Slashdot Log In
Surveillance Camera Network Coming To New York?
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Aug 04, 2007 06:08 AM
from the if-they-can-make-it-here dept.
from the if-they-can-make-it-here dept.
yapplejax writes "New York City is seeking funding for a multi-million dollar surveillance system modeled on the one used in London. Police in the city already make use of the network of cameras in airports, banks, department stores and corporate offices — an arrangement used in cities across the country. This new project would augment that network with a city-wide grid. 'The system has four components: license plate readers, surveillance cameras, a coordination center, and roadblocks that can swing into action when needed. The primary purpose of the system is deterrence, and then an investigative tool.' But is it necessary? Steven Swain from the London Metropolitan Police states 'I don't know of a single incident where CCTV has actually been used to spot, apprehend or detain offenders in the act.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Uh 'supposedly' (Score:4, Insightful)
How are they going to justify the Big Brother system in New York? Not only do they not have such a fee, but if they did it would be easily implemented by tolls on the bridges and tunnels that are the only way of getting to Manhattan from outside.
Re:Uh 'supposedly' (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Uh 'supposedly' (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Uh 'supposedly' (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In an ideal world, that would be the case. But given the level of power-mongering and outright corruption that exists in just about every major American city government, the best we can do is fight the symptoms.
Are you from London? (Score:5, Informative)
The 'Ring of Steel' is not a 'a network of thousands of surveillance cameras that line London's intersections and neighborhoods'. It's a bunch of sort-of-roadblocks which are on most vehicle entrances to the City of London - London's financial district, and very different from Central London. By this I mean the road narrows to a single lane with a bend in it to slow down vehicles, and there's a little booth where (sometimes) police sit and watch you. They keep an eye out for suspicious looking vehicles like 'panel vans' or similar which have been used by the IRA for bombings. Often they are unmanned. The cops might occasionally ask you where you're going, but AFAIK there's no routing logging or looking up of number plates.
There are also cameras as part of the Ring of Steel, but just to film vehicles at these ways in to the City. Note that the Ring only protects the City, which wasn't a target either of the 2005 bombings and failed bombings (except in as much that one of the bombed tube trains, the one at Moorgate, was probably inside the City when the bomb went off), nor of the recent failed firebombings in West Central London. It was set up in the early 90's, when the IRA were very active in London.
As for the 'network of thousands of surveillance cameras' that they are talking about, well it's difficult to say because there are a lot of CCTV cameras in London, installed by many different organisations; local authorities, traffic cops, companies on their private property etc. But I think it's a fair assumption that they are referring to the Congestion Charge cameras, since there isn't to my knowledge another citywide network of cameras, other than the ones on the public transport system, which obviously don't line 'intersections and neighbourhoods'. These are at every street entrance to the Congestion charge zone, a much much bigger area which covers every part of London that could be said to be central; shopping districts, theatre district, all main govt. buildings, royal palaces etc. and track the number plates of every single car going in and out. They also cover many, many locations inside the zone, to catch people who got in without being recorded or who live in the zone (they still have to pay). There are also vans fitted with cameras which drive around filming number plates. The data is kept for quite a while, for billing and penalty recovery purposes among others. There are in fact guys who walk around suburban residential streets outside the zone, taking down all number plates looking for people who have been in the zone without paying (I've met one on the job). The cameras are kept on all the time, even though there is no charge after 7:30 pm or in before the morning rush hour.
When the system was set up, the Greater London Authority promised they would not pass on the information to the police. Then they started to allow access to the police to look at the video afterwards if requested. Since the recent failed terrorism attacks, they now allow the police to watch in real time, but only for preventing and investigating 'threats to national security' - they can't use the info against normal crime.
HTH.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I lived in london for 8 years until May of this year, so I'm quite familiar with the CC and City.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And you really believe this?
Re:A natural progression (Score:5, Insightful)
When you start using "crime" and "Terrorism" in the same sentence to justify the actions of government, I think there's a big problem on the horizon. How long will it be before the two are used interchangeably?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I only object to the redundancy. Saying that the police will combat 'crime and terrorism' is just like saying they will combat 'crime and murder', or 'crime and counterfeiting', or 'crime and burglary'. Terrorism is just one of many crimes the police are expected to combat, so saying 'cr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Expect to see the defined set of terrorism behaviors gradually supersede that of crime behaviors. As sure as a over-sized violin, you'll then be dispensed with any perception of redundancy: You'll only need to refer to terrorism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are portions of the government that treats terrorism as a military matter (Republicans: Guantanamo Bay prisoners are military issue, they don't get civilian treatments like someone picked up for murder would) and others that treats terrorism as a crime (Democrats: Hey, why don't Guantanamo Bay prisoners have habeas corpus?).
You need to be very careful of this dichotomy and read critically into what is
Bait & Switch (Score:2)
How are they going to justify the Big Brother system in New York?
But this is progress. As such, the burden is now on those like you to justify standing in the way of progress. Why are you such a reactionary luddite technophobe? Don't you want rapists and murderers to get caught? We should embrace this and all other technologies which will usher in a brave new world...eh...um, yeah!
Seriously though, this is the mentality in a technocratic culture like ours. Tools are worshiped above and beyond any c
Re:Uh 'supposedly' (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How does that quote go? "If there aren't enough criminals, there aren't enough laws", or something like that?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been a number of things written about the logical impossibility of obeying all the laws in most jurisdictions. It might be fun to make a collection of examples.
One that was publicised in a state where I once lived (name omitted to make you suspect that it might be where you live
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's because your points are so daft they're not even worth countering. The 'nothing to hide' mentality is dangerous as proven by the professor who wrote this paper [slashdot.org].
