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 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.
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.
a guy goes into the doctor's office for an annual physical.
the doctor says "I'll need a blood sample, a semen sample, a urine sample and a stool sample."
guys says "here, doc, that's my underwear. has everything you are asking for."
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
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.
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 the internet was supposed to be about a slave labor force working for nothing? Because we see the numerous examples of great journalism (not that every article/newspaper/writer is an example of this) coming from the random blogs that pop up around the internet? Free does not always equal better and if there is anything we should support with our money, its probably a free and independent press.
So how many terrorists have these cameras caught?
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
"if you're looking for news, you need to find a new teat to suckle"
Robin Meade on CNN comes to mind.
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
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.
Nope, SCOTUS has never ruled on the requirement or lack there of in obtaining a warrant to utilize a GPS tracking device on a private vehicle. More specifically, the circuit courts are split on this topic with the D.C Circuit court in Commonwealth v. Connolly mandating a warrant and the Ninth in USA v. Juan Pineda-Moreno writing carte-blanche to track anyone anywhere.
But perhaps you are confused with USA v. Knotts in that SCOTUS did decided that the monitoring of a pager embed in a barrel of chemicals that the defendant was using to manufacture methanphetamines was A-ok. The DC courts did take this SCOTUS decision into account and came back with a decision that a pager was only good for a day or two max, but the GPS machines could last for months.
Now, searching inside the vehicle, that's a different question. And what if the camera takes a picture through your windows?
Yes, indeed a search of a vehicle is a different topic all together. However, the plain view doctrine would most definitely allow pictures that reveal the contents of your vehicle from a vantage point outside into the court of law.