out the Stanford prison experiment. Thus, a surveillance society is likely to result in a higher crime rate in the long run, not a lower rate.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chicago's been putting up cameras for a lot longer than a few years. When I lived there ten years ago, they were already well under way with their blue light cameras. Basically the "bad neighborhoods" would get a camera put on a pole with a blue light on it, and the idea was that the drug dealers would then abandon that corner, and the local businesses and residents could get on with their lives without the criminal element being out in public. The cameras consistently marched westward from there.

Then came the cameras at traffic lights.

Justifiable, perhaps, but certainly lacking the panache of thousands more check-capped cops in the city.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll pretend you're serious when you ask about disadvantages - and explain it honestly.
(I assume you've never lived in a totalitarian regime, else the answer would be obvious to you).
Information can be a great weapon.

Say you want to run for office. You're going to make a political enemy of the person you're running against - right?
Well, if he has any sense what-so-ever, he pulls up the record of your life. Got home at 3am one day? That's not illegal! But I can hear ad: "stays out partying late!". Gone to a strip club or rented a porn video? You're over 21 - no law against that, right? The ad will run "Poor moral values!". Just because something is not illegal, does not mean you cannot be destroyed by it.

Are you important enough to get that kind of treatment? Probably not - at least not until it's worth someone's time to do a bit of digging. The problem is not you - Joe Schmo - though. The problem with this kind of surveillance is the people who are important enough. Say you're a corrupt politician and have some evidence of a news anchor cheating on their spouse... can you say blackmail material ensuring favorable coverage? Political destruction of opponents becomes almost trivial with enough of a dossier on the opponent. Having an accurate count of past girlfriends (with names) is a goldmine. It only takes one picture of a candidate picking their nose or giving someone the finger to destroy them after all.

Intrusive surveillance like this almost guarantees corruption and misuse. Trust me, you do not want to go there.

Re:In that case...

[CannonballHead]

wearing a mustache

wearing a moustache? What about if you are growing one? ;)

Re:In that case...

[Doctor Faustus]

If it's okay for the government to watch us on the public street, then it's equally okay for us to watch THEM with our handycams.
That's not going far enough. If these are public areas, and the cameras are paid for with public money, we should be able to watch them, or whatever we want, on *their* cameras.

Re:In that case...

[radtea]

If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.

That statement is false. People who have not done anything illegal get arrested all the time. Sometimes completely innocent people get shot and killed by police. That Brazilian guy who was murdered by British police in broad daylight. The Polish immigrant who was killed by the RCMP in Vancouver airport a year or so ago. How can you not be aware of this?

Furthermore: if I am not doing anything illegal, what possible reason do they have to watch me?

What pray-tell, directly disadvantages the average citizen if they were to be watched at all times?

Loss of privacy. Even in public, citizens have a reasonable expectation of not being under continuous, recorded, surveillance. It's what I expect, it's what I have now, and I would lose something of great value to me if it were to disappear.

One might equally ask: what advantage do citizens gain by being watched at all times? It certainly isn't a reduction in crime: Chicago is somewhat more dangerous in terms of robberies and assaults than Huston or Los Angeles, and almost twice as dangerous as New York (all cities of comparable size or larger, and at least one with major drug and gang violence problems.)

If anyone cared about making Chicago safer they'd be asking how to make it more like New York (or Toronto), not engaging in fantasy science-fiction beliefs about how allowing corrupt police to watch everyone will make the city safer, when it demonstrably, empirically, doesn't.

Re:In that case...

[NeutronCowboy]

I normally disagree with you vehemently on political issues, but I find it interesting that I'm pretty much in full agreement with you on this. I'm ok with every citizen being under surveillance - under one condition, and one condition only: those in power are subject to the same surveillance, and the surveillance is accessible by everyone, freely, with no restrictions.

The fact that some people seem to think that cops and politicians are somehow morally above the fray, never failing, and too important to be under constant scrutiny is astounding to me. Scratch that - it scares the living daylights out of me. These are the same people who have no problem imprisoning others based on hear say, and cops beating someone up because someone didn't look right.

Re:In that case...

[jamesh]

Wouldn't that be great? You'd be able to rest easy while I'm always watching, knowing that you don't have to worry about being robbed.

Meh.

Re:In that case...

[jjh37997]

Go ahead. The stalkers of the world will always have the upper hand as long as we try and keep this genie in the bottle. We need to make the technology a two-way street and get rid of the myth of privacy. I don't have a problem giving away my personal infomation as long as I know who has access to it and I'm able to get the same back in kind. Point a camera at my house, if you wish.... just as so long as I get to watch the live feed from yours.

Re:In that case...

[IonOtter]

I'll be able to watch you come and go, I'll know when you're at home and when you're away, I'll sometimes catch glimpses of what you're doing through the windows, I can watch you in your sweaty glory...

Santa?!?

Re:In that case...

[winomonkey]

I think that a part of the point being made was that no good can come to you if you are always watched. Something that you do could be incriminating at some point, now or in the future. This is in-line with the "do not talk to police" recommendations from law professors and police (link here). Basically, it won't be used for you, only against you. You mentioned that it would be great to be able to go to police to have them track down the folks who break into your house. I have a strange feeling that there are a handful of ways to get past security cameras - people robbing banks, convenience stores, etc have all used "masking technology" for quite some time. Furthermore, depending on quality of the resolution of the images, it gets much easier to make a rudimentary disguise that would incriminate someone else. I won't touch on any of the other topics brought up by other posters about arguments on "average citizens" and disadvantages that might crop up, for I feel those points have been well-addressed.

Re:In that case...

[TapeCutter]

Heh, for a while I thought that "anonymous cowardon" was a new user.

Re:In that case...

[The Master Control P]

f(t) = A * exp(kt) + B * exp(-kt)

Accepting a surveillance state because surveillance in and of itself isn't evil and can in principle be good is a bit like thinking f(t) is stable because you can in principle set A equal to zero.

Re:In that case...

[element-o.p.]

"He who would sacrifice his liberty for a little, temporary security deserves neither liberty nor safety." --some dude named "Franklin"

If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.

I can't believe people are still posting that on /. Here goes, one more time: that argument is pure, bovine scatology. What happens when your political leanings become, shall we say, "unpopular" with whatever administration happens to be in power. Can't happen in the U.S., you say? Read your history books -- particularly the section about "witch hunts" in the 1950's. Simply being accused of being a communist was enough to get you drummed out of whatever business you happened to be employed in.

Why would someone be AGAINST security cameras being pointed at their property, when other people pay hefty sums to set them up for security?

Ummm...maybe because the cameras that they pay hefty sums of money to have set up are under their control, and therefore, they don't need to worry about what the video feed is being used for (assuming they did their homework and made sure the cameras were actually secure, etc.)? Suppose your wife didn't get the shades all the way closed at night -- do you want some fat, sweaty perv getting off to the video feed of your wife every night? How about your minor daughter? Suppose the camera operator is hurting for cash, you're upper middle class and the operator starts selling records of your coming and goings to some second-rate thug who wants to burglarize your home? I'm sure there are more possibilities, but that's just off the top of my head.

Re:In that case...

[theaveng]

Here's one where a TV Station cameraman was arrested! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWnqcQB_L_Y
How stupid is that cop? Committing police brutality on a TV station that broadcasts to millions of people???

arrested for asking cop for ID- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUvrkS_PKsA
arrested for filming a cop - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC7b9zLlK_4
arrested for filming his own garden- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImC2orpcA4I
Police told man to stop filming- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoayJD8X268
arrested after taking photo of police- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrmP4MwHTKw
police Steal camera - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHMnFDdZY0c

British tyrants/cops sound so damnn polite as they trample on ye reeghts! ;-)

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

"witnesses pick out your car in a lineup"
LOL

Re:In that case...

[Travelsonic]

I really wouldn't mind that. If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.

As somebody who has been arrested while doing nothing wrong, fuck you. That's all I can/will say.