The problem with ubiquitous police surveillance is the creation of a Kafka-esque bureaucracy. One that can gather more information on your personal business than you know yourself, that bureaucracy will then judge you using that data--probably without you even realising--and without giving you an opportunity to defend yourself. Particularly with laws that allow the British police to detain suspects without charge [bbc.co.uk]; this ability was abused in South Africa during the Apartheid era by releasing people then re-arresting them the next day (and holding them for another ~28 days, rinse and repeat). I can see no reason why the same thing couldn't happen in the UK: all the government has to do is cite 'terrorism' and show a picture of some brown person and no-one will complain.
I don't think a talking CCTV camera breaking up a fight is worth the infringement on society's privacy. What a brave politician would do is tackle the causes of that behaviour, why is it so many of the denizens of the UK act like arseholes? Fix that and you don't need the CCTV.
It seems like the same problem and attempted resolution in New York, I doubt it will work there either (although I don't know much about the city).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
given the laws complexity (approaches and sometimes exceeds a rubiks teseract) everybody sometime does something worth time.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you specify 'outside your home'? Don't the laws apply just as much inside? Surely we should also install cameras inside the home. After all, if you're doing something illegal, you deserve to get caught. The cameras won't create new laws by themselves, only enforce the ones that exist. And if you're doing nothing illegal inside your home, you have nothing to worry about.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The first five sentences in your post appears to contradict him. Care to elaborate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-- Sister Miriam Godwinson, We Must Dissent, on the Self-Aware Colony
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being observed by a camera in a public place is no big deal. Being followed by the video surveillance network is.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Another example (Score:2)
I'm of the mind that you've littl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently we have that problem as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The main point was that if you give the government that much power over your lives, they will abuse it. The surveillance *was* one of the main points - you never knew when Big Brother was watching for subversive activities.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm... thank goodness that could never happen in real l... err... wait a minute...
My experience as a crime victim in London (Score:5, Interesting)
When I got back I reported the incident to the police, and got myself sorted out at the local hospital.
The police had CCTV footage of a lot of the above - but they said the footage was too poor to make a positive identification.
So there ya go. CCTV didn't stop the crime in progress, and it was completely useless to catch anybody afterwards. What saved me from getting completely beaten up, helped retrieve my possessions, and got me home afterwards was a random mix of good hearted locals and passers by.
Keep talking to your neighbours and help people you see in trouble, one day it could be you. I don't know any of the names of the people who helped me - but thanks to all of these kind strangers. Don't rely on CCTV, even when they've put it in, it might be useless.
CCTV in Hackney didn't help me....
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, let's not for a second pretend that the police, media, and public would vi
I wouldn't carry a gun. Violence not the solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you could get those teenagers found, I'd not turn round to the police and say "please kneecap them". I don't think that will solve the problem. I think that way you end up with somebody who is less likely to get a job because t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If memory serves, not too long ago someone was charged because he was videotaping the police! Don't you notice a little assymetrical situation here? As always, who watch the watcher?
I'm French and one of our previous president (Mitterand) ordered to intercept phone calls of a famous actress, IMHO he ordered t
Re: (Score:2)
And you actually think Reality TV has any bearing on reality? Most of it controlled, and the rest, merely because they KNOW they are on camera, is altered. And if you're talking about those 'Scariest Police Chase' shows, the narrator makes up most of his 'facts' on the spot. They're even less truthful than the evening news.
Re: (Score:2)
Extremely efficient ... (Score:3, Interesting)
With so much crime-preventing technology everywhere, the criminals will have but one choice: to infiltrate the police...
Re:Extremely efficient ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But
Widespread surveillance may have a positive effect on petty crime (or it may not, I've yet to be convinced either way, and even if it does
What will probably happen is that the State will find a way to monetize privacy. Don't want a camera in your home? Well then, you'll have to pay a Risk Tax, because, well, everyone knows that people who live unmonitored lives are more likely to commit crimes, and those people should be forced to pay for the social costs of their privacy. Or something like that. I know, go ahead, laugh. Make jokes. But that's the kind of mindset that rules our government(s) these days. I know this is America, but I've long since shed my comfortable belief that bad things can't happen here, because too many of them already have.
Really, it's time to take the rose-colored glasses off and see the people in power for who they truly are. It ain't pretty.
Parent
How do cameras deter terrorists? (Score:2)
Cameras don't prevent crimes. No single camera in history stopped a junkie from taking a granny's purse. No camera will ever prevent a terrorist attack.
Deterence is the WHOLE idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy is a right based on defending yourself against prejudice and [info]predators. It is not any right to break the law. There is no right to break the law if you won't get caught.
In a public place, a reasonable person has no expectation of privacy and ought to conduct themselves to public standards. There might be an expectation of anonymity in our modern big cities. Historically unusual and decried. While anonymous writing is protected (but can be pierced), anonymous actions cannot be without lawlessness.
Public surveillance cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a massive surveillance camera network would create a safer, more open society so long as one key condition is met: the public and the police share access. I should be able to hit nyc.gov and view any camera at any time, including past recordings. Give me that and the police can install as many cameras as they want.
Prevent Terrorism? (Score:4, Interesting)
The best part is that the system will protect the new Freedom Tower. It's not a Ring of Steel, it's a Ring of Freedom. I don't think we've taken the Freedom Fries legacy far enough. We should have Freedom Checkpoints at the airport, and Freedom Routers to sniff our e-mail, and Freedom Inquiries into our financial records. We spread Freedom all over Iraq and look how well it turned out.
Leave cameras on the street in NYC? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Upgrading from girlfriend to wife is worse than upgrading from XP to Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are the victim, which would you choose? To see your attacker stopped in his tracks or wait for his arrest while lying in the morgue? Mall camera catches 2 men kidnapping woman [msn.com]
mod parent up (Score:2)
please mod parent up
Re: (Score:2)