Slashdot Mirror
Atlanta's Growing Video Surveillance System
McGruber writes "An Atlanta newspaper reports on the city's 'Video Integration Center,' which allows Atlanta's Police Department to control more than 100 public and private cameras. 'Officials say hundreds or thousands more private-sector cameras will eventually feed into the center.' According to the Atlanta Police Foundation, 'This is going to grow by leaps and bounds over the years. The goal, of course, is to have the entire city blanketed [with cameras].'"
I'm surprised surveillance networks like this aren't huge vandalism targets. Simple approaches come to mind, such as air rifles or paintball guns.
It seems like such a network would be easy to keep pretty much offline as it takes less time, effort, and expense to disable a camera than it takes to repair it.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
And since the cameras are technically privately-owned, there's no need to worry about a warrant!
It's the only way to ensure that recordings of police officers committing criminal acts don't disappear.
I think it's time we read some lit in our classrooms! Orwell's 1984
We should not be ok with this!
So Atlanta is leading the charge in becoming a police state. Lovely.
I guess that eventually one half of the population will be watching the other half....Actually, if you include YouTube, that might already be true.
"Excuse me sir. What do you do for a living?"
"I'm a professional voyeur!"
"Meaningless!, Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless!"
Read Orwell's 1984 if you don't understand how evil and dangerous this is. It is a really sad commentary on today's America that law enforcement officials no longer seem to be aware, much less actually care, about the principles of liberty that they trample on in the name of catching the bad guys or making our cities safer.
There are few places safer than a cattle ranch, if you happen to be cattle. Of course, they chop you into little pieces eventually, but up until then, you have few worries.
Isn't it possible to burn out the sensor?
However, they must not be used to prosecute or investigate any crime or attempted crime other than serious assault, murder, and rape.
It should not be used to fine people for littering or even peeing.
White House Proposes "Wealthy Tax"
As I learned from the news here (Europe), this ensures that the 'wealthy' pay a little less less than the working class. You must admit that things cannot develop better, otherwise you would live in a communist state, would'nt you?
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
It blows my mind that people think this is a good thing. Why are people so damn eager to give up freedoms, liberties and privacies? Why do people want to live under constant surveillance? Why are people so eager to be cattle led to slaughter? FFS, crap like this should be causing outrage and riots. Instead people are complacent and eager for it.
How's that working for London?
We'll call it 'Little Britain'.
E.G./I.E. Look into the major pharmaceuticals' taxes, or other LARGE "industrial concerns" as well. Case in point, iirc, Squibb + other large pharma claim R&D costs in the USA (which counts as a write-off/benefit/tax break to they mind you), but claiming losses as a result ON U.S. SOIL... but, their foreign based subsidiaries (wholly parent company owned, same one that claims ALL R&D in the USA itself noted above)? Show profits... profits that DO NOT GET TAXED! Thus, they evade taxes on their actual profits by "cooking the books" (keeping 2 sets, the REAL one, & the bullshit one, and they DO DO that).
Do you understand the "game" now, in tax evasion by wealthy concerns?
This goes on, like MAD...
Now, as I stated earlier?
This only gets "compounded" by folks like "DARTH CHENEY" (who is wanted by interpol from what I understand, not a joke), who go into politics as a career, while moving in and out of office to change things to their, or their companies' favor, and when they get out? They go right through what's called "the revolving door" right back into corporate america, to reap the gains.
Top that off with LEGAL BRIBERY (lobbyist actions they also sponsor) and one can see the game the wealthy cheat and steal with...
I mean doesn't the Goldman-Sachs rape of the USA taxpayer via the 'bank bailout' (which they misused and the tops of those banks got their "HUGE" bonuses and golden parachutes from) also stand to reason as another evidence thereof ontop of the unjust wars (lots of "WMD's found", not) also?
Each one of those things is HIGHWAY ROBBERY of the general American/U.S. Taxpaying public/constituency. All the politicians? Bought & paid for too... we truly have "the best politicians MONEY CAN REALLY TRULY BUY" in other words. They're placed there by "big money" & the wealthy anyhow.
I know 1 thing: IF you take disposable income, which comes from GOOD PAYING JOBS, not hand-to-mouth minimum wage bullshit ones, away from the masses of people (poor to middle class)? You CANNOT HAVE AN "ECONOMY" and what folks used to spend on things beyond food, utilities, and rent/mortgage, robs small businesses and their suppliers too all the way back to YOU as a citzen!
Michael Weston (Burn Notice) one used a bundle of laser pointers to burn out surveillance cameras. I suspect that would probably work very nicely in real life, too.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Go away, APK.