Re:In that case...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Why would someone be AGAINST security cameras being pointed at their property, when other people pay hefty sums to set them up for security?

Because it's their choice and their decision on how to use the recordings.

To be honest, I think being able to go down to my local police station, saying "My house got broken into this weekend, could you guys check the tapes" would be WAY more convenient then the quote unquote "inconvenience" of being watched.

Get real, they won't ever do that.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

...expect that power to be taken advantage of.

We absolutely do. And we like it! Why do you think we elect these guys over and over?

Now.. on your little grammatical faux pas there, it might be better to state, "... expect that power to be abused." It's got rhythm. You can dance to it.

Re:In that case...

[joe_frisch]

I agree with you. This problem is especially bad because there are some legal but immoral activities (like having an affair) that many people will commit crimes to cover up. It may be perfectly legal for a politician to have sex with his same-sex, adult assistant, but someone could use that information to blackmail him / her into doing something illegal. A separate problem is that the severity of laws changes. When I was growing up, driving drunk was sort of funny. Illegal, but not serious. Now it is considered a serious crime. In 30 years, maybe speeding (kills lots of people) will be considered a serious crime. Various recorded surveillance could be used to show that someone....exceeded the posted speed limit almost every day.....at some time in the past.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also a VERY big problem with this. It is easier to quietly remove a right after the fact than it is to force them to remove the hardware in place.

If they did this, they would install and setup all of these cameras and all the infrastructure while we are given access to all of it as they install it and then after it is all setup and all the installation is completed, THEN they remove our ability to view it as well.

I HOPE for my government to do the right thing, but I don't trust them to. I trust this government with my freedom about as much as I would trust Micheal Jackson with my children. Never give your government a privilege that you would not trust your worst enemy to have cause on a long enough timeline, THAT kind of person is going to be the one running the show for a time.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

The police need a warrant to do that, moron.

Re:In that case...

[CrashPoint]

I'm ok with every citizen being under surveillance - under one condition, and one condition only: those in power are subject to the same surveillance, and the surveillance is accessible by everyone, freely, with no restrictions.

No, that's not okay either. A camera in the mayor's office does not justify a camera in my living room.

Re:In that case...

[The Archon V2.0]

We need to make the technology a two-way street and get rid of the myth of privacy. I don't have a problem giving away my personal infomation as long as I know who has access to it and I'm able to get the same back in kind. Point a camera at my house, if you wish.... just as so long as I get to watch the live feed from yours.

No problem. Except that feed's been censored in interests of national security. Move along citizen, thank you for your cooperation, and for occasionally forgetting the blinds open.

One should fight for personal privacy because there IS a power imbalance. Privacy is the right of the individual to be free of not only their nosy neighbors (as in your example) but their nosy government, as well.

Ideally, it's a fair trade. They get the badges and the power, and we get the right to meet and talk to and buy from and sleep with whoever the hell we want without them knowing, even if they don't like it. If they want to know, they have to prove there's a good reason for it to a judge and leave some sort of paper trail for others to follow. Unfortunately, things have gone pear-shaped over the past few years, and are just getting worse.

Removing one's "mythical" privacy will provide those with the control of the surveillance with even more power, while getting nothing in return.

Re:In that case...

[NeutronCowboy]

The correct equivalency is a camera in the mayor's office and a camera in my office.

Re:In that case...

[h4rm0ny]

I don't want a camera in my office. We don't need to aim for equivalency. They work for us. And that's a feed line for someone to race in and make a joke, I know. But the moment we start realising that again, is the moment that we start being pissed off when they go against our interests and taking real action against such behaviour.

Re:In that case...

[pjt33]

Most adult men are growing a moustache. It's just that a lot of them are foolish enough to fight it.

Re:In that case...

[commodore64_love]

No.

Do you really want your wife to use the camera and track your car as you sneak into a hotel for a fling? Or your boss to see if your "I was late due to traffic accident" was a lie, and discover you left home late? Government tracking isn't great but at least it's confined to just a few security guards. If that same tracking was made available to all, such that citizens can spy on one another, then society would break down. It would give whole new meaning to the word "gossip" if your nosy neighbor can follow you everywhere you go

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

> You'd be able to rest easy while I'm always watching, knowing that you don't have to worry about being robbed.

In fact, you would have to worry about being robbed.

The police being able to monitor everything via CCTV is a manna for organized crime. For example, for robber gangs.

One of the main problems that robber gangs face is knowing when a house is empty. Empty houses are easier and safer to rob. Once the police has a large enough surveillance system that can monitor all the houses, a robber gang only needs a man in the inside, with access to the surveillance system, to be able to monitor their target houses and make sure they only attack when the houses are empty. Effectively and efficient. From the surveillance system they can study your life patterns - when you're in or out, when your neighbours are in or out, and plan the best moment to get to your home and rob it with the least possible disruption. And since they know exactly how the surveillance system works, they'll make sure they won't be spotted during the act, can't be recognized on camera and can't be tracked back.

For serious organized crime, such as mafia families, police CCTV monitoring of an entire city is an absolute dream. With a couple of people in the inside, they can track, harass and threaten anyone in the city. They will know all about it - while you know nothing about them. They will be ideally placed to threaten you or your family or your pets or anything you love to force you to do what they want you to do. And you don't have much chances of fighting back, because they can monitor you and your family every single second of your life. Think a traditional godfather was powerful ? They were pussycats compared to the new godfathers that await us in the new no-privacy world.

Of course, once the monitoring infrastructure is in place, it goes without saying that is a great enabler for any sort of repressive regime. European dictatorships in the 1900s had to employ massive amounts of staff to monitor, control and threaten opposition. Controlling an opposition trouble-maker was hard; someone had to physically follow them, find out where they were going and who they were meeting, keep paper records, wade through massive amounts of paperworks to understand the grass-root opposition organizations. You probably needed a repressive police agent for every two or three potential freedom, opposition persons you wanted to control. With new technologies and monitoring infrastructure in place, the cost of repressive regimes is drastically diminished. A single repressive police agent can probably control hundreds of people. You can control and oppress an entire nation with a handful of policemen.

So, you don't want to put in place a surveillance society, because no matter how nicely it is presented, the entire system is just there waiting to be abused, and seriously abused.

Re:In that case...

[Jedi Alec]

Foolish, are we?

Perhaps we merely want to:
1. Have sex regularly(moustaches are a major turnoff for a lot of women)
2. Not be mistaken for a cop

Of course the typical /.ian has very little chance of either of these happening anyway, so i guess i see your point ;-)

Re:In that case...

[Doctor Faustus]

As long as it's fair, and we can all see the same things, sure, why not? You're taking a chance that someone is looking, anyway; it just changes the odds a bit.

Besides, my wife generally knows when I'm likely to be having sex with someone else, and I make it a point not to lie about why I was late.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.

Sounds like you will be in for a big surprise when you get arrested for doing nothing illegal.
Happens all the time.

Additionally, no where is it stated you must be breaking a law to be arrested.
You only need to be breaking a law and have proof you did so to be *convicted*

Cops arrest people and hold them for the max allowed time before having to press charges, then releasing you on the side of the street, all the time as a harassment tool.

These days you can be tasered without cause as well!
All you have to do is commit the crime of falling down and breaking your back, and then while paralyzed not standing up when ordered to by the cop and shouting your back is broken. citation

Or the worse crime of not wanting to take a shower will also get you assaulted with a taser. citation

Re:In that case...

[dissy]

While I see the point that you're trying to make - I really wouldn't mind that. If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested. Why would someone be AGAINST security cameras being pointed at their property, when other people pay hefty sums to set them up for security?

But you ARE doing something illegal. Most likely, many many somethings.

In one days time you most likely broke around 10 laws just by how you are dressed, what other people think of you, where you go and when, and what exactly you are seen doing.

If you are driving, add another 10+ laws broken per trip.
1mph over the limit? that is a crime. 21 mph below the limit and not within distance of an intersection? that too is a crime. Swerve to miss that dead animal in the road? that is a crime.

