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.
I'm all for it. Here, why don't you take my blood and semen samples along with my fingerprints, you know, just in case...
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.
I can't wait til this becomes a nationwide practice so that all civilians can feel safe knowing that the terrorists and criminals are being actively monitored and will never ever harm us again.
- 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."
Leaving blood and semen samples along with my fingerprints is what got me in trouble with police in the first place.
In short, criminals are too stupid to be deterred by an increased threat of actually getting caught.
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.
The Law of Unintended Consequences will probably come into play here. As camera systems - especially ones mounted on cop cars - get better at reading license plates, law enforcement officers will probably come to rely on them more. I.e. they'll pay less attention to your plates. So one conclusion that might be draw from this is that if you hide/obfuscate your plates, you're more likely to get away with it.
Nothing really to do with stupidity. People tend to forget that they're being watched. It's a coping mechanism, I think. We can't always be on guard.
Where I work, there are cameras all over the floor. I KNOW that. And I'll still forget every once in a while that those are there. Then I'll see one, and I'll think "Oh, yeah... everything I do is being recorded. Have I done anything embarrassing lately?"
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
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?
Crime isn't prosecuted with 'deterrence/prevention' in mind. That would leave all the prisons very empty, and reduce law enforcement funding. Punishment for crimes committed is much more profitable. If everybody obeys the law, it only means we don't have enough laws.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Exactly. Some say it is a slippery slope, but it has been repeated again and again that something used only for "terrorists" ends up being used to chase down or catch low hanging fruit, such as the potheads smoking out behind a 7-11. Same with laws that were meant for would-be invaders from an enemy country who were looking to cause harm on US soil being used to go after some middle high school kids hanging out at a playground.
Me, being the cynical person I am, was wondering how long it will be before the camera system, originally meant to catch terrorists trying to kill thousands of people at once would end up being used to chase down misdemeanors such as loitering and criminal trespass [1].
[1]: The bar for trespass is really low in some places. Walking across a parking lot without buying at a store in a strip mall can get someone charged with this in some areas of the US.
Obviously you need to not park near crime scenes...it's not rocket science. Do you really have any business being near crime scenes?
I'd be willing to bet if you looked back on when this was set up to begin with, the proponents would have vehemently denied it would be used for anything but what it was "intended for". (catching terrorists) And that testimony was instrumental in getting the green light for it to be set up to begin with.
IMHO, whenever something like this goes on the agenda, when the sales pitch is being made to the officials/voters, that they have to put it in writing that the very minute it gets used beyond those predefined and agreed on bounds, it's IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED.
If nothing else it would prove to make a very entertaining debate when the people swearing it won't go beyond "that" suddenly and most urgently fight to stop that harmless little "public rights safety" from being added to the books. "So tell me again, why is it you're so against that little clause, if you're insisting it'll never come to that???"
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
SCOTUS ruled that use of public roadways is public knowledge and legal without a warrant, including the use of GPS tracking units on your "private" vehicle. Their ruling is that when driving on a public roadway, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy as to your travelling. Now, searching inside the vehicle, that's a different question. And what if the camera takes a picture through your windows? That's as allowed as an officer looking in your window. The court seems to say that, police are allowed to use humans to track all public movements, so they see no difference between having 5 million police standing on corners writing down license plates or 5 million cameras doing the same thing.
I8-D
Alot of the scientific breakthroughs the West made had nothing to do with Nazi research.
Much of the Nazi medical research was pure bunk, yes in some fields they were more advanced than the British and Americans, but in many fields they were less advanced.
The German jet engines were much less reliable then British ones and slightly less reliable than the first American engines for example.
Nuclear power, long range jet aircraft, radar, spread spectrum communications, proximity fuzes, computers, antibiotics, genetics and logistics are just some examples that come to mind where the Nazis really added nothing to the modern world's technology.
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
Well, except I will cynically say that at the very least, this could be seen coming a mile away and was pointed out by people as having this very likely outcome. At very worst, the people who were planning this very much knew and intended that this would happen. They just either convinced us to the contrary, or picked the most naive spokesperson they could find who loudly said "Oh, they'd never do that".
By the time people clue in, it's too late.
You can't seriously expect that when you give governments access to surveillance and information about the citizenry that they won't turn around and is it for exactly what they claimed they wouldn't.
You can't say "we're going to monitor everybody, but only use it for terrorism" and not be lying, or too naive to think it through. Anybody who didn't think this would happen was fooling themselves.
This is why people go around citing the notion that "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one".
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So how many terrorists have these cameras caught?
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
The existence of a "New York Times" is itself, a "psyop". ;-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I've seen this movie. Blue Thunder, right?
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
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
Egad. The whole point of license plates is to be readily and publicly visible - kind of hard to argue the whole expectation of privacy thing there. Also, the license plate is not yours, it is the state's.
They will probably write and mail you a ticket for having an illegal junk yard with a fine for each of the 4320 "cars" parked in your driveway, that you wil have to go to separate court dates in order to fight.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I've worked in that sort of an environment as well, and you are correct. After a bit you fail to notice the cameras. However, there is a huge difference between doing something that is merely embarrassing, and doing something illegal. My guess is that if you were planning on stealing something from your employer you would spend a great deal of time thinking about those cameras.
My father is a retired judge, and I spent a few summers working in his office when he was still a public defender. During that time I came to a shocking conclusion. Criminals become criminals largely because they are too stupid to find a more reliable way to make a living. Making it easier to catch criminals does not cure this stupidity. Most criminals simply aren't rational enough to properly judge the risks involved.
In short, the cameras at your workplace probably don't actually deter criminals either. It simply makes it easier to apprehend the criminals after the fact.
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.
Why not just lock them all up to be sure?
I gotta say, I think I see where you're going with it, and I love it.
That's because I'm not a criminal, and I'd never be mistaken for one, because it's obvious how good I am, and I trust the system... oh, and I'm retarded.
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!
>> We need a Billion Dollars to fight one Afghani guy and his ten friends!
*sigh*
If only it was a billion dollars ... I suspect the US has spent much, much more.
War is very expensive --> Iraq
(To say nothing of lost / ruined lives.)
Having been hauled into court because my car's license plate "was obscured" (equipment failure) by road grime and exhaust residue, I urge you to reconsider.
I have also heard reports that some of those license plate covers - that incidentally make it difficult for red light cameras to capture your license plate - have been outlawed.
http://www.phantomplate.com/print_delaware.html
http://www.banoggle.com/products/ontrack/photo-blur.aspx
Both pages offer such products, both pages acknowledge that some jurisdictions outlaw them. And you KNOW that they love to make examples of people seeming to evade attempts to enforce the law.
After 9/11, the fear of another attack on U.S. soil cleanly supplanted the fear of having one`s penis chopped off by a vengeful lover in the pantheon of irrational American fears.
While we`re constantly being told that another attack is imminent and that radical Islamic fundamentalists are two steps away from establishing a caliphate in Branson, Missouri, just how close are they? How do the odds of dying in a terrorist attack stack up against the odds of dying in other unfortunate situations?
The following ratios were compiled using data from 2004 National Safety Council Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, 2003 mortality data from the Center for Disease Control was used.
You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
You are 11,000 times more likely to die from a misdiagnosed medical condition or botched surgery by an incompetent doctor or misuse of perscription drugs than a terrorist attack
You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist
You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Probably not. Being in the area wouldn't be enough evidence to justify trying to prosecute you since the case would be thrown out.
Unless you happen to be the only black or Hispanic person in the area. That's enough to convict in many cities.
Support SETI@home