Actually, it is wrong. The rich guys' income is mainly from investment, which is flat-taxed at 15% (or not at all, depending of how smart they are), and is not going to be affected by this so called "new law".
Or as one famous writer put it, they are just "moving the air".
This is being construed as a job creator in the local news, actually, along with "making the streets safer". Brilliant. Amazing how repetitive the rhetoric of newscasters is when you actually listen instead of using it as background noise.
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
Extremism doesn't help here.
Standing up for privacy where there is a reasonable expectation for privacy is entirely reasonable. People expect privacy in their homes. People expect their personal correspondence to be private (e.g. phone calls, letter mail, email). The same goes for things they stuff in their bags or cram onto their computers because whatever is inside forms a sort of private space. We see those boundaries to privacy being violated all of the time, and I think that most people would be supportive of protecting privacy in those spaces.
But the moment that you start screaming about privacy in places where there isn't a reasonable expectation for it, a lot of people just tune out. They will either assume that you are an antisocial nutbar, a paranoid nutcase, or a criminal. Streets, parks, transit, and businesses are places where you don't have a reasonable expectation for privacy because you are interacting or intermingling with other people. Most people recognize that, and behave accordingly.
So if you want to do everyone a favour, argue for privacy but do so on reasonable grounds. The moment you adopt an extremist position, you are fighting the battle for the other side because you will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people who you are trying to persuade.
"The city links the 1,500 cameras that police have placed in trouble spots with thousands more... Even home owners can contribute camera feeds....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704538404574539910412824756.html
If you link your camera to the city "highly trained crime surveillance specialists will have access" ...
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/oem/provdrs/tech/svcs/link_your_cameras.html
IBM press release about it's Chicago's video analysis software that "detects suspicious activity and potential public safety concerns " ...
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/22385.wss
Notice that people want crime stopped but will whine when they are the ones who might be caught. Think of not having to worry about your home or car being ruined, burgled, or tampered with. Think of schools being able to determine who threw the punch.
If there is a legitimate gripe it rests in the types of crimes that poor people commit falling to electronic detection while the crimes that the rich commit will usually not be detectable on film or in public areas. The rich man can still cheat on his taxes or alter his books for his business. What we may create is wealth being like a permit to commit crimes.
See how the TRUE "powers that be" beat taxation THAT WAY TOO and IF they can't "pull that off", they incorporate in Delaware (very "pro business" which is why it's so popular to do), per my subject line above, in addition to what I put down earlier here as well: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2435698&cid=37448566 [slashdot.org] the things mentioned there (Goldman-Sachs robbery of the U.S. taxpaying public and the "bank bailout", the bogus wars (how many WMD's found? ZERO), and corporatocracy placement of politicians to "bend the rules" so when they end office they go back into "korporate amerika" to reap the ill-gotten gains, etc.)? They are going to END this nation... mark my words. The jig's up, and the game's coming to an end. This? This IS the final price of greed.
So if private feeds are coming in, what's to prevent a malicious private party from staging anything from a robbery to a murder and editing the footage to implicate their choice of targets and splicing said footage into the feed?
Other than tampering with evidence (and the actual crime), I doubt it would even be illegal since they own the feed.
When I'm in a park I have an expectation of privacy, if I don't see people looking in my direction. I don't think that's unreasonable either.
I also don't think it's unreasonable that I expect the majority of my actions in public will be unnoticed and unrecorded.
There is a big difference between, you are in public nothing you do is private and you are in public you are under constant surveillance and the government can know where you are at any given time if it so desires.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Someone doesn't want your posts' content to be seen judging by the downmods put on them with no reasons why. As to what you wrote in them all, I totally I agree with you. Especially the latter two I suspect you did here http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2435698&cid=37448566 and here http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2435698&cid=37448962
A camera is just a high tech window, nobody goes ape shit because a cop in a donut shop can see you run that red light out the window.
The camera is analogous to having a police officer standing in that park, or the bus. Would you want a police officer standing at every location one of these cameras were installed (computers can scan the video btw)? Whether or not you have a reasonable expectation for privacy, this is plain wrong. Privacy is not defined by having nothing to hide. This entire subject is so ridiculous, what is the matter with all those lazy non-critical thinkers out there!
Bet you wont be able to get the video of cops beating a citizen.
Blue code of silence is unbeatable.