In my city, walking down the street with two ice cream cones is illegal.
In fact it is still a law on the books to require a certain percentage of your customer parking to have a horse hitch. This makes practically all businesses break the law, since no one rides horses.

Even on slashdot alone, you probably made more than one comment today that someone can take as libel or slander, and if that person happens to be a different race than you (which unless they state it, you would never know online) you just committed a hate crime. That carries a jail sentence!

So your quaint thought that you are not breaking any laws is silly, you break tons of them a day.

Assuming a normal day of driving to and from work, and basic errands after work (pick up kids, grocery shopping, etc) that gives a good 30-40 opportunities for you to be arrested for the crimes you committed that day, that you are just 'lucky' for not being arrested on.

Right now such laws aren't enforced 'by the book' because there are not enough police to do so.
If you consider taped evidence as taking an officers place, you now have a much larger police force. This lets more laws be enforced, and enforced retroactively.

So while now you break 30-40 laws a day and are arrested for zero of them due to no officers witnessing the crimes, with cameras you will be committing the same 30-40 crimes a day as you are right now, but most of those will be recorded permanently and in the hands of the very people who will be doing the arresting of you.

Re:In that case...

[dissy]

If these are public areas, and the cameras are paid for with public money, we should be able to watch them, or whatever we want, on *their* cameras.

I think you mean on *our* cameras.

Re:In that case...

[rhathar]

Come on, you're not even trying to troll anymore.

Re:In that case...

[2obvious4u]

My one condition: The video can only be viewed when a victim reports a crime.

The camera's can passively collect data, but may not be viewed. In order to view the data from the camera a victim must report a crime and then a warrant to view the alleged misdeed could then be viewed by a third party. If there is evidence to support the allegation it would then be viewable by the court.

The problem with constant surveillance is fishing expeditions. Crusaders who would watch the cameras like hawks and report every little misdeed.

Catching people speeding, having consensual sex, using substances, in possession of banned item, etc are what is bad about surveillance. If you could catch thieves, rapists and murders with surveillance who would be opposed to it? The issue is that surveillance is also used to catch people who do things which a large portion (but not the majority) of people think should be legal, but the majority has managed to pass "stupid" laws against. The prime example of this is cannabis.

Re:In that case...

[LifesABeach]

I think a government watching anything without a valid search warrant is illegal. Law Enforcement from a chair alienates. Not a single government has survived alienating its citizens.

Re:In that case...

[mcgrew]

If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.

Before my Grandfather fought in the Great War, one of his favorite pleasures was completely legal. Then they outlawed it while he was in France fighting the Germans.

So he said "the hell with those bastards, who do they think they are?" and put a beermaking kit in his barn. Later, after the stupid law they wrote not only didn't stop Grandpa or anybody else, and cause a whole raft of societal problems including horrific violence, corruption, and a doubling of the illegal activity, they legalized it again.

Four years later they repeated the atrocity by outlawing yet another activity that was less harmful than Grandpa's beer.

You can be doing nothing wrong while doing something illegal. What's legal today can be outlawed tomorrow and legalized again next week.

Read a little history.

BTW, adultery is wrong, but it's completely legal. I think I'll go seduce my congressman's wife, it's legal as long as I don't pay her.

Re:In that case...

[mcgrew]

These are the same people who have no problem imprisoning others based on hearsay, and cops beating someone up because someone didn't look right.

It's much worse than that. Since this is Chicago we're talking about:

Official proceedings to remove Anthony Abbate from the Chicago Police Department began Tuesday with the airing of about 30 minutes of video showing the disgraced officer showboating and harassing patrons of a Northwest Side bar before he turns on the bartender, beating and kicking her.

The infamous recording -- played around the world -- largely has been seen in shorter snippets.

On Monday, city attorneys aired lengthy portions of the recording to highlight how events unfolded at Jesse's Short Stop Inn in the afternoon and evening of Feb. 19, 2007. The additional video shown in the hearing has not been released because Abbate's case is ongoing.

During two visits to the bar, Abbate consumed large quantities of alcohol and persistently harassed and physically abused patrons and the bartender, Karolina Obrycka, according to the attorneys and the charges filed against him by Police Superintendent Jody Weis.

Abbate, already convicted in criminal court for the felony aggravated battery of Obrycka, faces dismissal from the department before the Chicago Police Board. The board conducts hearings and determines punishment. Weis is seeking his dismissal.

Abbate invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at least 75 times during questioning by city attorney Anna L. D'Ascenzo, who repeatedly asked Abbate to identify himself on the recording.

"You pounce on Karolina Obrycka," said D'Ascenzo, referring to the video. "You throw her to the ground. ... You grab fistfuls of hair."

The cops claim it's an "isolated incident". Riiiiight.... Yeah, isolated. Stuff like that seldom happens. BTW, those links are from Google's first page of a search for "Chicago police beatings". One of them has a video of a cop beating the holy shit out of a "special needs" student for refusing to tuck his shirt in.

Is it any wonder people in the ghetto have nothing but fear, loathing, and hatred for the police? Anybody who says "but if I'm not brealing the law" are woefully ignorant.

Don't click thoise links if you're easily pissed off, or are one of those "law and order" folks. There is little law and less order.

Re:In that case...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

That one condition isn't going to work. The rich and powerful will always find some way to preserve their privacy. In fact they'll justify exemptions as being necessary because they are rich and powerful and so more likely to be targeted by "bad guys". No, you'll just lose your privacy.

Re:In that case...

[CrashPoint]

Then let me be more clear: A camera pointed at the mayor does not justify a camera pointed at me.

Scary if "The Man" does it...

[Interoperable]

*awesome* if Google does it; video will be streamed live to overlay on Google Earth and Street View images. It will happen. Privately owned cameras streaming feeds of public spaces (or privately owned spaces owned by the same organization as the feed) are legal and many exist in the form of security cameras, webcams. The technology to do it is almost available and if it can be done it will be done. Soon (many decades) all public space in major urban centers will be visible to anyone, anytime. Okay, maybe *awesome* and scary.

Re:Scary if "The Man" does it...

[Persol]

That's a GOOD thing. It's available to everyone, and privacy concerns are well known.

With it limited to only certain people, nobody knows quite the capabilities. It can be used against the public, but not by the public.

Re:Scary if "The Man" does it...

[h4rm0ny]

Are you telling me you can't think of people you know that you wouldn't want being able to follow you everywhere about your daily business or track down where you are or were at any time? And who with? Are you telling me you don't know anyone who wouldn't be vulnerable because of that?

Re:Scary if "The Man" does it...

[Anonymous Coward]

When Google does it;
1) It is public / transparent anyone can view it.

2) They blur faces and nameplates.

3) It is purely for the purposes of allowing you to virtually travel streets to plan out a road trip.

When "The Man" does it;
1) It is secretive, who knows what they're doing with them! They could be watching you have sex in an alley, pick your nose, etc. Don't laugh, the NSA has been outed on gathering together with popcorn and laughing at recordings of soldiers having phone sex with their wives back home while in Iraq. This stuff really happens.

2) The purpose is to invade your privacy and stick their nose in your business for the purpose of taking away freedoms and imposing their version of right and wrong on you anywhere you go. For example, in Britain if you toss a cigarette on the ground, a camera will catch you doing it and a loudspeaker attached atop it will carry the voice of a police officer yelling at you to pick it up or face fines/arrest.

3) Criminals could manipulate these cameras, or corrupt cops/politicians.

Re:Scary if "The Man" does it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be illegal in Norway.

You cant set up a camera monitoring public spaces unless you have a permit. Most permits are denied due to privacy concerns.

Hell... My college had issues with bicycle-thieves but was denied setting up a camera because the bicycle-parking was right next to a public sidewalk.

Re:Scary if "The Man" does it...

