Slashdot Mirror


Data-Fed Monitoring System Will Put New Yorkers Under Police Surveillance

Nerval's Lobster writes that New York City isn't just gathering data on citizens with cameras and other data sources for sifting through later to seek evidence in the event of violent acts; it's using some of that data in real-time in an attempt to reveal potential criminal activity. They've even picked a name for their system that echoes DARPA's Total Information Awareness, which I guess is more diplomatic than just calling it Precrime: "The Domain Awareness System will draw data from 911 calls, previous crime reports, license-plate readers, law-enforcement databases, environmental sensors, and roughly 3,000 closed-circuit cameras. It will rely on the New York City Wireless Network (NYCWiN), a high-speed wireless broadband infrastructure that allows city agencies to rapidly transmit data, and used for everything from emergency response to reading meters. Mayor Bloomberg argued that the system isn't an example of Big Brother overstepping the line. 'What you're seeing is what the private sector has used for a long time,' he told Gothamist. 'If you walk around with a cell phone, the cell phone company knows where you are. We're not your mom and pop's police department anymore.'"

42 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Bit Flipping... by 3seas · · Score: 2

    How many times have we heard one thing said and the opposite done?

    1. Re:Bit Flipping... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Best of all, if they catch a new mother feeding her baby formula or some guy trying to supersize his Coke at McDonalds, they can have the SWAT team their in minutes!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. The problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "We're not your mom and pop's police department anymore." That's the problem Mr. Bloomberg.

    1. Re:The problem by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real problem is that there are now so many laws that everyone is a criminal, you can't even tell for certain whether what you're doing is illegal because it may be hidden in an obscure paragraph on page 10,799 of the 'Think Of The Children Act 2003' and if every law was enforced the entire economy would shut down.

    2. Re:The problem by Sentrion · · Score: 3, Informative

      And the laws are so vague that nobody knows if you're really guilty until a judge says so. It's such problem that lawyers today usually advise against taking advantage of some new law until the law has been "tested" in court. It is not unheard of that a person can be complying with law a and compying with law b, but when doing so simultaneously without complying with law c they are guilty of some horrendous crime and must spend years in prison for what most people would perceive as routine day-to-day business.

      Import business can be very scary because you can be tried and imprisoned in the US for violating the law of some other country, even when that other country sends diplomats and sworn affidavits that their laws were not violated.

      You don't even have to break any known laws. A judge can simply find you in contempt and leave you to rot in prison for six years, at his sole discretion.

    3. Re:The problem by davydagger · · Score: 2

      but there not going to be enforced equally.

      the entire point of a police state isn't to enforce laws on the books, its to make everyone a criminal, and enforce them when convienant.

      It gives the police discretion to arrest whomever they want, when they want, and leave it to their judgement to do so.

      Well connected inviduals? more of a chance to get a pass.

      Slow day, and its budget time? arrest as many people as possible?

      Personal beef with the police? arrested.

      Look funny? arrested?

      going to give information that might lead to arrest of a police officer or friends? arrested first, terrorist.

    4. Re:The problem by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2

      Why would this get modded Troll?

      This guy is absolutely right, there are tens of thousands of Federal laws on the books and if you ask THE FEDS how many laws they have they cannot tell you because they can't keep track of them.

      And it's not just importers of goods that can get wrapped up in laws from other Nations, there are several federal laws that say you are committing a felony if you violate any law in any international country, even if you were outside of the US at the time and if you were ignorant of the foreign law AND regardless of whether the foreign nation cares to prosecute you.

      There's a reason why any sane defense attorney advises you to STFU under all circumstances and plead the 5th. Because even THEY cannot tell you with any certainty that what you are saying will not incriminate you of some crime, NOBODY can.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

      --

      Liberty.

  3. Unsubscribe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mayor Bloomberg argued that the system isn't an example of Big Brother overstepping the line. 'What you're seeing is what the private sector has used for a long time,' he told Gothamist. 'If you walk around with a cell phone, the cell phone company knows where you are. We're not your mom and pop's police department anymore.'"

    The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system. I am able to choose whether I want to allow the private sector to know where I am by not buying a cell phone. Big difference there, chief.

    1. Re:Unsubscribe by garcia · · Score: 2

      The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system. I am able to choose whether I want to allow the private sector to know where I am by not buying a cell phone. Big difference there, chief.