Atlanta needs this to fight against Obama and his Socialist Army who are Destroying Business by supporting Corporations in a Secret Islamic Kenyan Plan devised by Fundamentalist Christian Preachers and carried out by ACORN. Why, without heavy surveillance, Yankees might invade, with their cynical insistence on PAYING for Government Services via TAXES imposed by FORCE, instead of the Patriotic Ideal of paying for debts by using funds Dedicated to those non-productive sick and retired citizens looking for the Free Ride they already paid for.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
Exactly. It is reasonable to assume that you may be under occasional surveillance by a person, say, a police officer, because, say, you look like you might be committing a crime. It is completely unreasonable to think that all of your movements outside of your home are watched, tracked, or otherwise observed in their entirety , 100 percent of the time. That, my friend, is no way to live. Not now, not ever.
It's my opinion, that people who are against video cameras have never been assaulted on the street. When that happens, trust me, you'll feel very safe and secure being watched by those cameras.
Oh, and if you want to help remove those cameras, then you should help the police. Most people think that because marijuana and other drugs are light then they should be ok. Well, they're illegal, meaning they're provided mostly by the same people who provide the "other" drugs. If you help protect them while providing you with weed, you're also protecting them for the other things as well.
So yeah, there are a lot of arguments why cameras should have a place on the streets and even more why they shouldn't. But they're not going away, statistics show that while the odds for abuse are fairly small, their usefulness greatly outweigh those costs.
Seeing as technology evolves faster and fast, this will only pick-up pace. The only catch is, not to reduce the number of people you need to go through to work with that system, in fact add even more people, making abuse of any kind very hard to keep hidden.
Ask any hacker, social engineering works when the power is held by only one (idiot).
But the moment that you start screaming about privacy in places where there isn't a reasonable expectation for it, a lot of people just tune out. They will either assume that you are an antisocial nutbar, a paranoid nutcase, or a criminal.
Right...
Unless you're a cop
There's a difference between being in the view of the public and being under police surveillance.
Not sure if anyone is aware of the history behind much of the surveillance that has existed within the US. Since before the FBI existed (around WWII) bases would keep black books with people's sexual habits and general identifying characteristics (based on 1972 investigation into US history of surveillance). This was meant to track who they were and how trustworthy they would be, based on their associations. J. Edgar Hoover was very concerned about sexuality with his obvious paranoia of his homosexuality and tendency for appearing in drag, in addition to the war on communism.
So, it seems these cameras are part of an extension of the previous surveillance efforts: Track people's relationships which are not present online. Track any protests or civil unrest so they are easier to suppress. Use facial recognition to track criminals. Win the war on terror.
The US's unique paranoia combined with the widening disparity of wealth will encourage the formation of a stronger police state. Possibly, this might increase the number of people within the prision system which is a slave labor workforce, capable of better global competition. Ideally, for a US police state, entire areas of the country would be put under martial law as a type of prision. However, with cameras, I am sure we will be safe.
There is no fundamental right to get away with petty crimes when no one's looking.
Infrared will blind you just as effectively as visible light lasers, and with visible light you can see the colored dot that tells you where you pointed it. If you can't aim at targets, you can't tell that you're hitting a target you weren't aiming at, and at least somebody who has a red dot show up on his chest knows to evade whoever's doing it.
I agree with you that bundles sound unlikely to be useful.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You're not important enough for the government to care. Sorry to bust your bubble.
Yes,
But he has a point. As is often noted here, everyone is a criminal if only for the sheer number of laws and a basic inability to track all of them. I forget where, but it is illegal to chew gum on Sundays (some township in Georga, IIRC). Cameras everywhere is open to being used as a dragnet, which while not strictly violating the 4th amendment, certainly violates the spirit as written by the founding fathers. The fastest recording media for images was a hand drawn sketch, which took minutes, while a nice color painting would take days. They likely couldn't even fathom a still camera, let alone a full motion video camera.
I understand that people tune out, but really, the idea of cameras covering all sorts of public places is repugnant to me.
At risk of falling down the slope (due to liberal greasing, making it slippery), private property cameras are ok. poorly patrolled moving objects (trains, busses) I sort of understand. Government buildings, while technically public property... maybe ok.
beyond that I really start to have a hard time accepting it.
Speed cameras, license plate tracking, red light cameras, street corner cameras, special event cameras on portable trailers.. not so much with the ok bit.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I've been wanting to move down south for a while now and it's getting closer to becoming a reality. GA is still on the list, but I will not live or work in Atlanta after reading this, that much is for sure.
...you will have the least interest to authorities, because you are benign. The fantasy media has done it's job of making you docile and subservient. You might rant and rave, but you will NEVER do anything real and subversive because it 1) involves effort and 2) possible sacrifice. So State Drone #377266FA556, remember that when you go back to your Star Wars doll collection. Go immerse yourself back into that fantasy world you think is "real".