[afex]

admittedly, this is completely offtopic (maybe not though?), but i've never understood why people would be upset over having their tags (plates) on google street view. Can't i drive around all day and look at people's tags?

i mean, if they are worried that someone will catch them at [insert strip club], couldn't I just GO to the strip club and write down all the tags?

faces i'll give you - although that's almost the same. when i walk down the street, i assume that everyone can see me...

Re:Scary if "The Man" does it...

[Nerdposeur]

Yes, it would be scary, regardless of who does it. But which is better: constant surveillance where everyone can monitor the feeds, or constant surveillance where only Big Brother can?

At least if it's publicly available, the stalkers get watched, too. Although personally I vote for none of the above.

Smash em.

[h4rm0ny]

You were at your finest when you told us (Brits) where to stick it. You seem to have lost your way a bit since, unfortunately. You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives. Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen it makes a difference to whether or not they can tell you what to do. It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for.

Re:Smash em.

[Shakrai]

Chicago has been violating the civil rights of it's residents for years in ways that are far more obnoxious than recording public spaces. What makes you think the good people of the windy city are going to grow a backbone at this point?

Re:Smash em.

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't think they will. He's just saying that they should.

Re:Smash em.

[h4rm0ny]

Chicago has been violating the civil rights of it's residents for years in ways that are far more obnoxious than recording public spaces. What makes you think the good people of the windy city are going to grow a backbone at this point?

Hope?

Re:Smash em.

[RobotRunAmok]

You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives.

We try. And then we're called "racist." [sigh] It ain't easy...

Re:Smash em.

[CannonballHead]

Hope?

I hear he is currently President and came from Chicago.

;)

Re:Smash em.

[CannonballHead]

You wouldn't want to run for US President, would you? :P

Seriously though, it's true. I think we were pretty good at other times in the past 200 years, but I really dislike the "Europe is where it's happening, why can't we make America more like [insert European country]?" Europe is why people CAME to America...

Not to say anything a European country does is automatically bad, of course. I guess the main push right now is socialism, which some European countries have *ahem* presumably *ahem* implemented with some success. But just because it is successful doesn't mean it's good. I don't think socialistic government is the way to go. However, that's just being a stick in the mud, I'm told.

Did the Brits call us sticks in the mud back in the 18th century, too? ;)

Re:Smash em.

[evil_aar0n]

Racist? How so? If anything, we're called "un-American" for asserting our individuality. Isn't _that_ the height of irony?

The R's continually asked why we hated democracy, freedom and America, when we dared question Bush's strategy.

Re:Smash em.

[h4rm0ny]

Your views are fine. Socialism can work well. Capitalism can also work well. But socialist, capitalist or anything else, we all agree that corruption is bad. What you have in the USA today is a debased form of capitalism. What's capitalist about giving enormous amounts of public money to the banks for example? Nothing. The manipulations the federal reserve engages in... You're better off with a low-corruption government that carries out socialist policies than you are with a corrupt "capitalist" one. Because the more it is corrupt, the less it is a model of a workable system (socialism or capitalism) and the more it is a model of redirecting wealth to the powerful. Whatever your preference for economic structuring, you need to clean house. It's true here in the UK and I think it's true in the USA also. And to do this, we need to first make sure we have the power to do so and by preventing the corrupt from having too much power over us.

Then you're free to build a capitalist utopia. (I recommend yoinking a socialist health care model, though. You're paying through the nose with your insurance based model).

Re:Smash em.

[selven]

How exactly is some nobody Canadian actress (can you spell redundancy?) going to save Chicago?

Re:Smash em.

[CannonballHead]

Racist? How so?

Conservatives would like to know the answer to that, too.

Yes, unfortunately, questioning Bush got similar critiques. Seems the "my way is right, it's so obvious... you don' think it's right so you must be [insert something bad]!" sentiment is unfortunately rampant. Which makes it wrong no matter which group employs it. Including now. "Bush did it" and "Obama did it" aren't excuses, they're fingers.

Re:Smash em.

[CannonballHead]

But socialist, capitalist or anything else, we all agree that corruption is bad.

Yup.

I also think that it seems easier to be corrupt in a socialistic system... or, perhaps, harder to get out.

Cleaning house sounds like a great idea. As far as the health care thing, the proposed health care "reform" is worse than the current, it would seem...

Re:Smash em.

[s73v3r]

I knew it! Obama's birth certificate isn't real! He's a secret Brit!

Re:Smash em.

[s73v3r]

It seemed to have worked out pretty well for those people whose lives were actually being controlled.

Re:Smash em.

[h4rm0ny]

As far as the health care thing, the proposed health care "reform" is worse than the current, it would seem...

I suspect that may well be true. And this is speaking as someone who used to work in a socialist health care system and approves of the model. I think (though its hard to tell when the proposal is over a thousand pages long) that what is being pushed in this bill is not socialist health care, nor privatised health care, but public money being ploughed into privatised health care for whatever sense that means. And not in a simple sense of a government hiring private companies to fulfill needs, but in a byzantine "where did the money go" sort of subsidisation of private industry.

Re:Smash em.

[iron-kurton]

Apologies for starting a flame war with a tongue-in-cheek comment.

(disclaimer: this apology is also tongue-in-cheek)

(also, obligatory woosh)

Re:Smash em.

[sponga]

I don't think they really care what Chicago does, the people have been violating their own human rights by killing each other for decades now in that city.

What are you expecting from the 'people' as most of the people with common sense or incentive to do something better with their lives have left their city long ago in the early 70's.

Have you seen what their city council does and how they act in some of the famous YouTube videos?

The people in these neighborhoods could care less, these people watch other kill their neighbors and are afraid to come out to report who the killer is.

Why not ban video recorders in the Police officers car than while were at it?

Re:Smash em.

[DarkofPeace]

That's the benefit and weakness of our federal system. Right now it in Chicago Illinois, its not nationwide. Someone will sue and we find out if its legal. Then other states may or may not try it, and maybe have different rules per state. Right now its a pay attention situation not a end of world scenario.

Re:Smash em.

[foo fighter]

Anyone who voluntarily lives in Detroit or Chicago deserves what they get for being stupid.

Re:Smash em.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen ...

First you replace all "z" characters with "s" characters (ie. utilize -> utilise), now you replace "they're" with "their". What's next, one space after a punctuation mark instead of two?

Re:Smash em.

[Runaway1956]

"It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for."

I couldn't help it. I read that sentence, and the first thought through my mind was, "We don't seem to stand for much of anything these days, but we'll lay down for anything at all!" 24/7 surveillance, ACTA, and a lot of other crazy things make me think that.

The most common excuse for all this crap is "Think of the children!" It makes me wonder how any of us survived world before cameras, internet, cell phones, etc ad nauseum.

Re:Smash em.

[cyn1c77]

Chicago has been violating the civil rights of it's residents for years in ways that are far more obnoxious than recording public spaces...

No they haven't!!!

Attention Chicago residents, just shoot out every camera lens with your handguns! ...Oh wait a second.

Re:Smash em.

[seekertom]

well, h4 (hope i've got the name ok) seems to me you see the light, concerning what the REAL problems are in both our countries. But there are also lots of folks that see the light as well. My question is this... what are we going to do about fixing things, and when the hell are we going to begin? (Not to mention the biggest question of all: CAN we do anything about it????) I say this because of at least one example that is close to my heart (ie wallet)... we have a group in Florida that is supposed to be the consumer's advocate between us and the power company. When asked about why no rebates for lowering consumption, they simply replied that if we lower our consumption, big power will just ask for-and get- a rate hike to keep their profits high, ie, we pay more to use less!. So what does this have to do with it? If we have NO SAY in regulating a single power company, what chance have we in controlling our government??? My tea-time brother, we are in very deep shite! Do YOU have any idea which way to go? thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom

Re:Smash em.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear he is currently President and came from Chicago.

Oh yeah? Where's the birth certificate, eh?

Re:Smash em.

[JohnBailey]

How exactly is some nobody Canadian actress (can you spell redundancy?) going to save Chicago?

24/7 Palm Pre adverts?

Re:Smash em.

