anybody know what a "crime fighting camera" might be?

[anarch]

Apparently there is plenty of support for DC's new anti-crime measures, including neighborhood surveillance cameras:

from here: http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=31661&siteSection=1

The plan includes adding neighborhood surveillance cameras, pushing the city's curfew from midnight back to 10 p.m. and adding more police overtime.

"I'm going to tell you, each and every citizen I talked to said get cameras in our community," said (DC City Council member and mayoral candidate Linda) Cropp.

D.C. Council members said they are alarmed at the recent crime spike, and they pressed for a tough and immediate response from the mayor and police chief. They asked for crime-fighting cameras and more police.

and here: http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=855177

Surveillance cameras, an earlier curfew for teens, and police overtime are the key points of a new crime-fighting strategy approved tonight by the D.C. Council.


For the first time, D.C. police will be allowed to use four closed circuit television cameras in high-crime neighborhoods to try to catch criminals under the 90-day measure.

Council member Carol Schwartz says the approval for cameras is for a limited time.


The plan calls for a 10 p.m. curfew for teens, moving it up from midnight. Also, police officers will be deployed on six-day work week with expanded funding for overtime.

Personally, I'm fairly excited to know that I will now be under surveillance pretty much every moment of my day. Since I live in one of the "high-crime areas", I fully expect to see some of these miracle-working cameras go up around where I live. We've already got cameras on a bunch of the traffic lights, cameras on the busses and subway trains, and I work near the Capitol, where there are multiple security cameras on every block. And since all my communications are undoubtedly already under surveillance thanks to the various domestic spying programs, in a way even my apartment is being watched. I'm basically on camera from the moment I step out into my apartment lobby (yes, there are security cameras there, too) until I get to my desk at work, which for some reason is just outside of camera range, although I'm monitored in other ways here.

When do you think they will go ahead and just install cameras inside my actual apartment? I feel like it's only a matter of time...for my own safety and security, you know?

[babylonsister]

Shades of '1984', a few years late. nt

[SmokingJacket]

1. Combine the plethora of cameras with the microchip in the driver's license

and what's to stop the government from basically surveilling anyone at any time?

[unpossibles]

2. I think this logo explains it pretty well

[sgxnk]

4. england

if u want to know about these cameras, go to england

london is completely saturated by these things, for instance

been so for years.

[anarch]

8. do they prevent crime?

I don't know why, it just really creeps me out. I'm used to them around all the federal buildings, and all over downtown for that matter, but in the neighborhoods? I dunno, it just offends my sensibilities. People are so scared that they are asking for surveillance cameras on their own streets.

[sgxnk]

12. according

according to the london metropolitan police, and to scotland yard - it GREATLY reduces crime

not saying i am FOR them in the USA, but they are CLEARLY effective - both in prevention and in bringing perpetrators to justice after the fact

england is such a frigging nanny state anyways. i don't want the US to be like england.

[chill_wind]

38. "CLEARLY effective in *prevention"*? Like on 7-7-05?

Only part of you statement would seem true. This, in arguably the most heavily cam surveilled country on the planet. For decades.

24 February 2005, Leceistershire, England:
CCTV systems 'fail to cut crime' by BBC News.

Most CCTV fails to cut crime or make people feel safer, according to a research study. Experts at the University of Leicester studied 14 systems across the country on behalf of the Home Office. They found only one area saw a drop in the number of incidents which could be attributed to CCTV. Professor Martin Gill, from the university, said: "Overall, areas have encountered real difficulties in using CCTV to good effect."

The study showed the only crime decrease attributable to CCTV focussed on reducing vehicle crime in car parks. Systems covered by the research included those in town centres, city centres, hospitals and residential areas. Professor Gill, from the university's criminology department, said: "For supporters of CCTV these findings are disappointing. For the most part CCTV did not produce reductions in crime and it did not make people feel safer."

more on "ineffectiveness"

http://www.notbored.org/cameras-not-effective.html

[warrens]

15. So is Manhattan

Half those cheap electronics shops you walk by have working cameras trained on the street, too, and if something happens the cops can get the video. There was a segment on 60 Minutes or Dateline or one of those showing how they could follow a single person all through Manhattan by reviewing city and private tapes.

