New York Plans Surveillance Veil For Downtown 529
News.com is reporting that a security system modeled after London's "Ring of Steel" is coming to New York City. The plan, to include license plate readers and over 3,000 public and private security cameras, aims to aid officials in tracking and catching criminals. "But critics question the plan's efficacy and cost, as well as the implications of having such heavy surveillance over such a broad swath of the city. [...] The license plate readers would check the plates' numbers and send out alerts if suspect vehicles were detected. The city is already seeking state approval to charge drivers a fee to enter Manhattan below 86th Street, which would require the use of license plate readers. If the plan is approved, the police will most likely collect information from those readers too, Kelly said."
safety first (Score:4, Funny)
...safety? think "tax money" (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT - from the looks of things, the license plate readers are there as a check to see if the drivers had paid their little extra tax for the privilege of putting along on the streets of Manhattan.
I almost expected to see it hit this side of the Atlantic sometime, but I'm still kind of surprised; figured that the CCTV's were another 10 years off.
Only time will tell if it actually does anything to increase general safety or not (do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have figures of the crime stats themselves but there is much (empirical) evidence to suggest that the police are having significant success in bring serious criminals to court. In fact, 4 of the 6 terrorists charged with the failed 21/7 bomb attempt in London have been found guilty (the jury is still out on the remaining 2). The evidence not only included considerable CCTV footage of the failed attempts but the police have been able to show how they identified and tracked the suspects in the 2 wee
Re:...safety? think "tax money" (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble is...these things are being sold over here as a preventative measure against terrorists. This just isn't the case. If the 'bad' guys come over here and cannot be prevented from detonating a 'nuke' of some kind....well, those cameras and footage will be pretty useless as that they will be vaporised too.
If the tool can't help prevent crime...then what use are they? I agree with the other poster....will aid in tax collections for cars...
Re:...safety? think "tax money" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:...safety? think "tax money" (Score:5, Insightful)
They only were found guilty because they were incompetent and had no idea how to construct a bomb, coupled with their lack of devotion to suicide bomb. If you have someone willing to end their own life to take yours there is very little preemptive work you can do to stop them. If I build a bomb, line the outside with ball bearings, nails, sharks with lasers (tiny sharks, I admit), all within my house in a room without windows, then strap it to myself and put an overcoat appropriate to the season on (loose fitting linen for the summer perhaps?), and drive my car to a crowded place (mall?) how do you stop that?
How do the cameras really help after the fact? Point is that the cameras are fine for domestic crime tracking, but for genuine Islamic extremist terrorism they are rather useless.
-nB
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Make them yourself from innocuous chemicals. Difficult, risky, somewhat expensive.
- Buy explosives. Subject to discovery through legally mandated record keeping.
- Smuggling. Cameras might be helpful in some cases.
- Theft. Cameras are likely to be helpful here; trace the thief from breakin to bomb factory.
Cameras are one tool among many to find the bad guys.Re:...safety? think "tax money" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After this, terrorists are not impeded in the slightest bit, the public is several billion dollars poorer, and politicians now have a stunningl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just the other day there was a documentary on BBC about the way many of the laws and acts passed in the last couple of years by the British parliement are used to curtail free speech.
For example, an old guy (we're talking 70 years old) was arrested under the powers given to the police by the Anti-Terrorism Act because he half-shouted "nonsense" during a speach by some government minister at a Labour Party conference.
Going back to the issue of cameras all over the place here in the UK, it al
Re:...safety? think "tax money" (Score:5, Funny)
Wait...
Are you that scared??? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know...frankly, I'm just not THAT scared of the terrorists. Is everyone else so frightened of them that this kind of sh*t sounds like a good idea???
Re:Are you that scared of big brother??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Don't you? Lots of things (national ID cards, police surveillance cameras, license plate readers, etc.) can be used to protect us. They can also be used for ill. And once they are in place, we have basically no way of knowing how they're used. The truth is: power corrupts.
yet terrorists are beating down our door.
Are they? Where? Support your statement.
If this system gets abused it will have the lid shut on it faster than you can say hot potato.
Would that this were true! Unfortunately I fear abuse of power goes unnoticed more often than not. How many times don't we find out about these things until the damage is already done? It makes me more than a little uncomfortable to think about how things like the Patriot Act are getting abused on a daily basis.
Re:Are you that scared of big brother??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are you that scared of big brother??? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:safety first (Score:5, Insightful)
I will take freedom and risk over a police state and big brother any day.
Freedom is Security. (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite the near total and constant surveillance?
