Surveillance Camera Network Coming To New York? 185
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.'"
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.
Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Uh 'supposedly' (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya know... (Score:1, Insightful)
The term "do-gooders" comes up a lot in converstions with them, and never in a positive way.
Re:Uh 'supposedly' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
How does that quote go? "If there aren't enough criminals, there aren't enough laws", or something like that?
Re:A natural progression (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 'crime and terrorism' is redundant.
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.
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.
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).
Re:A natural progression (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:Another example (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently we have that problem as well.
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.
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.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
given the laws complexity (approaches and sometimes exceeds a rubiks teseract) everybody sometime does something worth time.
Useful - but ends do not justify means (Score:2, Insightful)
The question is, at what price ? Is the erosion of our liberty (our right to go about our lawful business without the state intruding) acceptable ?
Are these powers ones that we would trust the state with, no matter who is elected ?
Re:Another example (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:A natural progression (Score:3, Insightful)
I do this for a living - It's bs (Score:2, Insightful)
Analysis software is still considered bleeding edge technology, and as such doesn't work well most of the time. It's good for a situation where lighting is constant, activity is regular, and backgrounds are plain. In other words, it works well for finding people loitering in stairwells, and sometimes prowling parking garages, but is useless on a city street. I know this for a fact, since one of our customers just coughed up $50,000 for the top-of-the-line system to automate 130 of their cameras. After three months of tuning it in (by the manufacturer, not the guards) they've turned off monitoring of 3/4 of their cameras because the false alarms were constant and the actual incidents were getting missed.
By and large, I'd have to say that NYC is jumping the gun on this technology, probably by about a decade.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:1, Insightful)
For the same reason detectives can look at your trash when it is on the street but not when it is still in your house (until they have a warrant). They do make a distinction between what is public and what is private. Sure, you can do illegal things in your house but that is also the realm of the private and they know cameras can't go there, at least that's how it is now.
Almost useless (Score:2, Insightful)
Needless to say, that suicide bombers will be most likely not on a watch list (if they are there already, they are supposedly more closely followed anyway). It's easy to rent or buy a vehicle totally legally - again there is nothing to raise the flag before. Again, if there is a specific intelligence on specific persons there are much better ways to track them than generic surveillance network.
Most importantly, cameras won't work to prevent suicidal terrorist attacks as a deterrent: the terrorist plans to die anyway, there is nothing to deter.
It may help to investigate after the fact - but the terrorist should be really stupid to get on tape any outside connection beyond the suicidal cell members.
What camera networks can do is to catch petty criminals, deadbeat parents, people who owe taxes, spouse cheaters, etc.
Camera networks won't be very useful to prevent suicide bombs to go off. They are priceless though to make the public believe that the government does everything to protect the nation, they are priceless to award some businesses with great contracts, financed by the public.
Most importantly, the images camera networks collect from suicide bombers are priceless when it comes to get them on television networks, where they are going to be played over and over again to condition the public to feel threatened and get public support for easier ways to limit freedoms.
Re:Interesting... (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 this because he was attracted by her, does that sound good to you?
And no, he wasn't punished for this (now he's dead) because in effect in France our presidents are our kings not like in Northen European countries where they are just working for the people, sigh..
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 they are disabled, I will have to pay their disability support and hospital fees for the next 30 years out of my taxes, and they are more likely to be a drain on society rather than a positive contributor, they are more likely to turn into a f*cked-up psycho of an adult.
If punishment is required, punish them with something that helps the local neighbourhood rather than costs the neighbourhood money. Get them to do some community improvement work.
Re:Ya know... (Score:2, Insightful)