Slashdot Mirror
Houston Expands Downtown Surveillance, Unsure If It Helps
SpaceGhost writes "The Associated Press reports that the Houston (Texas) Police will be adding 180 surveillance cameras in the downtown area, bringing the total to close to 1000. While most cover public areas (stadiums, theater district) the police suggest that Houston also has more 'critical infrastructure' (energy companies) than other cities. Interestingly AP points out that 'Officials say data is not kept to determine if the cameras are driving down crime.' Didn't London face the same issue?"
If they're not keeping data for tracking crime rates, then what is the point?
but apparently criminals still commit crimes when other people can witness it.
But I'm sure they'd never tie the data in to the "voluntary" DNA swabbing done last month.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
'Officials say data is not kept to determine if the cameras are driving down crime.'
It seems to me, that if there _WERE_ concrete evidence of crime being reduced, they _WOULD_ keep data.
If the cities would collect data, that does NOT show a drop in crime, then city officials might be criticized for the whole operation... ...without the data - it's hard to nail them down on it...
to tie the cameras to the ability to close cases as opposed to a deterrent for crime?
People argue about pennies spent on school lunches, but can't be bothered to track millions spent on surveillance? Numerous cities, especially New York, have demonstrated that contemporaneous analysis of data, and general analysis of trends and patterns, can make a big difference in incidents. (We all think tech is cool in a Tom Clancy novel, or a military operation; why not for police?)
Unless you have personnel watching these cameras 24/7, then you're not going to prevent anything. Cameras don't prevent crimes, they just help after the fact. Our school systems has installed hundreds of cameras under the guise of student safety. But only a few people view them, and not even constantly. So they're not going to prevent a school shooting, or any other crime. Perhaps it'll help catch some vandals or theft, but it seems that most shooters kill themselves anyways.
An Exxon office building is not really "critical infrastructure". The Houston area does have some plants that could produce nasty results if someone did something nefarious to them, but they aren't located where these cameras are being put in (and have their own security, anyway).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This was also as issue with Fort Bloomburg. Many of the cameras that NY spent millions of tax dollars on do not work becuase they were broken or stolen soon after being installed. The NYPD treats the agency that is charged with monitoring the cameras asa dumping ground so of course what cameras are working are not used to much of their potential.
Smile !! You are on Candid Camera !!
Not the In Color ones !!
The city has spent more than $18 million in federal money to build its camera system and has another $5 million in reserve.
Houston also has expanded its video network through private sharing agreements, such as by accessing networks along rail lines.
Officials say data is not kept to determine if the cameras are driving down crime.
Implementation in anticipation of application.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
You know, cameras and video surveillance are like violence: if they don't solve your problem, you aren't using enough of them.
People argue about pennies spent on school lunches, but can't be bothered to track millions spent on surveillance? Numerous cities, especially New York, have demonstrated that contemporaneous analysis of data, and general analysis of trends and patterns, can make a big difference in incidents.
Are you talking about CompStat? Where have they proven that?
The reason they say the cameras aren't for crime reduction is because that is measurable. If we say it is to protect critical infrastructure and no terrorist attacks occur in Houston, well obviously the system worked and it was money well spent.
Same as the justification for TSA. The bin Laden operation was a one shot deal. After it happened, no one would be able to hijack a fully-loaded (public) airplane and use it as a flying bomb. In fact, only 3 of the 4 planes hijacked on 9/11 were successful. Once we knew this wasn't your regular hijacking to Cuba, passengers responded.
But since we set up all these security lines and prevent people from bringing on shampoo and dangerous trinkets, then TSA is obviously the reason for our success.
Frankly, if we had door locks on airplane cabins, I suspect no one could take over an airplane even with box cutters now.
(We all think tech is cool in a Tom Clancy novel, or a military operation; why not for police?)
Because in real life, the government is run by imperfect, corrupt humans who will not hesitate to abuse any powers you give them. Mass surveillance of public places is simply not a good idea.
Interestingly AP points out that 'Officials say data is not kept to determine if the cameras are driving down crime.'
If they kept such data around, somebody might try to halt the corrupt-politicians/connected-crony-contractor gravy train by publicizing the fact that it does not fulfill it's officially-stated purpose.
Not that halting it would happen just because of massive corruption being exposed. One has only to look at the example set by the Rape-A-Scan corruption debacle. The government basically reacted to being caught with "fuck you".
Been a lot of that from the government lately regardless of which political party is in power. Obviously, they are progressively worried less and less about the reaction of the people as time passes and their power, reach, and control grows. That's not good.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Some old colonial dude that never even owned a computer or smartphone.
We're swiftly running out of boxes.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The cameras are not placed there to prevent crime, but to assist in criminal investigation.
Houston Expands Downton Surveillance
I love watching that show too.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Please spend this on education and food instead. You'll save more lives that way than with the cameras. Take the long view.
Twinstiq, game news
I work for a technology integrator who's major focus is on physical security. My specialty is designing, engineering. deploying, and maintaining robust surveillance systems. While HPD might not have numbers to show progress, our local police do. We maintain a surveillance system in my city (population approximately 150k) of about 150 cameras, all connected via wireless mesh network. I have seen the statistics and I can tell you without a doubt that crime has gone down steadily since deploying our surveillance system. I know of numerous murders that were solved this year alone solely because of the system that we installed. There is also one specific abduction that was solved specifically because of video that was obtained through our cameras.
While the HPD may not have staff actively watching the cameras, that is not the case in my city. The 911 call center here has approximately 5 large monitors where the cameras are displayed and monitored 24/7. They have the ability to view an area of interest the second a crime/fire/emergency of any sorts is called in. This can provide critical insight to a cop/fireman/EMS that is headed to the area of interest.
On the flip side, I see the shitty job that most company's do when designing and installing a surveillance system. The large majority of the time, there are cameras down, servers failing, and network issues. Also, the majority of the users are not trained properly and definitely can not use these systems to their full potential.
I just wanted to point out that there are some huge upsides to deploying city wide surveillance systems, assuming it is done correctly at least.
You're not supposed to say that the Emperor's New Clothes aren't real and that he's actually stark raving naked.
You'll get you head chopped off for that.
And it looks like you did.