The Government watching you does not make you any more secure.
Freedom is Security.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a) Kids didn't have any means to distract themselves indoors so all kids were outside.
b) Old geezers lived in the same neighborhoods as everyone else (no escaping to Florida)
c) Old geezers didn't have any means to distract themselves indoors.
All of this lead to everyone lurking about outside in such a way that it was very hard for anyone to be up to no good without a whole cabal of witnesses there to see you.
People watching can be quite the hobby even
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I am in solitary confinement I have lots of security and little freedom. If I am kayaking class 5 rapids, I have a lot of freedom, but little security. I can not understand how anyone can confuse these two very different and unrelated concepts. If you can't e
Re:safety first (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you ever think about the irony of cops who treat every traffic stop as if they've just pulled over a mass murderer? Approach from both sides, stay behind the driver, weapon holsters unsnapped, at the ready, hand sometimes on their weapon while they assess the threat level and decide if the occupants have guns - meanwhile, the driver is sitting there, probably having seen stories about excessive force used by police, and he *knows* that person walking up behind him is in fear for their life AND that they have a gun.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:safety first (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank god that terrorists are too stupid to do things like that as it would nullify the system and it's only use would be to help supress political dissidents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:safety first (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there is explicit blackmail, like the person with access to the database that sees who is driving in crackville and threatens to report them, unless. Or the person who makes obvious 'detours' to his secretary's apartment every so often.
Privacy is like bees. A particular bee or any given sting might seem like a small problem, but once you get a whole cloud of them around you then your only chance is to freeze and hope your clothes don't look pretty in ultraviolet. It's not even so much a slippery slope as it is a death by a thousand cuts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's great. I think I've been trying to formulate a sentence like that for about 6 years now. A concise and non-anecdotal way of suggesting to the "If you're not guilty . .
Cross NYC off my list of travel destinations as soon as th
Balance of enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with surveillance societies is that all of those laws become enforced, when before only sufficiently important ones were. Sure, selective enforcement of different laws bites, but being hit with full enforcement of an encyclopedia of law will bite harder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't follow that line of reasoning. I think it would just open up the door to further abuse. One of the MANY problems with universal spying and surveillance is that it makes selective enforcement of laws that much EASIER.
As you said, everyone is guilty of violating some stupid law, and if everything is being recorded, the government can just decide to throw people in jail arbitrarily.
I'll always oppose this Big Brother
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Case and point, Homosexuality in the military. The majority of the population supported allowing openly gay individuals in the military in 1992, but when Clinton attempted to allow gay people to openly ser
Re:safety first (Score:5, Insightful)
Data mine all these, and every single person in the area will do something that constitutes probable cause, a dozen times a day. I don't usually use 'alls' and 'everys' like that, but just to take one example - how many people drive past multiple elementary schools on their way to and from work, every day? No kids of his own, passing by two schools and seven day care centers on the way to work, slows down responsibly, route is two blocks longer than the computer generated shortest route (but is actually a few minutes faster with the usual traffic), that's enough. Many judges would issue a warrant to search a home or tap a PC connection just for that.
Any time the IRS thinks you may have failed to declare income, they could easily get a court order to use that camera footage to see if your spending habits reflect being paid possible extra cash under the table. Right now, they have to justify the costs of an investigation, but here, a state government is doing the work, and the funds are coming from the Homeland Security dept. so it's suddenly a lot easier to afford. Again, it's a method that will generate a whole lot of false positives. (People who live outside of camera zones usually don't bother as much to drive there to shop, except possibly on days when they are doing a whole lot of shopping. Drive 40 miles each way for a special all day shopping trip and get a lot of things you've waited months for. The IRS will usually assume that's the way you spend money every Saturday.). So now the IRS is tending to selectively suspect people who live in suburbs, small towns and the country, probably totally without realizing they are biased that way.
The point is, if you accurately describe your own lifestyle, I can show you how Law Enforcement could over-react to it. Nobody is completely average in all respects. A hobby as innocent as model railroading sounds to some suspicious types like a good way to attract potential child victims for molestation. If nothing else, you post on Slashdot. Somewhere within the group of people who can access those video records, there's a federal agent who considers Slashdot a hotbed of Libertarian radicalism.
Occasional surveilance, i.e. by police patrols, doesn't tend to trigger paranoia in cops (usually). Near constant surveilance, accompanied by data mining techniques that routinely produce spurious signals from random noise, will. You, me, and everyone else will all be doing some innocent something that somebody somewhere now thinks indicates a potential crime. That will "justify" them investigating us in our homes, clubs, businesses and other places, where there IS a routine expectation of privacy.