      Exactly. And the oft-misquoted saying that applies here doesn't need to be repeated but I would rather be one of a few thousand people to die due to criminal activity than have the Mayor of NYC tracking my every move because he can.

    2. Re:Unsubscribe by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system. I am able to choose whether I want to allow the private sector to know where I am by not buying a cell phone.

      Also, the private sector uses that information to serve me. The cell phone company knows where I am because they need to connect my calls.

    3. Re:Unsubscribe by Artraze · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And, more to the point, the cell phone company can't put people in jail. They aren't going to be searching that data to "discover" crimes. (Collect enough data and statistically you can 'prove' almost anything). If anything, their incentive is to ignore it as much as possible: Not only because it limits their liability in case something happens that they missed, but also because people is jail aren't buying cell phones.

    4. Re:Unsubscribe by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system.

      You can always replace the people who run it. You can actually vote for change, should you accept the challenge. Either way, private or public, the power is in our hands, and when things go wrong, especially on the chronic time scale we're looking at, we have nobody but ourselves to blame. We enable both the dictator and the industrialist who props him up.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Unsubscribe by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can always replace the people who run it.

      Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    6. Re:Unsubscribe by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Peoples' choice. There are no laws that restrict who you can vote for.

      If voting could make a difference, it would be banned. At best, if you dedicate months of your life to doing so, you can replace one guy at the top, who then has to deal with a huge entrenched bureaucracy that wants more money and power and will do whatever it can to get rid of them.

      Do you really think, for example, that if Americans were given a free choice of who should be candidates for President this year they would pick... Obama and Romney? There's no better choice in the country than those two?

    7. Re:Unsubscribe by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system.

      Nor does AT&T have the power of arrest and detention.

      Standing up and saying its not Big Brother doesn't make it so.
      The sad part is New Yorkers will probably go for this in a heart beat. All you need to do is whisper World Trade Center, and all opposition voices will be drowned out. Take it from me, my sister lords it over me every time this type of issue comes up because she was 6 blocks away on 9/11.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:Unsubscribe by KhabaLox · · Score: 2

      Or in this case, another city.

      Tell that to Muslims in New Jersey.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    9. Re:Unsubscribe by MrSenile · · Score: 2

      Yet I would wager bets that if 80% of Americans could convince their co-patriots to vote for a single person not on the ballet ticket, and they did, infact, select said person who was just a common off the street joe, that it would find a way to be overturned and the 'next winner' who was either of the 2 man running horse would be selected.

      Voting and free choice does no good with the ballot box is staged.

      It's like this. I fill a barrel full of red apples for apple dunking. You don't like red apples, only green ones.

      My answer? Well son, you have free choice to select any apple in that barrel you want, but hey, maybe that rare green apple will be selected. Who knows, someone may have put it in there. Of course, you also have the free choice to not dunk for apples at all.

      Then you dunk in the apples and miraculously a green apple is found. They immediately pull it out of your mouth, look at it and say 'oh sorry son, this one had a worm'. But hey, there's still a bunch of red apples you can choose, it's a FREE SELECTION after all.

      Don't believe me? Guess we'll just have to wait for the 'free choice of the people' to select someone other than the default lying bureaucrat. Good luck with that. Because you see, why the majority of people agree that the bureaucrat is a lying sack, to convince the majority of the people that voting for a single entity NOT on the ballot box is like the hunt for the white stag. Just won't happen, which is why the American government allows us to select who we want on the ballot. It's something that they know will never amount to anything, but allows us the perception of freedom of choice.

    10. Re:Unsubscribe by KhabaLox · · Score: 2

      If you can't save a couple hundred bucks... you have bigger issues than big brother.

      This is what BB is counting on, and why the system is being rigged to keep people poor.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    11. Re:Unsubscribe by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      You might be right. But we'll have to wait until that magic moment to see for sure. In the meantime, let's work on the actual cause of the problem. What people are doing now really is no different than a person building another straw house after the first one got blown down by a summer breeze, and then bitches about the weather.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Unsubscribe by tqk · · Score: 2

      I believe you can "opt-out" by moving to another country.

      Yes, and since when did "The Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" consider that an option?