[sgxnk]

20. the operative difference

is that in manhattan - surveillance is overwhelmingly a private undertaking whereas in england it is state run

i have long argued that the "big brother" CONCEPT is fundamentally flawed in that the *primary* danger to privacy has long been, and continues to be (on a relative basis) private industry NOT the govt. i can guarantee you that right now, no matter who you are, there is FAR more information gathered on you in privately owned databases than the NSA et al could even dream of

[politicat]

3. It wears glasses and has a super-secret suit under the tie and coat.

No one ever recognizes it and it's always on scene when bad shit is going down, but the cops don't arrest it because they're in awe of the super-dooper secret suit.

[blonndee]

5. I think we should be carrying our own

to police the police.

[Fleshdancer]

11. I read an article recently about a guy getting arrested for that

:grr:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121

NASHUA – A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons.

Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.

Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective’s consent.

[blonndee]

13. Oh yeah! I had forgotten about that.

Disgusting. I hate a fucking police state. We really have no rights anymore, it seems.

[Fleshdancer]

6. sounds like a camera wearing a cape and spandex

Seriously, if they want to put cameras in "high-crime areas" then I suggest they start with the Oval Office. Food for thought.

[chill_wind]

31. LOL. Good call! n/t

[MountainLaurel]

7. One with x-ray vision

And a mean karate chop.

[bemildred]

9. I'm guessing it's a really expensive one. nt

[magellan]

10. Actually, these cameras came into heavy use while I lived in the UK

...and they did help cut crime in targeted areas. They also help solve crimes by catching people in the act. People are that unaware of them.

Similarly, there was the case in FL last year of a young girl who was abducted off the street; the security camera on a nearby business caught the whole thing as it happened, which became crucial in identifying and hunting down the vermin who later murdered her.

I don't mind them, as long as crime-fighting is all they're used for. In the UK, that was the case.

[anarch]

14. all paranoia aside, I will be curious to see if they work

Probably not so much at preventing crime as at identifying and catching people after the fact, but who knows?

I still think it's a damn shame, though, that this is what our society has come to.

[magellan]

22. I agree 100%

110% even. We imprison ourselves in order to be safe. Freedom is lost. I mean, real freedom is gone, bye bye.

Interesting thought just occurred to me: it's been this way for women, always. We've never been as safe as men are out and about...and we feel it constantly. If you're a guy (I can't check at the mo), welcome to our world.

[flamin lib]

16. As far as I know the use of cameras in or on public property is

legal and constitutional. Things that are perfectly legal on private property will get you into all sorts of trouble if performed on or visible from public property. Let our imagination run wild on that for a moment . . .

The use of cameras and recording devices on private property without informed consent is up in the air depending on where you are.

[Virginia Dare]

17. Useless as tits on a boar-hog...n/t

[chill_wind]

18. An excellent education: New York Suveillance Cam Players

Incredible amount of information and research.

See especially the sections under resources and press coverage.

http://www.notbored.org/the-scp.html

Most of all see their page on September 11.

http://www.notbored.org/change.html




("Two of the hijackers pass through airport security.")

[On the Road]

19. They Have Them in Baltimore

and I actually like them. They tend to be positioned on light poles and located on street corners which have historically high crime and/or open-air drug markets. I breathe a little easier when I see the distinctive purple light.

Intrusion of privacy is one thing, but these cameras augment what beat police do anyway and allows them to expand their range. If you're in a neighborhood where you feel safer with a police car nearby, chances are you'll be a little safer with the camera.

[MadHound]

21. Another way of destroying the ordinary citizens' privacy

And tearing down the Fourth Amendment. Probably won't be long before cameras are mandated to be put in everybodys' home. After all, if you're doing nothing wrong, what do you have to worry about:sarcasm:

Makes me happy that I live out in the country. Waaay to much territory to cover, and the county won't be able to afford installing these foul things for a long while, if ever. Sadly though it is probably just a matter of time.