If Law Enforcement is corrupt they will abuse the additional power. If Law Enforcement is honest, it will take them 30 years or so to learn enough about spurious correlations from data mining to stop unwittingly committing the same abuses.
I realize that you're making a joke, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
These things don't add any safety. They just make vengeance through the criminal justice system easier.
Re:I realize that you're making a joke, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
a) cameras don't stop terrorists.
b) cameras won't even help after the fact, if they're a cell of suicide bombers. There's no one to track down.
Look at 9-11. They tracked down all 19 terrorists relatively quickly without invading other's privacy. In no way would 9-11 have been stopped with the surveillance system in place.
Camera footage does make for great fodder for the news though: "LOOK! Here they are, about to commit egregious violence on innocents" and then blast it 24/7 across the airwaves.
Such a system is a great way of spending great amounts of money and time and accomplishing little to nothing except terrorize your own populace and maybe throw a few innocents in jail to boot based on bad "evidence".
Re:I realize that you're making a joke, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
However it is always a bad thing to confuse the two. If what you want is vengeance, you shouldn't lie to yourself and pretend what you're after is safety; and you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking you're safer because you've punished those who have already done bad things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With complete surveillance, most crimes that require support of the populace become impossible.
I mean- all we need is a camera in every church, mosque, temple and we could head off the radical preachers and imams as they get started. And every library. And every
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Checks and balances (Score:4, Insightful)
Technology will always make jobs of law enforcement easier, just as it makes our lives easier.
Technology will always act as a force multiplier for government, just as it magnifies the capabilities of the individual user.
Just to take one example: if a system of license plate readers can detect a plate that has been flagged by some agency and prevents one, e.g., car bombing, why is that not a valid mechanism to use?
Just because it can be abused?
Or because it could be abused "more easily" than individual humans reading license plates in public?
Or because someday, someone could "come to power" who would use it against [insert ostensibly oppressed population here]?
All technology - computers, databases, telephones, cameras, the internet, vehicles, helicopters, robots, radios, video cameras, heat sensors, weapons, tear gas, rubber bullets, office buildings, body armor, remote controlled aircraft, tape recorders, wireless transmitters, you name it - can and will be able to be, and in fact will be, "abused".
But it's not the technology that's being abused; it's power.
So instead of being luddites-by-proxy, why not recognize the issue for what it is, instead of pretending that government should not be able to leverage technology to solve problems?
There is no reason surveillance cameras in public places or license plate readers in stationary locations or on aircraft should be vilified any more than any other piece of technology. Whether the cost/benefit ratio is reasonable is another argument entirely.
But I cannot and will not fault the government or law enforcement for using technology such as this, whose costs it can ultimately justify to the public's satisfaction, in public places to attempt to fulfill their charge to society.
Whether or not such systems actually do deter crime or terrorist activity, or whether they are worth the money, is really what is at issue. Not kneejerk reactions about 1984 likely to dominate some (most?) debates on this issue.
This isn't some plot to turn America into a police state. It's an effort being undertaken by local, state, and federal law enforcement and security professionals to attempt to protect the public. That is the first and primary goal. There are no ulterior motives that rise to any meaningful level. Let's keep things in some sort of perspective.
If it was your job to protect the people and property of New York City, what kinds of initiatives would you be undertaking? Hint: if your answer is along the lines that it's much better to stomach the errant terrorist attack every now and then rather than take proactive action to attempt to prevent them using whatever means you have at your disposal, you probably won't be in that job for long.
So think about this, and try to put yourself in the place of an urban security expert or a law enforcement official or a city mayor. There are valid points to be made on both sides of that debate, about costs, effectiveness, balances with privacy, and so on.
But none of them involve rants about police states or governments secretly wanting to monitor and control innocent citizens. Technology is technology. Implying that government and law enforcement shouldn't be able to use technology to the extent that it is legally allowable and its costs are justifiable is absurd.
One other point is that while things like cameras and checking ID may not always deter or prevent a crime or an attack, it often greatly assists in the investigation after the fact. We need only look as far as the London car bomb plot to know that cameras in public spaces (among a great many other tools) can be an aid. Cameras have been a valuable aid in such instances as long as they have been used. The real issue is cost effectiveness.