[Hooya]

> He's a secret Brit!

Nope. Obama is Irish.

Re:Smash em.

[Aldenissin]

Hope?

I hear he is currently President and came from Chicago.

;)

Like John Coffey said in the the Green Mile, "They kill them with their love, Boss, they kill them with their love!"

Re:Smash em.

[FlyingBishop]

Didn't say anything about where he was born.

Re:Smash em.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also the longer that a corrupt system is used to redistribute wealth from poor to rich, the greater the risk of the masses rising up against the system. This is one of the reasons for "socialist" policies in Europe - as a response to the various historical situations where even governments were overthrown. The UK for all its failings has done particularly well in recent centuries in adapting to keep the populance happy, without requiring a toppling of government (although there have been some obvious failings, like losing their authority to govern Ireland, mainly through failure to reform). By contrast various European states have gone through several government systems.

The US is storing up trouble by not reforming, particularly with the age of the government systems (older than in many "old" countries).

Re:Smash em.

[Hognoxious]

Europe is why people CAME to America...

That doesn't make any sense. Either it is why the come, or it was why they came.

Re:Smash em.

[mcgrew]

Indeed; Chicago may be the US's most corrupt city. Certainly if you read the Chicago Tribune it seems the cops are the most violent and corrupt of any. What other state has a Governor that refuses to live it its capital city and is impeached and removed from office (mostly by legislators from other districts) for trying to sell a seat on the US Senate?

Look at Illinois previous Governor, from Kankakee, which is just south of Cook County. He's in prison right now for selling commercial drivers licenses to people who couldn't even read a road sign.

I personally vote against anybody running for any position if they're from Chicago, as the odds are they're dirty as horse manure.

Re:Smash em.

[crtreece]

Chicago? Is that how they're spelling Kenya now?

Re:Smash em.

[Shakrai]

What other state has a Governor that refuses to live it its capital city

New York. Our Governor resides in NYC and rarely heads to Albany unless he wants to do a joint press conference with other state officials.

Re:Smash em.

[bmajik]

Socialism can work well

For a good explanation of why this is false, and only tends to look true for constrained or limited versions of "socialism", please read "The Road to Serfdom", by FA Hayek.

Here's the short version, in comic strip form:

http://mises.org/books/TRTS/

Hayek wrote his book _prior_ to WW2.

Hayek's main insight was that central economic planning was the key inflection point that lead to absolute totalitarianism. The scandanavian countries tend to shy away from central planned economies and as such seem to have escaped the inevitable descent towards totalitarianism required to implement "the plan".

Problematically for most socialist nations is that they elevate the rights of society to a higher position than the rights of man, but tend to not enumerate either or work to constrain the power of the governors. The US was designed to avoid just such these problems, but we have had generations of reprehensible tyrants in elected [and appointed] office who have been blatantly destroying and ignoring these limitations.

Luckily the US has largely retained the fundamental individual right that most other nations who suppress individuals take away first: the right of a heavily armed citizenry. I desperately hope we in the US will fix our problems without resorting to that most basic of all individual freedoms, but I'm not very optimistic.

Re:Smash em.

[IndustrialComplex]

Of course it does, if you are a true pedant.

Why did people leave Europe? Because they felt that Europe would be worse for them in the future than the United States. It couldn't be worse for them than it was when they were there, because when they were there, it was their present, and therefore couldn't be any worse at that moment than it possibly was. So naturally they left because staying in Europe was potentially going to be worse for them at any moment in the future.

Based on that, Future Europe to Past Immigrants was the reason for their leaving Past Europe. Since Our Europe can be referred to the Future Europe of the Past Immigrants, then the tense of the statement 'Europe is the reason why they came.' is perfectly cromulent.

Re:Smash em.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean you tried to defend an out-dated economic model with a gun?

Try it again; I'll give 10:1 odds the North just lets you walk this time.

Re:Smash em.

[mcgrew]

Hope?
I hear he is currently President and came from Chicago.

No, he's a dead comedian. ;)

If you're talking about Obama was born in Hawaii. Of course, Federal prisoner George Ryan was born in Iowa. Damn. At least Obama was in his late 20s when he moved to Chicago so there's still hope... maybe...

Re:Smash em.

[Monchanger]

I don't buy the Future Europe to past immigrants thing. Wasn't it Past Europe that caused past emigration to the New World and later the USA? Lack of religious freedoms, political persecution, famines, freedom, those sorts of things?

Re:Smash em.

[IndustrialComplex]

I don't buy the Future Europe to past immigrants thing. Wasn't it Past Europe that caused past emigration to the New World and later the USA? Lack of religious freedoms, political persecution, famines, freedom, those sorts of things?

Yes. Remember though, it was OUR Past Europe. It was THEIR current Europe. Based on their experience with their current Europe (our past), their Future Europe was the one which they were planning to avoid.

Also, it's a joke.

Re:Smash em.

[tuxgeek]

Good post, If I had mod points ..

We have a politically slanted/paid/controlled media system here that promotes Socialism == bad ... Capitalism == good. Most citizens are brainwashed this way. Unfortunately our capitalist system has gone off the deep end of badly corrupted. Robbing from the poor & middle class -> giving to the rich.

I personally believe a little socialism mentality would do us some good.
"All for one & one for all"
"We're all in this together"
"A house divided against itself cannot stand"

To me socialism implies helping one another. Pooling our efforts together for community. Capitalism also works in this system. You keep what you kill. Just share the excess that would go to waste. If everyone contributes to the pot we can all have a full, well rounded meal.

Okay, I'm a dreamer. Small communities could work this way just fine. Most cities like Chicago have become such cluster-fucks the only way to save them would be to nuke 'em and start over from scratch

Re:Smash em.

[tuxgeek]

Yep, you've hit it on the head

What is being pushed through is public money spent on private insurance companies.
What people don't grasp here is the insurance companies are the root of our problem

They insure both the patient and the doctor. They gouge from both ends. The doctors pay excessively high malpractice insurance and pass the costs on to the patients. Patients with health insurance pay excessively high premiums and get little in return. The insurance corporations rake in record profits. This is what's broken in our system. Corporations reap record profits, and people are dying on their plans.

What we have being pushed through our congress is public money being pooled together, but still paying private insurance corporations. The insurance corps will still reap record profits, except all citizens will be required to pay for insurance, will get crappy health care and will still be getting screwed

I often refer to my insurance company as the Guido crime family. Give us all your money or we break your legs and you die

Re:Smash em.

[tuxgeek]

Not to mention the biggest question of all: CAN we do anything about it????

Yes, 2 words: Violent Revolt
About the only choice left

March on DC with torches
Burn it all down
Sack everyone
Start over from scratch

Re:Smash em.

[h00manist]

Indeed; Chicago may be the US's most corrupt city.

Hmm I'd assume that would be DC or NYC, actually. Need to find some statistics to base my lies upon. I'd vote for a law where anyone in any government position takes a vow of poverty basically, committing to living on strictly what the position's salary allows for, and having one's finances, accounts, etc, closely inspected. Perhaps including for some period after leaving office.

Re:Smash em.

[LWATCDR]

True enough. I don't know which has the most worst politicians Chicago or New Orleans? It is a shame because I actually like Chicago.

So

[jlechem]

What's the crime rate like now? I'm seriously on the fence about this one. They put in new cameras in Pioneer Park (SLC, Utah) and supposedly the drug/gang/prostitution rate dropped dramatically. Of course now everyone pisses and moans because they just moved over a few blocks to the residential neighborhood. So I'm curious how a city wide effort would work and what its results are.

Re:So

[gad_zuki!]

Lets see, we have a murder every few days. Two blocks from my home someone was almost stabbed to death while walking home and I dont even live in one of the "bad" neighborhoods. The first warm weekend of Spring usually means multiple murders as gang members start going outdoors. Chicago is really in the middle of a serious gang epidemic and the cameras are a response to that. Theres a camera box mounted outside most schools, if not all, and on intersections where there is high crime and high gang activities. There are two near me because my neighborhood borders a much worse neighborhood and there is often spillover. While the ACLU-part of me understands the complaints, its important to remember that all politics is local.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

Re:So

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So I'm curious how a city wide effort would work and what its results are.

