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.'"
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.
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.
Already happening, already too late, complete and utter surprise? Not so much.
A surveillance society takes an exceedingly short period of time to decide that the initial justifications for these things has so many other handy uses. Governments are completely interested in monitoring and recording everything so that eventually when they need something against you, they have it on file. Even the governments who pretend to be protecting "freedom" and the like.
There's a reason why all of this stuff has been rich fodder for sci-fi for decades ... because you can see it coming, and pretty much anticipate the results.
Terrorism was the stated reason, but they're not going to miss out on using a treasure trove of such information. Give it time, and there won't be a single free society on the planet ... least of all, the Western democracies who still pretend to be.
I may sound like my tin-foil hat is cutting off the blood supply, but it's hard not to see all of the dystopian stuff unfolding before us. Stuff that has happened in my life time was a work of fiction 50 years ago.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So how many terrorists have these cameras caught?
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Since when does the government have a right to monitor the movements of an entire city's population when 99% have probably done nothing wrong.
The whole point of the current structure of the law is that EVERYONE is in some manor, a violator of some local, state, or federal statute. This makes it a lot easier to get all but a few people to shut up, move along, and keep their heads down... lest the focus of law enforcement swing towards them....
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
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.
And since when do women have a right to not have their behinds or cleavage photographed while they bend over to pick something up in public?
I mean, anyone can see it...
I've said this before, and people thought I was an asshole who didn't know what he was talking about. I'm going to keep repeating it until current events cause it to make some sense.
Who gives a shit about the cameras that the police have. You only need to worry about your own cameras. When you are prohibited from owning your own camera and taking pictures in public of public activities, including police activities, that is when you should worry.
There, make sense? All you people who think 1984 is all about Big Brother's cameras got it wrong.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!