Could the $90M be spent a different or more effective way in a city like New York? Befo
Re:Checks and balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Checks and balances (Score:4, Insightful)
The same could be said of security cameras in public places. There's nothing wrong with a cop patrolling the streets looking for trouble - so what's wrong with a camera keeping tabs on a greater number of places. So long as there's no intrusion into a place where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, like private property, I don't see the problem.
I'm a libertarian with an awfully limited view of what the government's entitled to do. But I don't see this tech giving the government new powers - just making it more effective at using the powers it already has.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it not an essential liberty to be unworried that my government is constantly watching me without reason?
It makes no difference if I am in public or private. The point is that unless I have done something contravening of the law there should be no suspecting of me of any crime. Constant surveillance with cameras in public chooses to flip that. It assumes that people will break the law without the evidence that they hav
Question: (Score:2)
That said, there is a precedent from which we can (at least partially) check to see if it is actually effective at its stated goals... does anyone know of (non-propagandized to either pro/con) stats to see how effective these critters are at reducing crime in London?
I sincerely hope that somebody in NYC at least looked, and not just plopped out this pronouncement as some sort of public exclamation that "we're doing something a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Checks and balances (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore this issue is fundamentally different than just technology. A watched society is not a free society. It does not matter who the watchers are, or whether they do good or ill with what the see. People behave differently when they know they're being watched.
People do not exercise their freedom of expression as often. They do not take unpopular views, or will not discuss them in public. They conform. They are not free. People need to escape from watchful eyes, for their own health and sanity. This starts in teenagers, when fundamental biological urges drive young people to get away from the tribe with their honey, for reproductive purposes. But it is a fundamental part of the human psyche.
We would be naive to believe that we could live a watched life, and still be the same person we are today.
Re: (Score:2)
On a more serious note, changing our energy & middle east policies are the necessary long-term steps to stop terrorism. In the short term, I agree that technology is just a tool and should be used to prevent attacks where possible.
Re:Checks and balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Allow me to explain. The current laws, like it or not, are not entirely idealistic. They were written within a certain social and technological environment. Using technology to more perfectly enforce a law can turn a reasonable law into an unreasonable one.
A stereotypical example is speeding. Most reasonable people agree that there should be speed limits. The current speed limits, however, were in some sense set with the knowledge that people would "cheat a little bit," so the posted limit turns out to be below the limit most safe drivers actually drive at. This works out okay in the end. The cops stop the people who are speeding alot but tend not to bother with people that speed by 10% or whatever. However if you use technology to enforce this law perfectly, it becomes unfair in a hurry. Or, if you use technology to perfectly enforce a law like "stopping at a stop-sign" then the law becomes unfair (remember that your bumper is supposed to be behind some arbitrarily line and you must be stopped for X seconds, etc.). Even the safest of drivers will not follow these rules to the letter; nor should they: the laws are written with very little leniency in their wording because they are meant to be used to stop people from egregious abuses of the law. They were never meant to punish everyone for doing normal daily things.
Another example would be copyright. I don't want to get into this debate too deeply, since it is a "hot topic" on Slashdot. Suffice it to say that many aspects of copyright seem reasonable enough, but when copyright is enforced perfectly, or worse when technology makes compliance mandatory (e.g. DRM) then a reasonable law gets transformed into an unreasonable law in a hurry. Many of the "well obviously *this* should be allowed" things that were not formally written into the law disappear.
Laws that make the everyday, normal activities of socially-responsible people illegal are not good laws. So the problem is that if law enforcement uses new technologies to allow them to do their jobs "more efficiently" but there is no corresponding rewriting of laws (to make them *more lax* or even repeal them), then our society will tend towards being less free.
That is one of the worries. So the solution is either to limit the implementation of technologies by law enforcement in some cases, or to have the laws modified. (Or a combination.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how do you figure into that the notion of speed limits? Speed limits have been studied in various contexts and found to be, on occasion, set lower than is reasonably safe for that environment. In fact, the speed limit as set actually increases accidents, though speed limits are intended to enforce vehicular safety. To note, the speed limits are set like this because the state actually depends on this income for state programs and NOT for deterrents for would-be offenders. This would be a classic example
Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
The questions we face with the emergence of this surveillance society are not nearly as simple as you have attempted to frame them here. It is not enough to simply fight when the abuse happens, but we must also fight the possible abuse that can occur. It must be fought against, if for no other reason, then to make other people aware of what could happen should these sorts of plans go through. This is not to create a sort of "I told you so" syndrome, but to raise awareness.