More like you are not important enough for the government to care about your privacy. Records indicate that the FBI was (is?) interested in trivialities and countries like the DDR show how far mission-creep can spread.
The argument is that of the balance between freedom and security, and that argument goes back a long way. When Moses (I don't really believe in the Bible, but I like to use this as an illustration) freed his peeps from slavery some of them wanted to go back. Obviously they would rather have security rather than freedom.
People high in government know this and they are very willing to promise us security in exchange for our freedoms. Erich Fromm wrote something about it in Escape from Freedom. People want to feel secure because they don't like the unknown.
people who are against video cameras have never been assaulted on the street
And people who are for them are suffering from PTSD, a psychiatric condition requiring professional treatment, not a rearrangement of the world to fit their craziness.
All of which somehow manage to avoid taping an officer of the law performing his duties. Funny how that works, isn't it?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
in a panopticon such as this it matters not whether anyone is watching the feeds at all. As long as the people think they are being watched they will act accordingly.
I was in China recently. One of the first things I noticed in Shanghai was that there are cameras EVERYWHERE. Just some food for thought.
There is a reason I got a CCW and carry in Atlanta.
Orwell was an optimist.
if this is such a great idea then they should have cops wear cameras that boardcast to a repository they cannot tamper with and the public can request video of for court cases and other uses. I mean, there is no reason a cop would object to this as a public servant right?
Dude- that guy taking pictures of those kids in a park would get you arguing for privacy in a heart beat. Don't tell me there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. There is some reasonable expectation of privacy in public places where there are few or no people. If you are going to post a camera somewhere it really should be clearly marked with HUGE signs. Even with crowded places you don't expect the police to be able to monitor everything all the time. If you don't see a cop they shouldn't be there. There is a difference between camera phones and a camera posted to continually monitor a public place. In Europe and many other places the question has been raised about Google's street view cars. This isn't even constant monitoring. It isn't even government. We DO expect some privacy in public places.
The ability of police and rescue to use remoting viewing to check out a situation by video is great and wonderfull thing. They get a call for help, logon to the local camera and can see what is going on and send the correct amount of help.
That kind behavior is intollerable.
In the pre-surveillance society you might not have had an expectation of privacy in public areas but you also knew the odds were against being observed by authorities. It was a situation of balance in which people generally had a moderate amount of de facto privacy.
Now we are talking about a situation where there will be zero chance of privacy because any place not specifically denoted as "private" will be 100% monitored.
I think the two situations are significantly different and so I do not consider people complaining about this as an invasion of privacy to be taking an extremist position. However 24/7 surveillance of any place not specifically designated "private" is something I do find extremist along with those that defend it.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Seriously, just start destroying them. It has to happen, its inevitable, and the sooner people get used to the fact that as a result less than 1% of these cams will *ever* be working at one time the better.
Except that police organizations and government entities have shown a troubling propensity for violating the rights we are SUPPOSED to have in public. Cameras will allow them even more ability to infringe on the rights of the average citizen (even if that citizen isn't using them... yet). It's not about JUST expectation of privacy, I'll give you that side of it, it's the fight for stopping them from hemming in on other rights, like the right to assemble peacefully.
-
Next, Atlanta will be hanging up posters.
If they put more of these cameras on the Interstates in that city they would have to hold court in every Chic Filet & Waffle House available for all the road-ragers they caught. Part of me is disgusted by this because it reminds me of the kind of stories I read about London and it's network of cameras. The other part of me remembers living in Atlanta for several years, both before and after the '96 Olympics, and how the city is now filled with degenerate scum who will drain the life out of every situation they can sink their suck-pipes into. This includes much of the Elect. Atlanta is a nice place, geographically speaking, as long as it isn't tornado season and you live in Alabama. If you ever visit, for the love of Jesus H Fucking Christ stay away from Underground. The city had to zip-tie bike racks together along the curbs to herd the human cows and keep them from owning the streets entirely with their complete disregard for everything that living in a home should have taught them by the time they were 7 years old. That place is almost a total shit-hole. People from New York, Chicago & other shit-holes like to brag about how Atlanta wishes it was a real city, but the fact is Atlanta is just like every fucked up story you ever read about those places anyway. Dream on, dipshits. Your life is third-world hell & you voted for your own overlords.
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.
It's my opinion, that people who are against video cameras have never been assaulted on the street.
"If you experienced X, you would understand and agree with my position!"
That's a mere assumption. I don't agree with going to any lengths just to catch a few criminals (maybe).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Dude- that guy taking pictures of those kids in a park would get you arguing for privacy in a heart beat.
It didn't until that stupid pedophile scare started.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Abolishing the public police would be good for the liberty and economics of this country.