      Perhaps Bloomberg needs to be better acquainted with Boston harbour?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  4. The Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference, of course, is that only government holds the special "right" to employ physical force as a business model. Private business can only hurt you with the blessing of government. Government can hurt you at will, and with no recourse.

    1. Re:The Difference by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      You're a moron. If the US becomes a tyranny, it will be because a majority of the US voters want one. You don't need the second amendment to throw out the government in a properly working democracy. You only need it if you disagree with the results of the majority, and think that the current state of affairs entitles you to shoot those who you disagree with.

      The fantasy that a democratically elected government will suddenly turn on you like a rabid animal is an utter fantasy that has zero precedent in history. For every example that you bring up, I will show you how it happened with the tacit approval of the power structure in the country, or because the government had been dissolved and replaced by an authoritarian regime - generally after a significant armed struggle took place. And no matter how few guns are in place before an armed struggle takes place, there's going to be a flood of weapons available during it.

      In short, your second amendment will either be completely redundant (there's already a war going on, and the constitution is going to be ignored right and left), or should be unused (the ballot still works).

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  5. So what? by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you walk around with a cell phone, the cell phone company knows where you are

    And if I have a bank account, then the bank knows how much money I have or what all my transactions are. That doesn't mean police gets to use that information indiscriminately/without a warrant.

    1. Re:So what? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 2

      Do you see the mention of warrants in his proposal?

      None

      It's all automatic like DMCA takedowns.
      Guilty until proven innocent.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  6. System Will Put New Yorkers Under Police Surveilla by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

    >> System Will Put New Yorkers Under Police Surveillance

    This is a great idea... in Soviet Russia.

  7. Why are you so bitter? by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That would be the response from my "friends" if I posted this on facebook. They just don't see anything wrong with this level of surveillance (or police ramming-down your door and shooting you).

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  8. Re:Hijab by Nkwe · · Score: 3, Funny

    What we need is the human equivalent of license plate "protectors". I foresee a new fashion trend...

    You mean like a hoodie?

  9. "We're not your mom and pop's police department" by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Informative

    No. You're our Big Brother's police department.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  10. Re:System Will Put New Yorkers Under Police Survei by ApplePy · · Score: 2

    Soviet Russia's KGB in its wildest wet dreams never imagined the level of Big Brother surveillance that the US government/corporate partnership could put into place here with modern technology. By contrast, the Soviet citizen of 1980 had far more privacy and anonymity.

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
  11. Sad by Mephistophocles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mayor Bloomberg argued that the system isn't an example of Big Brother overstepping the line.

    That shouldn't even be up for debate here. If we're taking up that debate with the Mayor, then we've already fallen for his straw-man and are missing the point completely. Of COURSE it's overstepping the line; that's obvious and doesn't need debate. The real problem here is that New Yorkers aren't fighting stuff like this for all they're worth - non-violent whenever possible, violent when necessary. And yes, that's constitutionally protected free speech.

    For now, Bloomberg, you evil fiend, I hope this at least destroys whatever tourist traffic is left in the big apple. I, for one, will not ever be traveling to your city as long as this crap exists (and it's a shame, because there is much about New York that I love).

    --
    Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
  12. There are laws restricting who you can elect by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

    There are no laws that restrict who you can vote for.

    Sure there are, at least if you want your vote to count. There are laws that restrict who can be elected to each and every elected public office in the country. Sometimes, the restrictions are things like age, citizenship, and duration of residency in a particular region, but sometimes they are more involved.

  13. Not reassuring. by Eevee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're not your mom and pop's police department anymore.'"

    Becoming the Stasi isn't an improvement.

  14. Businesss... government... it's still big brother. by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Businesses shouldn't be allowed to collect data that the government can't.

    Government shouldn't be allowed to collect data because "the private sector already does this."

    I had the misfortune to attend a conference a few weeks ago where salesmen were being taught about "big data" by marketdroids.

    These guys were drooling about wholesale intrusion into the most private aspects of our lives.

    It really is the rise of big brother. The fact that it is a corporation instead of government is of little practical value; monitoring data gives those who have it power, and that power will always be abused - and will result in ruined or destroyed lives, reduced freedom, and corrupt leadership (whether government or corporate).

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  15. Do it to the police too. by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Every single room in a police station (aside from the bathrooms) and every single police car should be under constant surveillance, going directly to the Internal Affairs office, and is also recorded and retained for a minimum of 10 years.