I can, in some ways, sympathize with those who want to expand the abilities of law enforcement by using this technology but they are, as we ourselves do, using this technology as a shortcut to do the work that is needed. But the simple truth of the matter is that the policing of the laws has never once benefited a society by going through shortcuts. The only conclusive method of stopping crime is a hard one to accept because of the human cost of it. It involves putting people at risk. It involves getting them to go into these places that we do not want to go ourselves. It does not and cannot involve people looking at the world through remote eyes.
We may want to believe that we can create safety through constant, unrelenting surveillance. But all this does is to create a situation much like censorship laws do: It only drives those who we want to keep close to the surface underground and makes them that much harder to find when something bad does happen.
Why not an "anti abuse plan" ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Same way we expect our online bank to offer us good security - as well as their service we ought expect our law enforce
Ha! (Score:4, Interesting)
Boy, we're SOOO much smarter than the terrorists!
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because your hand-stamped shop work plate will never attract the wrong sort of attention?
The Geek invents foolishly complex and dangerous scenarios that a real spy, criminal, or terrorist would dismiss out of hand.
Nothing is safer than carrying real - legit - ID. Keep it simple, stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and I'm sure this automated system will be able to correctly identify the make, model, and year of the car to which the plate was attached. And the person who registered the car is of course ALWAYS the driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A year or two apart? Prolly not. But, say, a 2004 Jeep Wrangler TJ vs. a 1994 Jeep Wrangler YJ vs. a 1984 Jeep CJ-7? Sure, they're all Jeeps, they have pretty much the same wheelbase, rough shape, size, etc, but it's still pretty easy to tell 'em apart.
Re: (Score:2)
Common cars (Score:2)
Heck, just get one of those generic white American utility vans, and you have
Re: (Score:2)
And seriously...how hard would it be to pick and choose which car to steal it from, to make sure its the right color and model?
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)
No, this is crap. Over here in England, there have been cases where people have copied licence plates [bbc.co.uk], often in order to dodge the Congestion Charge: the special city road tax that is implemented using automatic number plate recognition (ANPR). They look out for a car of the same make and model as they drive around, note down the number, and then get a copy of the licence plate made.
In order to stop this, the Government added new laws to make it more difficult to get licence plates made. If you want to get a new licence plate from a reputable dealership or mechanic, you have to prove you own the car by producing all the documentation for it. And two forms of ID. Unfortunately this didn't help at all, because licence plates can be bought on the black market.
So the new solution is to RFID chip every car [bbc.co.uk]. Luckily, there could never be any way of cloning an RFID chip... The new solution does have the added benefit of making the sensor equipment very cheap - no image recognition required - so it can be more widely deployed. Just one more step towards a log of every action you ever take... only then will we be safe from the terrorists, right?
If regular criminals can clone cars, resourceful terrorists won't have much difficulty. Or they won't use cars at all. It's security theatre again, an excuse for a new tax. It's bullshit, and there's evidence from the UK that shows it's good for nothing but milking more money out of you.
I have to ask... (Score:3, Insightful)
the greater majority of terrorist attacks have involved some form of public transport between planes, trains and automobiles aren't cars the least of the trouble?
This sounds more like an additional taxation on driving (exactly what they are proposing for Manchester England, and what is already in use in London.
Re:I have to ask... (Score:4, Interesting)
The "tax" is a congestion charge. It will be used to get people out of cars and into public transportation to ease congestion downtown and reduce energy use. I don't see how this is a bad thing. They're turning the externality of everyone driving individual cars and turning it into an internalized cost, just like Adam Smith recommends.
Broad taxes based on objective things like income are suspect, but specific taxes that deal with economic externalities, like congestion charges and superfund taxes, are fine by me.
Re: (Score:2)
Public transportation:
Metro-North Railroad - $12.50 per person round trip x 2 people = $25
Subway (1 stop) - $2 per person x 2 stops (round trip) x 2 people = $8
Total = $33
Driving:
Gas = ~$5
Tolls = $0
Parking = usually $0
New midtown driving tax = $8
Total = $13
Even if I don't always find street parking and pay $40 sometimes it s
Where does it stop? (Score:2, Insightful)
Never (Score:2)
they dont have the cash to do it... yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Opaque Society (Score:5, Informative)
(They can have my camera when they pry it from my cold, dead hands)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284075,00.html [foxnews.com]
Straight Talk: Videotaping Police
Tuesday , June 19, 2007
By Radley Balko
Last month, Brian Kelly of Carlisle, Pa., was riding with a friend when the car he was in was pulled over by a local police officer. Kelly, an amateur videographer, had his video camera with him and decided to record the traffic stop.