Look at London - the effect appears to be that only a very small subset of crimes are affected, and those are primarily moved to 'blind-spots' between cameras. All the other sorts of crime continues on business as usual. Some will say that this happens because the criminals know that 99.99% of the time no-one is watching the cameras anyway. But, to me at least, that just seems like one more step down the slipperly slope. The same people were the ones saying that just having cameras would be a pancea itself - ultimately they will get to the point of arguing that the only way a bunch of cameras can make a significant difference is if we implement an extremely authoritarian regime to back them up and if that's the case they might as well just come clean and say big brother is the end game instead of boiling our frog.

Re:So

[tsstahl]

Well, we are in the middle of a gang war with a bunch of kids being killed this year. Daley can co. won't breathe a word about the gang war. Cams don't seem to be stopping anything, but red light cams are generating lots of money. So, you can come to Chicago to kill a kid, but dammit, you better not run a red light on your way out of town.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

It hasn't done a single thing to affect crime levels all that much. Then again, some places cameras have been up for so long and with so many more up now... people just know that after a certain point, being under a camera when you do something isn't going to result in anything happening if nobody bothers to call in and report the crime in the first place. (Or more likely: If the cops never bother to show up as is the issue in a lot of neighborhoods.)

In your case, a bright floodlight probably would have had the same effect.

Re:So

[mcgrew]

They put in new cameras in Pioneer Park (SLC, Utah) and supposedly the drug/gang/prostitution rate dropped dramatically.

Who cares? First, drugs and prostitution shouldn't be crimes in the first place; the laws against them create the very problems they purport to solve. You can't regulate an illegal activity, and your drug use doesn't affect me unless you're stealing to support your habit, in which case there's a real crime -- theift.

Secondly, the whores and dealers will just go somewhere else. Here in Springfield there was a reported "hooker problem" on 7th near downtown, they cracked down, now they're at other places. Still as many whores, just not on 7th (so tourists, if you want to get laid 7th street isn't the place to look).

Has it deterred theifts, robberies, assaults, vandalism? If not they're a monumantal waste of money and a monumental invasion of privacy.

Here we come UK

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you know how many camera's exist in your part of the world. I suspect that Chicago is not going to be too far behind. Let's race, shall we?

I might take my vacation in the UK just to get some privacy. :-)

A disappointed Chicagoan.

PS: The bot validation word is: "violates" how appropriate.... lol...cry..lol..cry..

In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/rash-of-violence-spreads-throughout-city-overnight-after-stop-the-violence-day.html

Good thing all those cameras lower the violent crime rate. Right? Right?

Take that, you dirty rat!

[TiggertheMad]

They're going to have to disclose them, sooner or later, if they want to use them as evidence.

they are probably afraid that if the people of chicago know where they are, they will get stolen....

Re:Take that, you dirty rat!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's what they don't want to explain....

"Why do you have this second camera pointing to the first?"

"To keep the first from getting stolen"

"Why do you have the third camera pointing at the second?"

"Same reason."

Crap

[AP31R0N]

How am I supposed to commit my crimes in privacy now?

Re:Crap

[ArcadeNut]

Get Elected?

Re:Crap

[maharb]

Funny at first until you realize how many laws the average person breaks a day without any harm being done to anyone or anything. I know I have sped, jay walked, turned into a non-adjacent lane, carried beer on a dry campus, carried explosives on a college campus (fireworks and beer in the trunk of my car) and maybe more just today. Many laws are unreasonable in certain contexts and we don't try and get the laws repealed because they are often used to convict people that were causing a problem but not necessarily because of the law they were violating.

For instance carrying beer on campus doesn't harm anyone: drinking it, getting drunk, and being an asshole does though.

Re:Crap

[AP31R0N]

Hahaha! True.dat

Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Chicago is the CITY OF FAIL. I mean damn, they couldn't even win an Olympics bid. Every single person I've known from Chicago has been so full of themselves and hateful toward outsides (especially southerners) when the city doesn't even really offer much that's relevant anymore. The local music scene is shitty, the crime rate is outrageous, and the the only thing that the city seems to be keeping a tradition of is organized crime and shitty bands.

Fuck you, Chicago.

Scanner Darkly

[Anonymous Coward]

Those pics look like a scene from "A Scanner Darkly"

Btw...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your beloved pizza tastes like vomit.

People Tracking

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the street corner cameras and private cameras that are linked to the system, it also includes the red light traffic cameras, which are popping up everywhere.

I work for a utility company in Chicago and I attended a presentation about a year and a half ago where the Office of Emergency Management and Communication (OEMC) was bragging about what they can do with their camera network. They can already track a license plate from camera to camera throughout the city, and within the next year or so (if not already) they’ll be able to do the same with facial recognition.

Have you parked recently in front of the Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) for more than a few minutes? If so, the OEMC is keeping an eye on your car.

Not tightly controlled

[Anonymous Coward]

I've actually been inside of the NOC where all of the camera feeds come in. There are random terminal sitting around that anyone with NOC access can just walk over and use. There is no log in, or they were already logged in and left logged in all the time.

The emergency response HQ in Chicago is just what you'd expect, full of arcane, insane, nonsensical rules and procedures that are so bad if you fell down the rabbit hole you'd be less confused.

There's no way having this much surveillance in the hands of the state should be acceptable unless all private citizens also have the same access. If, as Mr. Orozco stated, that all cameras are located in an area where the public has no expectation of privacy, then why shouldn't anyone in the world be able to see any camera at any time?

The whole city government in Chicago is nothing but a bunch of bottom feeding tax sucking bureauRats lying through their teeth on a daily basis.

Re:Not tightly controlled

[Necroman]

After Mayor Daley shut down Meigs Field, I basically lost all respect for the government running the city. Then you look at the more recent Parking Meter deal that went into effect and you wonder how the city still operates.

Re:Not tightly controlled

[cornjones]

There's no way having this much surveillance in the hands of the state should be acceptable unless all private citizens also have the same access. If, as Mr. Orozco stated, that all cameras are located in an area where the public has no expectation of privacy, then why shouldn't anyone in the world be able to see any camera at any time?

This is an important point. The reality is there is going to be more and more surveillance. The real problem comes when a small group controls that surveillance. That is an unacceptable amount of power to be in the hands of a few. Any public camera, funded by public money, must be available to the public. This could easily be done over the internet

I can see some security concerns with this issue. To that end I would consider a 1-2 week delay on the feed.

We may have to accept that there is no privacy in public spaces but so do the lawmakers.

The real infringement on your rights...

[Gordonjcp]

... is not the cameras. In the US, wherever you go there are armed police who are allowed to shoot and kill you, for any reason they feel like. Fix that, then worry about CCTV cameras.

Re:The real infringement on your rights...

[jecowa]

Are they really allowed to? I think it's just that they can do it, and their police buddies will cover for them and come up with a lie they will all agree to it.

Re:The real infringement on your rights...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points to bump this up.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Re:The real infringement on your rights...

[selven]

There is absolutely no difference between the two - you get shot either way and nobody gets punished either way.

Re:The real infringement on your rights...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can shove your prejudices and arrogant Eurocentrism where the sun don't shine.

Re:The real infringement on your rights...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is precisely why we have the second amendment.

I'm not quite sure what to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a resident of the city this is terrifying.

With a Mayor who basically bulldozed an airport in the middle of the night, who sells publics assets off with no notice, and who is about as crooked as you can get as well as a police force that has a brutal record of torture, harassment, and assholery, this is scary.

I admit to getting a red light camera ticket last night, but now not only could they do this but they could send tickets for all sorts of minor offenses. If I decide to do a U-turn? Ticket. I J-walk? Ticket. I pick my butt in public? Indecency! A ticket. I understand the desire to try and curb crime, but this is ridiculous. The crime will just move to other uncovered areas, which are currently the safe ones!