    If the video is not shown, then by law, the cops should not be allowed to testify about what they saw, heard, said, or did. I.e. it should be assumed that the cops destroyed the evidence to allow them to lie.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  16. 6 months? by Budgreen · · Score: 2

    It's been in use for 6 months already. and the public is just now finding out?

    --
    The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
  17. Re:Oh that kooky Obama by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you kidding, there are 6 full volumes of "Bush"isms... and not just half conscious blathering performed at the end of 4, 22 hours days. Obama is well known for brilliantly reading speeches, he's an excellent orator. Even Reagan, a man who could handle a written speech with the best (there is no better training for public speaking than being an actor.) Opened his mouth and delivered unprepared howlers.Face it, The guys that run our country are forced to deal with topics outside their expertise, and if they're hard working SOBs, then in a tired moment stupid stuff will be said. If you have 4 years of public speaking, and in that time they can only hang a couple dozen faux paus on you, while having a body of public speaking that typically excellent. No biggie,

    You can't honestly compare that to a man (Dubyah) who couldn't open his mouth prepared or not, and reflexively not have something stupid fall out. That kind of nit picking is the sign of someone whose rectum is much too firmly clenched. Nobody denies that Ronny was "The Communicator", and that his comments about "catchup being a vegetable" or that "trees cause pollution" were aberrations in an otherwise pretty spectacular job of speaking to the masses.

    In short, if you wanna burn on Obama for caving in to Hollywood, or gutting our rights as citizen, I got some matches right here, and I can be back with some lighter fluid in about 5 minutes. You wanna make like he's Bush #2 the talking baboon, ah, not so much, in fact your hurting your own cause, because you just look like a childish hater pulling stuff outta your posterior to trump up as an issue... that ain't him looking stupid. Its you.

  18. time to leave? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    It's been gradual but i think we can say it's official that The Big Apple has become The Big Fuck You.

    You have obscene pricing, crooked cops, they completely ignoring everything bad going down on Wall Street (and their major cocaine habit), they are a nanny city telling you that you cant have a large soda and now they are going Big Brother on everyone (that isn't part of the government).

    Corporations really dont give a damn about what people do so long as they keep getting money from them. However, governments are just itching to break out the swat team for a double parked car.

    I think it's time to blow the bridges and drag it out to sea with all the vermin on it.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  19. "We're not your mom and pop's PD anymore..." by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Appropriate, because it's not my mom and pop's country anymore.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  20. What a funny argument!!! by stanlyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, let me summarize it:
    1.It is OK to do all this surveillance at municipality level, because, you see, it is already done by the private business.
    2.But the fact that is is already done by the private business does not mean that it is legal.
    3.But because we justified 1, based on 2, now we have 3, it is LEGAL to do all this surveillance.
    Now, my friends, do you see why MATH is so important? If you, dear friend, try to prove any lemma or theorem this way, you will repeat the same year again and again and again........

  21. Re:You can't have it both ways by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You've got some seriously dangerous animals who have no human compassion at all in them.

    Very true. Do you really want to give them the ability to track you every minute of every day?

    Here we see the simplemindedness of the authoritarian. He has no way to conceive that the bad people he is so afraid of might one day control the security apparatus of the city (if they do not do so already). We've already seen how brutally the NYPD has treated a peaceful movement for economic justice, while letting trillions of dollars worth of fraud go unpunished. What reason is there to believe the NYPD has your best interests at heart?

    You can't be against public surveillance then complain later when you or your loved ones get mugged/raped/killed.

    You can't be for universal surveillance and then complain later when the authorities use it to chill political dissent.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  22. Re:THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE. by colinrichardday · · Score: 2

    Quantum mechanics?

  23. Re:Oh that kooky Obama by dave87656 · · Score: 2

    The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush's policies were just as stupid as the crap that spewed from his drawling mouth.

    I used to think that, too. But I'm starting to think the president doesn't really have that much power anymore. I used to think that the police state started with the Patriot Act but now I think it started somewhat earlier but got a big boost with the Patriot Act. I was hopeful that the current administration would gut it and make bring us back in line with our constitution. But, with all good intentions, it's not happening. I think the power is now held by congress (which is influenced by special interests) and the judicial branch.