The officer who pulled over the vehicle saw the camera and demanded Kelly hand it over. Kelly obliged. Soon after, six more police officers pulled up. They arrested Kelly on charges of violating an outdated Pennsylvania wiretapping law that forbids audio recordings of any second party without their permission. In this case, that party was the police officer.
Kelly was charged with a felony, spent 26 hours in jail, and faces up to 10 years in prison. All for merely recording a police officer, a public servant, while he was on the job.
There's been a rash of arrests of late for videotaping police, and it's a disturbing development. Last year, Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly threatened Internet activist Mary T. Jean with arrest and felony prosecution for posting a video to her website of state police swarming a home and arresting a man without a warrant.
Michael Gannon of New Hampshire was also arrested on felony wiretapping charges last year after recording a police officer who was being verbally abusive on his doorstep. Photojournalist Carlos Miller was arrested in February of this year after taking pictures of on-duty police officers in Miami.
And Philadelphia student Neftaly Cruz was arrested last year after he took pictures of a drug bust with his cell phone.
As noted, police are public servants, paid with taxpayer dollars. Not only that, but they're given extraordinary power and authority we don't give to other public servants: They're armed; they can make arrests; they're allowed to break the very laws they're paid to enforce; they can use lethal force for reasons other than self-defense; and, of course, the police are permitted to videotape us without our consent.
It's critical that we retain the right to record, videotape or photograph the police while they're on duty. Not only for symbolic reasons (when agents of the state can confiscate evidence of their own wrongdoing, you're treading on seriously perilous ground), but as an important check on police excesses. In the age of YouTube, video of police misconduct captured by private citizens can have an enormous impact.
Consider Eugene Siler. In 2005, the Campbell County, Tenn., man was confronted by five sheriff's deputies who (they say) suspected him of drug activity. Siler's wife surreptitiously switched on a tape recorder when the police officers came inside. Over the next hour, Siler was mercilessly beaten and tortured by the officers, who were demanding he confess to drug activity. Siler was poor, illiterate and had a nonviolent criminal record. Without that recording, it's unlikely anyone would have believed his account of the torture over the word of five sheriff's deputies.
Earlier this year, Iraq war veteran Elio Carrion was shot three times at near-point-blank range by San Bernardino, Calif., deputy Ivory Webb. Carrion was lying on the ground and was unarmed. Video of the arrest and shooting, however, was captured by bystander Jose Louis Valdez. Webb since has been fired from the police department and is on trial on charges of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm. The video is the key piece of evidence in his trial.
While it's possible that police and prosecutors would have believed Carrion's version of events over Webb's even without the video, it seems unlikely. Webb is the first officer to be indicted in the history of the San Bernardin
Its a great day to be a Hard Disk Vendor (Score:2)
Money (Score:5, Interesting)
Life in NYC just got harder.. (Score:5, Interesting)
- You want to live somewhere? Cool. So does everyone else. Rents are ridiculously high -- Manhattan rents START at $5 per square foot per month in rent -- and that's for a REALLY crappy tenement built in the 1920s with ROACHES and it may or may not have an elevator. "Luxury" apartments (what in other places you would consider just barely acceptable normal places to live) start at $10/sq foot per month.
- You want to go to the movies? Awesome! Plan on either buying your tickets 5 hours in advance online or not going at all or going at midnight on a Wednesday the second week the movie is out. Almost all the good shows are sold out. Oh also movie tickets start at $10 for your basic crappy theater.
- You want to have a car in Manhattan? Sorry it's impossible because there is NO PARKING. However, you can perhaps keep a car in one of the other boroughs like Brooklyn or Queens -- but don't forget to move your car twice a week because of "alternate side parking rules". It sounds simple enough but the average car owner in Queens spends about $250 per year on parking tickets because this alternate side system inevitably leads to your forgetting to move your car and getting a ticket. I personally spent about $400 in parking tickets last year. That's the cost of insurance in most states.
- You want to go to the beach on the weekend? Well you probably don't have a car (see previous point) so you either have to rent one (plan on spending at least $100/day for a crappy economy car) *or* you can take the Long Island Railroad with all the other schmucks. There's nothing like schlepping a cooler up and down stairs to catch a train that makes you just feel like a winner. Oh and if you do rent that car plan on spending 2 hours each way in bumper-to-bumper weekend traffic on the notoriously overburdened LIE.