I just mentioned to my girlfriend that, despite my work being concentrated in Chicagoland, we might consider a move to another city in a couple years. The city budget is collapsing, the government is horribly backwards, hell the public transit can't even stay in business. Does the city want to squeeze even MORE people out of Cook County into the suburbs?

I suppose some people will view this as keeping them safe, but I worry that it will be used not only for that but to track people that King Daley doesn't like (in fact it's a guarantee).

This about seals it. It might just be time to pack up and go, as much as I love Chicago.

Re:I'm not quite sure what to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do what I did, move to Virginia Beach. You're only 100% covered by cameras up to 4 blocks from the Oceanfront. After that it's only on every stop and go light all the way to Suffolk.

Rust...

[flyingfsck]

Have no fear, the whole system will rust out and degenerate into a massive maintenance head-ache in no time, at which point it will be quietly put out to pasture.

ACLU is bad?

[s800]

Some republican wanna jump in and tell us how the ACLU is the source of all that is anti-American?

Re:ACLU is bad?

[night_flyer]

even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

Re:ACLU is bad?

[iamhigh]

Yeah you're right... sometimes the ACLU does take up questionable cases, but I guess 11 out of 12 ain't bad!

Beware the basilisk...

[otis wildflower]

http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.html

Share and enjoy!

As a Chicagoan...

[Anonymous Coward]

...let me say that this is embarrassing, and I apologize.

Governor's Mansion?

[hemp]

I hope they have several inside the Governor's Mansion. The are guaranteed to catch a felon there.

Re:Governor's Mansion?

[mcgrew]

The Governor's Mansion is in Springfield. They wouldn't have caught Blago, he didn't spend a single night there despite the fact that the Illinois Constitution stipulates that the Governor is supposed to.

Funny how everyone thinks Chicago is Illinois' Capital. Probably because everybody in Chicago thinks Illinois southern border is at I-80 and Blago moved most government functions to Chicago.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

IP Cameras will usher in a new frontier

[itsthebin]

This explosion in the installation of IP cameras will continue as the technology matures , networks and bandwidth increase and hopefully the cameras become more open source with their embedded operating systems.

This should be about efficiency , with all law enforcement cameras sending a stream to a large central system that can apply AI and identify faces , licience plates , clothing and even gaits . Public Buses , taxis , police vehicles , council vehicles also should all have cameras feeding live streams back so the central systems can maybe very quickly locate and track a person of interest. The video streams of systems in Hotels , public buildings , schools , universities , shopping centres etc should be able to be instantly requested by locality to emergency response teams so they can have live footage to base their decisions on.

concerns about the misuse of video streams are valid , but I think software can watch the watchers and flag anomolies to be investigated for breaches.

my shameless plug :) and admission of an interest in IP cameras will be to give you a link to http://www.linux-cam.com/ where I hope to be able to provide by the end of the year a very competitively priced IP camera platform with ARM 9 CPU with Linux firmware and common interfaces and an image processing chip capable of encoding to H264 of up to 1.3 megapixel 25fps CCD .

Who watches the watchers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know is, why is it when the police tape a traffic stop it is evidence and when I (a private citizen) tape the same traffic stop it is obstruction of justice?

Powerful Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

A few months ago I toured Chicago's OEMC headquarters. The system automatically identifies threats such as a backpack sitting on the sidewalk more than a few minutes or abnormal vehicle or pedestrian movement. The cameras are linked on a dedicated fiber optic network. From my understanding, Chicago is the only city with an isolated purpose built fiber network for emergency and security work.

Re:Powerful Technology

[Zordak]

The system automatically identifies threats such as ... abnormal vehicle or pedestrian movement.

Hmmm. I seem to remember a scene in Fahrenheit 451 where the cameras "tagged" a pedestrian for displaying unusual behavior. And I remember things not going well for him. Glad to know that we're modeling our governments after dystopian fiction.

Re:Powerful Technology

[The Archon V2.0]

Hmmm. I seem to remember a scene in Fahrenheit 451 where the cameras "tagged" a pedestrian for displaying unusual behavior. And I remember things not going well for him. Glad to know that we're modeling our governments after dystopian fiction.

Yeah, they pretty much mined 1984 for the last of its ideas (now that they're so close to implementing all TVs having a camera built in) and they've started branching out. I hear some men of the ruling elite are rather intrigued with the idea of rehabilitating fallen young women by making them Handmaids. It is such an honorable profession, after all.

Are they installed in government buildings??

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if there were to be installed there, we could keep out politicians out of jail. Yet another reason why I'm glad that I move out of Illinois, my home state.

How to Find Them All?

[IonOtter]

How to find them all?

Easy.

1. Create a fake Google profile. Be sure to use several Tor proxies to make sure you can't be traced back, and LOG OUT OF YOUR CURRENT GOOGLE PROFILE!!! Make sure you continue to use Tor for the entire operation.
2. Go to maps.google.com
3. Click My Maps
4. Create new map, make it public.
5. Title: Chicago IP Surveillance Camera locations
6. Description: This map is to pinpoint the location of all video cameras being used in the city of Chicago. If you know of a camera that's being used to watch a public area, add the address to this map, along with a brief description of where it is, what its watching and what it looks like.
7. Click "collaborate"
8. Select "allow anyone to edit this map"
9. Publish the map

Done. Now just sit back and let John Q Public fill in all the little details.

You can also use Wikimapia, which is now moderated.

Re:How to Find Them All?

[alvinrod]

Suffers the same problem that all collaborative media suffers. If anyone can edit it, anyone can also vandalize it or add false information. A few people will do it just to troll, but I'm willing to bet that if IP logs were checked, there would be a lot of edits coming from the police station. Eventually the map becomes so unreliable that it's not even worthwhile to use.

Re:How to Find Them All?

[rho]

Your lack of faith in Web 2.0... disurbs me. *ksssssh kisssssh*

you're doing it wrong, there are good analytics sw

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used Citilog's video analytics sw (http://www.citilog.com/products/visiopad.html) for identifying incidents and accidents on roadways or bridges and alerting operators so they only don't need to visually monitor each camera feed. It works well and I'm sure there are others out there to draw upon too.

It lets you cover a *lot* more cameras with fewer operators so ... your last job was doing it very wrong.

If you have NHS, why more health $ for poor?

[swb]

Why would you need to spend more money on health benefits for the poor if you have the National Health Service? Doesn't that provide universal health care regardless of income?

Re:If you have NHS, why more health $ for poor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chicago doesn't have the NHS.

Re:If you have NHS, why more health $ for poor?

[Eskarel]

Yes, but public hospitals everywhere in the world are generally chronically underfunded. The US doesn't have the problem to the same extent, but that's because they've set up the system so that the poorest third of their population(generally the folks most likely to get sick) can't actually afford to use the service.

Re:If you have NHS, why more health $ for poor?

[xaxa]

Why would you need to spend more money on health benefits for the poor if you have the National Health Service? Doesn't that provide universal health care regardless of income?

The person you replied to is probably American (they wrote "incentivizing", a Brit would have written "encouraging"). They are suggesting these improvements for Chicago.

But yes, spending more on the NHS benefits everyone. In the upcoming election in the UK it's likely all the parties will suggest how they'll do this.

The Conservative Party's policy is here and here, for instance. (And yes, that's not a joke, they really do say they'll increase health spending).

Re:you're doing it wrong, there are good analytics

[MichaelSmith]

Well this was 15 years ago. We were developing systems to do optical incident detection, but the technology wasn't really up to it. We had incident detection systems based on inductive loop detectors which worked very well though.

Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The police will just seize all of the cameras.

I shouldn't reply to flamebait

[jbengt]

but, anyway . . . I lived in Chicago most of my life, and it's a great city to live in, as cities go.

