California Mayors Demand Surveillance Cams On Crime-Ridden Highways (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader shares an Ars Technica report: The 28 shootings along a 10-mile stretch of San Francisco-area highway over the past six months have led mayors of the adjacent cities to declare that these "murderous activities" have reached "crisis proportions." Four people have been killed and dozens injured. These five mayors want California Gov. Jerry Brown to fund surveillance cameras along all the on and off ramps of Interstate 80 and Highway 4 along the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Richmond, San Pablo, and Pinole.

Comments

How about

[ArchieBunker]

Withholding federal funding for "sanctuary cities"?

Re:How about

[whoever57]

You're confusing these East Bay cities with San Francisco.

No, the confusion is between San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area. These cities are certainly in the SF Bay Area.

Re:How about

[sumdumass]

Why is it that all gun grabbing liberals eventually express concern about someone's penis size when they realize their arguments fail? Is that the real agenda or something? Is it an issue where you feel you cannot address it while they have what you think is compensating for their size?

How is this news for nerds stuff that matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no problem with surveillance cameras on public roads. There is no expectation of privacy there, and there's a legitimate reason for the cameras to be there. Lots of highways have cameras, if nothing else to monitor road conditions. This isn't news for nerds, stuff that matters. It's a non-issue.

Re:How is this news for nerds stuff that matters?

[geekmux]

I see no problem with surveillance cameras on public roads. There is no expectation of privacy there, and there's a legitimate reason for the cameras to be there. Lots of highways have cameras, if nothing else to monitor road conditions. This isn't news for nerds, stuff that matters. It's a non-issue.

Oh, you see no issue? OK, let me explain how this is going to work. By claiming that current traffic cameras aren't "good enough" to catch criminals, they'll justify that "top-notch" next-gen camera tech while pinky swearing that they won't abuse it.

Phase One will consist of cameras equipped with night vision, and powerful enough to capture you texting while driving to receive that ticket in the mail automagically. Phase Two upgrades will consist of radar/laser tech for "traffic integrity" to ticket anyone speeding 3MPH over the limit, along with FLIR to ticket HOV-lane abusers. Phase Three upgrades will consist of license plate scanners to "catch criminals", while all of that captured data is sold to private companies that pay to know the location of 25 - 35 year old drivers for marketing purposes. Suddenly, the whole damn thing has ZERO to do with its original purpose.

Oh, and regardless of obvious revenue streams, they'll still want to charge an extra half-percent tax to pay for this, resulting in dozens of "administrators" being hired while outsourcing this entire solution to the group who bought the most politician palm grease. Ah, nothing like integrity and fairness when choosing state-sponsored solution providers.

Now perhaps you'll understand why this is here on Slashdot. Privacy is eroding daily these days, and cameras probably won't do much to truly prevent this type of crime (the criminals will simply move to where the cameras aren't), but it will certainly be ripe for abuses, as my examples show. Yes, we should look to reduce crime. We should NOT look to become a police state in order to do that. No point in calling it "freedom" if you're watched like a criminal at all times.

Re:The tried and true "whack-a-mole" strategy

[ShanghaiBill]

Putting cameras on I-80 may deter shootings on the highway but I'm guessing the bullets will start pop-pop-popping up somewhere else.

Most crime is opportunistic, not planned. If you remove the opportunity, you prevent the crime. There is no "law of conservation of crime", so better deterrence does not cause a fixed amount of crime to shift to other areas. The opposite is true: Lower crime in one area allows resources to be refocused in other areas, and lower crime leads to a positive feedback loop of economic recovery, more jobs, and stronger communities, in both the immediate area, and in surrounding neighborhoods.

Illegals have a lower crime rate

[aepervius]

Look it put. All statistic point out that illegals have a lower crime rate than naturally born American. So what would really effectively lowering funding for sanctuary cities do ? If anything if illegals are replaced by naturally born American in those cities, then crime rate would rise. The sad truth is that if you want to lower crime rate, then you better look at program which will help reintegration of ex-con and programs which helps the local find better paid job above minimum wage.

Re:Illegals have a lower crime rate

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull fucking shit. Illegals are 100% criminals by their very definition.

Your gov't is not my gov't

[BlytheBowman]

Your country probaly dosen't have a vast gulag prison system, over 2 million people behind bars, or police that dress in heavy body armor, carry big and powerful guns, and burst in homes (no knock) and kill children because they raided the wrong house two doors down from the person growing pot or they were acting on an anonymous "tip". I don't trust the US gov't enough for me to believe they should have these kinds of toys.