- They say the subway is great. They are people that haven't really lived in NY for longer than 1 year. The first year is fun -- the subway feels new and exciting and it's very NEW YORK so newbies get into it. However, after taking it for 20+ years to school, work, etc I can say it is a horribly dehumanizing experience. I have gotten yelled at, pushed, mugged, lost, been stuck in trains for hours, and been subjected to all sorts of gruesome sounds and sights and smells. Also, at rush hour it's really a very unhappy experience since it's so crowded you literally have to push and fight people for a spot to stand. It's really quite uncivilized.
- The nightlife is cool, but people are jaded and cold and it's a bit of a superficial existence.
- And NOW Bloomberg wants to charge us money to drive down below 86th St. He is creating a straw man problem -- there is NO PROBLEM with traffic in Manhattan! Most people don't have cars anyway, and the pollution argument is just stupid (it really is -- I agree people shouldn't be driving -- but charging them money to drive in Manhattan is idiotic and doesn't help with pollution at all -- or if it does it's a drop in the bucket). Bloomberg just wants to create new and exciting ways to charge people money and to rip off the common taxpayer. He already doubled most city fines (everything from sanitation to parking to health and safety fines, etc). Now he wants to invent new fines. It's madness!
- The police here really don't care. Unless it's a major felony -- you can call them and you will be treated as if you are insane for having called them.
- Spying on the citizenry is just going to make it even more fun. Since the police hardly give a shit -- now they can have all this high tech gear with which to harass us.
Re: (Score:2)
I live on
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Life in NYC just got harder.. (Score:4, Interesting)
- You can buy for less than $.50/sq.ft/mo. BYORoaches if you're that into them, but the neighbors might complain.
- Wehrenberg charges $7.50 for a ticket at their prime theaters, and there are always seats for even the big shows. The only planning-ahead needed is if you want to see a major release on opening weekend on an Imax or other gigantic screen.
- You pay a bit extra up front for a car (unless it's a Dodge truck or minivan) due to shipping costs. Other than that, it's all sales tax, property tax, and insurance and maintenance. Gas is cheaper here than most places because there are refineries nearby.
- Ok, so you're screwed on this one. There isn't a decent beach within 1500 miles. But there are lots of swimming pools, several water parks, and many, many lakes (with rocky shores). They're good boating lakes, too.
- No subway. Minimal light-rail service (stadium, airport, a couple of college campuses, and not much else). Metro-wide bus service, but poor coverage and crap routes and timing. Lots of interstates clogged with traffic, though.
- There are some good "nightlife" spots, but not many. Don't come here looking for it.
- There would be hell to pay if some jackass dared to try to put up toll booths here. It's political suicide in this area, and no one does it (duh).
- The police here are bored. This is not a good thing.
- They're warming up their spy gear here, too. But the police are bored and will have plenty of time to nitpick. Again, this is not a good thing.
St. Louis (Score:3, Interesting)
Nah, St. Louis has none of that. Nor does its surrounding metro area. It has less social annoyance, but much greater for police abuse.
However, aside from periodic flooding, St. Louis is also sitting on top of a 8+ point fault (New Madrid), with a 90% probability of a 6+ quake in the next 20 years. And it's not built for it (yeah, LA sits on the San Andreas, but we know the big one's coming, and have tried to build to deal with it).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The earthquake thing is huge though. Nothing here is built for it. Northern St. Louis County will become the lake at the meeting of two rivers. Mid-county will be a war zone. South county might survive largely intact, since it's
Inevitable (Score:2)
This is a good thing (Score:4, Informative)
Watching the Police (Score:5, Insightful)
But of course we should start from the premise that these cameras belong to the public, that their data belongs to the public. Then reasonable demands of justice and legitimate police process can be met within our existing system of warrants.
In fact, we should go further. All the police, their vehicles, and buildings should have webcams monitoring all their activity all the time. It should be available for anyone in the public to go through. That will not only keep police more honest, but also harness the millions of voyeurs to look for public evidence of crimes, and notify police when they see something in public. And of course there's huge potential for people to make our own "reality show" material, with the world's most exciting background sets and extras.
Need a new name... (Score:5, Insightful)
The ring of steel was useless (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, back in London ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its turning out (and the bad guys will figure out) that there's nobody watching the monitors. Scotland Yard is replacing a few thousand patrol officers with tens of thousands of cameras, probably manned by a few dozen people. And not highly paid(?) and trained officers. Just some goofball willing to sit and stare at a screen for hours (think about law enforcement by Slashdotters for a frightening example).