Streets, parks, transit, and businesses are places where you don't have a reasonable expectation for privacy
This is the narrow view.
When all those cameras are linked with facial recognition added, you'll be tracked everywhere you go.
This goes above and beyond the layperson's view of "no privacy outdoors", and into ubiquitous surveillance territory.
What's more to say?
If you really want to see how eager people are to give up their freedoms, have a look at this link on a bike forum:
http://londonbikers.com/forums/871716/the-intruder-killed-in-manchester
Regular people there are arguing that it is the right thing to do to keep DNA of innocent people on file forever if they are arrested (not charged).
They're arguing that you should always arrest someone who acts in self defence just to be sure that they really were defending themselves and not a murder.
They're arguing that being arrested has no consequences on a person and that governments would never use information beyond the scope it was originally collected under.
It boggles my mind!
Are they going to include gunshot detection too? I recall a few years back someone was developing tech to identify location / type of gunshots via microphones mounted in various locations. This would be ideal to automate with the camera, then just need to add a knee jerk response, some guns and you'll have an ed209 on a pole!
While I hate surveillance there is one possible advantage, as long as the footage is backed up in a location that is inaccessible to officers and requests for the footage by defense attorneys are handled by people not under the police departments employ this could be a tool against police abuse. There are more than a few examples of how surveillance footage has brought this nationwide epidemic to light. Of course if either of those two conditions don't apply you can bet that any such footage will "come up missing" or the "cameras were pointed in the other direction at the time", the most pertinent case that comes to mind is one where a person was calling their lawyer while their friend was arrested, the police assaulted him for his dangerous use of a phone. The camera was zoomed right in on the event right up until the police started beating on the guy calling the lawyer, then it "inexplicably" pans and zooms away from the attack. Only later, after the beating is over does it cautiously pan and zoom back in.
I never understood why Americans think that recording policeman is a civil right but if a policeman records you it's a violation of privacy.
These cameras will be a valuable tool for police response to crime, as well as the city's response to trouble areas(traffic and the like). Still, these cameras will not stop criminal activity, but the citizens of Atlanta, and the whole State of Georgia already have a very important tool at their disposal: Firearms. There are a number of citizens to carry firearms, both openly and concealed. This is legal(though it should be required of all law-abiding citizens), by way of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Georgia Constitution. Also, since Georgia as preemption statutes in the O.C.G.A, no city/county government can pass more strict laws on firearm ownership, use, and/or carry.
While some here might disagree with citizens carrying and/or owning firearms, it is important to respect the citizen's right to do so. A properly trained and armed citizen can do far more good than all of those cameras, or any reactive agency(which, after all, that is what the police are: Reactive). Still, I do believe these cameras will have good uses, as long as those uses are not abused.
Reaction to criminal activity, or to accidents, can only benefit the Atlanta area. Regardless, I do have to wonder about the intelligence of such an undertaking. There are other, more pressing issues that Atlanta needs to undertake.
The roads in Atlanta are horrible. So many potholes, cracks in the asphalt, bridges that need repair, and so many other, more important issues, that should be taken up prior to installing more cameras. I have lost the use, or ability to repair, of two, brand new tires while driving in downtown Atlanta, over the past four months alone.
Why, without heavy surveillance, Yankees might invade,
I guess you've never been to Atlanta. The Yankees invaded years ago. I'd wager there are more folks from the NE in Atlanta than people that were actually born in the Atlanta metro area. And they all bitch about how much better it is in NY et al. Never understood that one. Yankee go home! ;-)
At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
Your point is far more extremist than his to imply everything you do outside of your home should be subject to monitoring, that if you defend against it then you're somehow a "screaming extremist". That is at its core sickening, and you haven't produced a horse high enough to tell him what the fuck he should or shouldn't do.
ROFL I live here. I came here to make money short term and never left; I'm a "carpetbagger". I also despair when I go to anyplace outside of Little 5 Points bars; the self-contradictory nonsense I hear makes me cringe. Outside of that it's pretty nice though. I tease my buddies up north that they should come down here and live in the land of the second amendment all the time - I really appreciate the gun laws here; a breath of fresh air compared to NJ! The only thing I don't like is that people don't seem as up front as they are in the north; they'll act like your buddy to your face and badmouth you as soon as your back is turned. I was also never burglarized up north, unlike here - but that is likely more due to luck than anything else. Housing is GREAT; I never thought I'd own my own house lock, stock and barrel before I retired, but here I am! I didn't have to (entirely) give up winter, either, and it's a lot less humid than 'Jersey in the summer. I griped a lot until I made some friends I could trust, but once I did, I have to admit this is a great place to live!
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!