Slashdot Mirror
NYPD Anti-Terrorism Cameras Used For Much More
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the NY Times:
"The Police Department's growing web of license-plate-reading cameras has been transforming investigative work. Though the imaging technology was conceived primarily as a counterterrorism tool, the cameras' presence — all those sets of watchful eyes that never seem to blink — has aided in all sorts of traditional criminal investigations. ... 'We knew going into it that they would have other obvious benefits,' Mr. Browne said about the use of the readers in the initiative. 'Obviously, conventional crime is far more common than terrorism, so it is not surprising that they would have benefits, more frequently, in conventional crime fighting than in terrorism.'"
Also every piece of information any corporation or state has or can collect on you will end up being used for more than you expected.
If you don't like it, stop developing the tech. Because if it exists, it will be used against you.
FTA:
>The license plate readers are different from other security cameras in the city: they are aimed low, designed to focus on a small area, unlike traditional surveillance cameras which look at broader sections like a toll plaza or the entrance of a building, Mr. Browne said. The information collected is immediately checked against databases storing information on stolen cars, stolen license plates, wanted persons and unregistered vehicles.
Well, the cameras themselves doesn't seem so bad, but does anyone know how long data is retained? I don't want to be leaving records of where I've been for years...
It's hard to argue against the impact on crime that the cameras have
Actually it's very easy to argue that. Many studies suggest that cameras don't do anything to deter crime. They may assist in the subsequent investigation and occasionally even provide the evidence that wins a criminal conviction but there is a bit of a difference between that and deterring/preventing crime.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Especially when, statistically, terrorists are non-existent.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Obviously, conventional crime is far more common than terrorism, so it is not surprising that they would have benefits, more frequently, in conventional crime fighting than in terrorism.
So obviously, calling them 'anti-terrorism cameras' is a lie.
- Meringuinoid, on Slashdot, ca. 2005.
And people wonder why my desires run counter to the reverse diaspora toward increased urbanization.
Just build the giant, sealed arcologies already, let the social engineering wonks have them, and let the rest of us live in more rural setting in peace.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I'm confused - are the police using their cameras to search your person, house, papers or effects? Or are they seizing them?
please, STOP posting links to this horrible site!
I get a login screen. is that what you wanted me to read? ok, I read it. it said 'login'. I did not play its game. I saw no article.
didn't we all agree to start ignoring NYT? what happened subby? no other source?
poor showing. just poor showing, man.
and no, I will not 'login'. this is NOT what the web was supposed to be about.
PLEASE STOP SUPPORTING NYT.
thanks.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Yet the strategy for the use of the license plate readers ... She said it was hard to tell whether interest in âoeeffective and efficient law enforcementâ was being balanced with the âoevalues of privacy and freedom.â
What possible interest of privacy could you have while on the public street? Hint: when you are out on the public streets everyone can see you.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro civil liberties in the context of private spaces. I just don't understand how anything I do on the street -- where I have the full expectation that other people can observe what I'm doing -- merits protections on the basis of privacy. That expectation informs me of the boundary between private and public. A citizen cannot reasonably claim to keep private his activities in public anymore than citizens have the right to publicize the private activities of others.
If anything, I see the blurring of this boundary as being quite destructive to privacy because it erodes the logical distinction between activities that take place inside a private space and ones outside. That is, attempts to extend the privacy of the home outside by making false equivalences are just as likely to erode the protections inside as they are to bolster protections outside.
Well then, clearly we should use all the info garnered by perverse medical experiments and torture also, seeing as that it's so 'valuable'..
Welcome to the 20th century...on wait...
You do realize, there is almost nothing of the 20th century (post WWII) which didn't directly or indirectly benefit from the Nazi's medical and scientific endeavors... As such, living in the 21st century means you benefited from the horrors of the Nazi's experiments conducted during the 20th century.
Was a statement of hypocrisy actually intended to invalidate your own point? Or perhaps your point went over my head? Was your point something other than what you seem to be implying?
Dang Internets and the lack of voice nuance...
I can't tell if you're doing satire or if you believe your last line.
Meanwhile, this is newsworthy because we've seen part 1 of this charade for a decade now ... "We need a Billion Dollars to fight one Afghani guy and his ten friends!"
This time they're actually admitting "Hey look, our billion dollar toys are fun! And so is power."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
So how many terrorists have these cameras caught?
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
For the rest of us the idea that cameras make investigations easier (and therefore less expensive), and provide evidence that puts actual criminals in prison can generally be considered a win.
That's only true as long as all the laws are just.
Think about what, say, Richard Nixon, would have done with oodles and oodles of video evidence able to be manipulated post action...
I'm very pro civil liberties myself. Having the government record everything we do in public is a very good way for the government (or anyone able to hack into the system) to later on decide what you did *yesterday* is now illegal and you should be prosecuted for it.
This is why reasonable suspicion needs to be a part of *any* surveillance law.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
If you can't depend on your community to create just laws then you have much bigger problem than whether or not the police have a record of where you have driven your car.
What community, anywhere, ever in history could one depend upon to create just laws?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's also worth pointing out that these cameras only prevent street crime. Low level poor people crime, that is. These cameras are entirely blind to the much larger crimes happening on Wall Street.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm pretty sure that if I were to follow you around with a camera every minute of the day that you were in public spaces, you'd be able to get a restraining order against me. Does it not bother you that the government can do, without a warrant, what an individual cannot?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!