The recent bombing attempts by the clown squad seem to demonstrate that the bad guys have figured out that there is nothing to fear. It was just good luck that these people who could't even figure out how to light gasoline on fire (two out of three times). Sure, they caught the subway bombers on CCTV. Days after the incident. Whoops. Too late.
If the bomb in the London night club district hadn't been a dud, a constable on patrol could have cleared the streets in the few seconds between the car being abandoned and detonation. CCTVs? Sorry, we're busy rewinding tapes for some shopkeeper who got robbed. All you've got is some moron parked on the sidewalk. Petrol? No, I can't smell petrol through a camera.
Lets face it, the terrorists have won (Score:3, Informative)
I think, no I know, that the real terrorists we have to worry about are the pols who have done this to us. We are less free today than we were before 9-11-2001. The guys in the airplanes did not do that to us, GWB and his cronies at every level of government did it.
Re: (Score:2)
Cameras in the Madrid Subway...I am sure it protected someone....cameras in the Tokyo subway.. (1995 Sarin attack) I am sure it protected someone....cameras in...oh for peat sake! Cameras do SQUAT for security! They capture pictures after the fact for analysis on CNN (between aspirin commercials) and in the mean time create a fiefdom for a bureaucrat to ask for more funding, hire more people, write reports, create missions statements hey
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people will argue 'Well, no, camera's didn't stop those subway attacks, but having those cameras in place, if it is well known, will detour criminals from committing crimes there. So sure, we lose some of our privacy, but we gain security.'
But alas, cameras do not even prevent criminals from walking into a store, shooting a clerk in the face, and taking all the loot out of the register (and really, it's common knowledge that all of those stores have cameras).
Wha
We are spoiled (Score:4, Interesting)
We are used to having privacy in public even though we have neither earned it nor voted for it. It is a totally unrealistic expectation that we should be able to maintain it. It is just a freak of timing that we have it at all - the technology that made big cieies possible happened before the technology that made cheap cameras possible.
As long as they stay out of my property, it's ok with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We are spoiled (Score:4, Insightful)
They may have been recognized by different individuals at different places, but each person usually knew only about single encounters in isolation. Reconstructing somebody's movements over a whole day would have required a town meeting to get testimony from all of the observers. Moreover, peoples' movements were not meticulously logged for posterity, much less entered into a searchable database for easy access by government bureaucrats.
Sure, you could always have been stalked or followed, but that has always required a large investment of time and effort by the follower(s). This has naturally limited stalking activities to a very limited number of situations. In contrast, in the future every citizen could end up being stalked by the government all the time, everywhere they go. And thanks to people who make arguments like yours, there will be few if any constitutional checks on the new powers given to the stalkers.
Re:Call it what you will (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why on earth was this modded flamebait? Do not think for one second that a blanket camera system that tracks faces, license plates, and any other identifying characteristics, will not eventually be used to track people that the current government dislikes. It is very well documented that the FBI has kept (and still keeps) files on political protesters, for example. Whoever "flamebaited" the parent needs to either wake up or at the very least lose the whi
Re:Call it what you will (Score:4, Insightful)
Will this be used to maintain picket zones? What kind of data aggregation will take place? How many databases will this tie in with? Which organizations will have access to this data? What systems will be used to cull license plate numbers/face recognition/and other such patterns? How many people will be employed to watch these cameras? What are the metrics for results that they see as being acceptable results? The UK/London results were quite bad but the government groups that they were responsible thought the numbers were acceptable enough for a larger rollout. There are all kinds of questions that should be asked - besides the initial WTF?! that goes along with such intrusive surveillance system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not being facetious here, but simply quoting Franklin on the issue doesn't cover it. I'm not an anti-privacy advocate (I REALLY wish that it was more explicit in the Constitution, not an interpretation of the court). I think that the idea of government surveillance needs some SERIOUS checks (watching the watchmen), but I'm not going to go ov
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Blowback from everyone's favorite initiatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Let my lay this out for you: When George Bush takes away your freedoms to protect you from terrorists that is bad, and George Bush is evil and wants power. Environmentalists want to take away your freedoms to 'save the earth' and that is good because they have no motives whatsoever to get power. George Bush is stripping the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and the right to habeus corpus, amongst others. The right to drive an SUV is not in the Constitution. Don't ever think the two are equivalent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WOHAAA! Hang on there a second. You're telling me that despite of fossil fuel power plants, intercontinental airlines, deforestation, chemical industry and whatnot, American Vehicles alone still contributes 6% of CO2 emissions and that is in your opinion a small amount? Not saying I am in favour of this scheme ( it is actually a fairly retarded way to reduce emis