Surveillance Camera Network Coming To New York?

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.'"

Pretty soon we will be saging

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

We are at war with al-queda

"No, we are fiendly with al-quaeda. We are at war with China"

We have always been friendly with al-aueda.

Oranges and lemons, said the bells of St clemens

When will I grow rich, said the bells of St Patrich

Extremely efficient ...

[Lazy Jones]

Those CCTV networks are extremely efficient, esp. when they can also look through your windows and in the next step in 10-20 years they have cameras in your house as well.

With so much crime-preventing technology everywhere, the criminals will have but one choice: to infiltrate the police...

Re:Uh 'supposedly'

[ScrewMaster]

Perhaps you should try focussing your efforts on fixing the real problem?

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.

Re:Interesting...

[ScrewMaster]

Wish I had a mod point or two. Of course, not all networked surveillance has to do with cameras, as witness the NSA wiretapping fiasco. Advanced communications is a two-edged sword all right.

My experience as a crime victim in London

[fantomas]

5 years ago I was cycling home down a side street in London back to where I lived in one of the not so rich parts of town (Hackney) and 4 teenagers ran up to me and dragged me off my bike, kicked me in, and demanded my wallet. Luckily a woman in a flat overlooking the road saw what was going on and shouted down to tell the kids to stop, and I shouted up for her to call the police. The kids got scared and ran off with my bike (incidently, for the first time in my life, I'd like to say "thank you Nike!" - when I was a teenager Doc Martins and steel toe capped boots were the fashion - I am so happy troubled teenagers prefer soft padded trainers for kicking people in the head these days, probably saved me a lot of damage). I got up just as a Hells Angel kind of guy came past on a motorbike and I flagged him down and asked him to chase the kids - well I started climbing on the back before he could say no! and he spotted the kids going into a dark housing block stairwell. For some mad reason I chased them in, and I think they were so suprised to see me, combined with the fact that I was covered in blood and swearing at them and my friendly biker was outside pointing his headlight in and revving the bike engine, that they let go of the bike and I marched outside (phew, laptop and other valuables still in the panniers). Friendly biker drove his bike alongside me until I was back on the big roads and by chance a French couple were cycling past and stopped to check out I was ok and agreed to cycle home with me.

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....

Prevent Terrorism?

[Smarty2120]

It's always a prevent terrorism vs. protect privacy argument by politicians, but for the most part, this is a fallacy. The cameras can't physically stop people from committing crime any more than the RFID scanners at the mall keep you from shoplifting. It's the threat of those devices alerting authorities nearby enough to stop or apprehend you that makes a difference. In all likelihood, these cameras will be deployed with no additional manpower to do anything in real time with the information. They'll likely just help authorities prosecute crimes after the fact or figure out what occurred (as happened with the London transit bombings). When you ask people about this privacy vs. prosecution tradeoff (if there's anyone left to prosecute), many fewer people respond "put us on camera" than when you claim it can help "prevent terrorism."

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.

Re:Interesting...

[jc42]

Show me someone who NEVER breaks ANY laws during their normal, day-to-day activities ...

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 ;-) was a pair of laws with "reasonable" interpretations. One was an anti-vagrancy law, in which one of the acceptable kinds of evidence was not being in possession of any money. The other law forbid the possession of unspecified "gambling devices".

It turned out the the police could (and did) charge people with vagrancy if they had no currency on their person. Credit cards weren't accepted; the police couldn't (legally) verify that they were valid. But if you had a few bills, or even a few coins in your pocket, well, you know any of the "coin/bill matching" games? A simple one is: One of us picks "same", the other "different". We both set down a coin at the same time; if they're both heads or both tails, the "same" guy gets both; otherwise the "different" guy gets both.

So coins are legally "gambling devices". Similar gambling games exist for bills, usually based on the serial numbers. It follows that in this state, anyone can be arrested at any time, and depending on the contents of their pockets, they can be either charged with vagrancy or with possession of gambling devices.

What's your favorite set of laws where you live, that can't all be obeyed at the same time, so that you can be arrested at any time and charged with violating one of the set?

(In another place I once lived - Florida - there was a well-known law against "nude bathing". The wording made it illegal to take a bath in the privacy of your own bathroom without wearing clothes. But I liked to reply to this example by saying that I always took showers, and the law obviously didn't cover them, so it was possible to obey this law and stay clean. We never actually found a way to use this law to guarantee that anyone could be arrested. But a lot of people confessed to being nude-bathing criminals. ;-)

Oblig. Simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA "Kelly disagreed, pointing out that it is practically impossible to know what has been deterred. 'We don't know acts that may have been planned that -- because of the surveillance and deterrence systems that are in place -- did not go forward.'"
Good lord, is Homer the New York City Police Commissioner?

Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight! the Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning dad.
Homer: Thank you honey.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: uhuh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: uhuh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Maybe I should try selling my ROCK based anti-terrorist system to all major cities of the world.

Re:Uh 'supposedly'

[nurb432]

"Data is not logged, nothing is stored in the national police computer"

And you really believe this?

Re:A natural progression

[furball]

And there is the crux of the problem. You already accepted that terrorism is a crime (civilian issue).

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 stated. When crime and terrorism are identified separately, they're not doing it to be redundant. They're stated as a matter of belief about whether or not terrorism is a crime. For law enforcement folks, terrorism prevent is a matter of public safety. For the military types, terrorism is a matter of target identification so they can blow the terrorist away.