Slashdot Mirror
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."
London has been that way for years.
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.
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.
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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'
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Try the 2nd and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
... 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.
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.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
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.
[End Of Line]
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?!?!?!
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Get Elected?
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to shoot an innocent child. There is a difference.
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
This is my sig.