Quantitative results from the London experience

[Obispus]

Admitted by the London police in this article: the extensive monitoring (each person can expect to be filmed ~300 times during a normal day) helps solve less than one crime/(1000 cameras*year).
It's not worth giving up your privacy, and spending the money that could be spent on putting more policemen on the street, for such an ineffective program.

Re:Quantitative results from the London experience

[Anonymous Coward]

the extensive monitoring (each person can expect to be filmed ~300 times during a normal day) helps solve less than one crime/(1000 cameras*year).

This obviously means there needs to be a larger amount of coverage with cameras to help stop crime.

Because...

[Jawn98685]

If you don't let us watch everything that everyone does, the terrorists win. Oh, and so does "law and order". We're just protecting you. Keeping you safe from terrorists, violent criminals, non-violent criminals, politically undesirable persons and groups...

Ben Franklin is spinning in his grave for sure.

Unfortunately.

[tjstork]

You were at your finest when you told us (Brits) where to stick it. You seem to have lost your way a bit since, unfortunately. You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives. Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen it makes a difference to whether or not they can tell you what to do. It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for.

Unfortunately, half the country hates corporations trying to control their lives, and the other half hates the government trying to control their lives, and so we've caught up into so much finger pointing that both corporations and the government control our lives.

Re:Unfortunately.

[Hognoxious]

corporations and the government control our lives.

They're both fronts for the illuminat&%^[@
n o c a r r i e r"

This is excatly what we are doing in China.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many company are build video surveillance systems that could connect thousands of cameras.

When my company starts, my boss told he want a system that could be as large as the PSTN.

But it's really a very competitive market in China.

After a year, we still haven't made any money yet.

Relax!

[uvajed_ekil]

Since we are talking about Chicago here, most citizens won't have to worry about being watched. We can safely presume that the vast majority of the cameras will be in City Hall, right?

paintballs

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised noone has shot these things with paintballs or something. Don't destroy them, but cover them in paint or something to blind them. enough people doing this, they become worthless. Of course, if you get caught, i'm sure there'll be a tazin'.

Health Care? Gun Ownership?

[zuctronic]

I saw this one devolving into a "trash the Yankees" discussion before it even got rolling... The way it has turned into a lively and sometimes frustrating parley about health care and gun ownership is why I enjoy hiding behind the first amendment from people shooting at us from the second.

submit a foia request

[roju]

Looks like cities in Illinois are covered by the state's Freedom of Information Act. There's nothing stopping anyone from issuing a FOIA request to find out the details.

I don't mind so much

[torstenvl]

as long as Alfred is the only one who can use it

Re:I don't mind so much

[irockash]

You mean Lucius Fox, right?

Re:I don't mind so much

[torstenvl]

Whoops. I'm a dumb***

Bruce Schneier said it best.

[Rexdude]

..in his essay, "The eternal value of privacy"

And none of you will do anything about it

[Anonymous Coward]

People love to moan and complain, and maybe they're right to complain and truly have something to moan about, but when it comes to taking effective action, you need to pay them. Otherwise they'll prevaricate, then do nothing.
That is why the cameras - put in place by paid officials - will stay and increase in number, while the - unpaid - people who moan will go home and watch television after they have let off a bit of steam.

Why not cut out the moaning too. You aren't going to do anything about it, so shut up about it and leave us camera installers in peace to get on with our job!

Surrey, BC, Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Surrey, BC, Canada has begun to install 10,000 camera.
Many installed to look like traffic cameras, but stated that they will be used for other purposes later on.

Chicago, when you secede from the Union...

[SpurtyBurger]

we in the UK will welcome you into the fold.

NHS is mainly curative, other health factors

[fantomas]

"Why would you need to spend more money on health benefits for the poor if you have the National Health Service? Doesn't that provide universal health care regardless of income?"

A lot of what the NHS does is curative medicine, the first time most of us come into contact with it is because we're not well (illness, accident, etc). I don't have the information to hand (and I'd welcome more info and references) but my suspicion is that you'll find poorer people are more likely to encounter health risks, struggle with health challenges etc in their daily life than more wealthy people, hence the approach in many social-leaning countries to give additional support/benefits to the poor. Richer folk can buy their way into continued good health while folk at the bottom of the economic pile struggle as they have less disposable income to afford health related purchases, so need the NHS more often?

If you are on vey low income, you have much less disposable income. Therefore help in paying for health related additional resources can help individuals and families afford things that would benefit their family but they could survive without. For example: if you're on limited income, you can feed your kids on really cheap burgers and white bread and processed breakfast cereal, but child allowance (cash allocation per child on a regular basis) might give you the opportunity to give them a more varied and better diet - meaning they will be more healthy and less likely to get illnesses that later need to be treated by the National Health Service, when the child gets diabetes or obesity related illnesses. Or providing low income old folk with financial support to help them improve their home with insulation in winter, or handrails to make going up stairs when they are not so good at walking, will reduce the number of admissions to hospital in winter with cold related illnesses and also fall-related accidents.

All of the above can be dealt with through your own finances if you're wealthy but might be impossible financial challenges if you're poor for any reason. If you can stop people having illnesses or accidents in the first place then in the long term it will work out cheaper and less cost to the NHS.

speaking of privacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondered this about Slashdot -- in a community that values openness and promotes a right to personal privacy why is someone posting who wishes to remain anonymous labeled a coward???

cool thing

[hesaigo999ca]

I actually think this is a good thing, less crime happens when you know more people are watching.
This includes people that can use the web to view on their own still images taken every 10 seconds or so and uploaded (Montreal)...this offers also a great way to judge traffic and how to plan your route.

Unfortunately people always zone into the negative side of things...in this case I see none...it's not like they have cameras in your homes watching you pick your nose...they have cameras in all the city parks, so that should a predator ever catch your kid, they have feeds to look at if you can give them a time frame.

I think the greater good outweighs the negative by far in this case.

Re:La Jolla, CA (92037) has it

[Anonymous Coward]

Because homeless people are so interesting and insightful. Yawn..

No one is reminded of Eagle Eye?

[dmmiller2k]

Not one of the other 246 comments (at this moment) has made reference to the movie, "Eagle Eye"?

What kind of techno-dweebs are we in here, anyway?

Are we not men? We are Devo!

Re:you're doing it wrong, there are good analytics

[Anonymous Coward]

Roadway incident video detection is a really iffy thing. In most cases, especially in highway situations, you end up with inclement weather, good weather (sun glare), fog, and darkness all being issues. I know at least one group using the aforementioned VisioPad that basically just turns it off during rain; sadly, the above situations are where you tend to see more accidents, and thus need your video detection to be working. :(

Nowadays, groups are moving away from the inductive loops (fear of having to replace them, which ironically isn't that hard anymore) to microwave radars which have their own set of problems (cost/calibration/inaccuracy). I did see one company recently that had "disposable" wireless loops, though. Drill a large soup can-sized hole in the road, drop in your sensor, patch over it, then read it wirelessly. When the batteries run out "in 5-8 years", you move 20 feet up the road and drill new holes.

Formula for oppression

[Nerdposeur]

1) Put cameras and microphones everywhere, for our "protection"
2) Don't share the video/audio outside your circle of power
3) Train computers to recognize your enemies
4) Know their secrets and whereabouts
5) Blackmail, murder and kidnap at will

If it doesn't happen under the current administration, it could happen under another.

If it doesn't happen in America, it will happen elsewhere (if it hasn't already).

This technology is a Pandora's box.

Well, how 'bout some free wi-fi then?

[Nexus7]

So they have this video surveillance fiber optic loop thing all over the city, huh? Then hook up some hardware to it and give us free wi-fi!

Leading to prosecutions for the new felony

[ThatsNotPudding]

Living While Black.

Re:you're doing it wrong, there are good analytics

[MichaelSmith]

The loops we put into freeways for incident detection last a lot longer than loops at intersections because there is very little shearing force in the road surface where there is less acceleration.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The Dark Knight wouldnt allow this to happen again

[mykos]

Even Batman thought that a network monitoring everyone at all times was evil. His R&D guy threatened to resign over it.