I'm old enough to remember when such actions would cause massive outrage. Now people simply accept them as part of everyday life. Amazing how well the propaganda, and concept of slowly boiling the frog worked.

[AngryAmish]

25. How does it violate the 4th Amendment?

[MadHound]

30. The Fourth Amendment is the basis for our right to privacy

Having a camera trained on one's property tends to strip away said privacy. Hence the violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Sure, sure, I know all the old canards, it is simply recording what is out in the open. However most of these cameras can pan, zoom, and some are even infrared. All that means is that the camera can look inside your house also. There have been a number of scandals and lawsuits concerning just those sorts of actions, albeit concerning privately owned cameras.

Also, considering that certain Caribbean, African and Australian cultures feel that a camera steals one's soul, the argument could be made that these cameras violate the First Amendment:shrug:

Like I said, thirty-forty years ago if you had told Americans that cameras were going to be put up on every street corner and in every neighborhood, you would have had massive riots on your hands. But through a long process of propaganda, the War on Drugs, FEAR mongering, and the War on Terrorism, people, especially the younger generations, became acclimated to having cameras everywhere. Frankly I find it downright disgusting. But sadly the great portion of the sheeple people aren't bothered, so now they up the ante. What's next, cameras inside your home? Would society stand for that? Given the current showing, probably so:banghead:

[AngryAmish]

23. They work real well in Chicago

They look like kegs and have a blue strobe light on top.

It has closed down some open-air drug markets and make street life much easier for the law abiding residents.

Now the drug markets have moved indoors. This has the benefit of increasing costs (both financial and psychological) to customers. Virtually every alderman wants more in their ward but some worry about stigmatizing their neighbors as high crime.

[porphyrian]

32. I thought the things seemed to always be going off.

I don't doubt that you're correct, but they always seemed to be flashing when I went by them, and I never saw any cops or crime when I did. Coincidence maybe?

[AngryAmish]

35. They are always flashing by design

They want to be visible to everybody -- bad guys so they move away and residents have a sense of security. It's a feature, not a bug.

[porphyrian]

36. Ah, I see. - n/t

[Algorem]

24. they're like Robocop except with a big camera for a head

[anarch]

26. see, now that I would be totally OK with

[Algorem]

28. one of 'em beat me up last night for drinking a beer in a bus stop.it kept

taking pictures,ejecting burned-out flash cubes out of it's head the whole time.I wouldn't mind so much if I could see the pictures.They've gotta be hilarious!I wonder if they post them on the net somewhere.

[applegrove]

27. Crime went down in the neighbourhoods Britain had cameras. Relax.

And ask that a camera be put on all street corners near you!

[MadHound]

37. Ah yes

"How I Relaxed and Learned How to Love Having My Privacy Invaded" :crazy:

[applegrove]

39. Chances are.. if you have no worries about crime.. you will not see

a camera. How about in really crime ridden neighbourhoods? Neighbourhoods where crime is so bad..there is a lack of grocery stores and people die young (if not from crime) from a terrible diet?

Would you want them to have a camera?

[MadHound]

40. I lived in such a neighborhood for ten years

Running gun battles up and down the street, dueling crackhouses, rampant robbery, the whole bit. And you know what, I didn't want a camera then, and still wouldn't want one now. Instead of subjecting my privacy to invasion, I got together with my neighbors, formed a neighborhood association. We called the landlords who were notorious for renting to dealers on the carpet, since we have a law regarding one's repeated rental to criminals, cleaned up the neighborhood, and all became quite good friends in the process. I moved out almost three years ago now, but the improvement continues. A grocery store is about to open, more and more people are owning their houses, and a renaissance movement has swept the entire ward. Amazing what the power of people who are united for good can do. Crime is down, streets are safe, and life is much better there. And we did it without having to resort to massive police crackdown or cameras on every corner.

You do realize that those cameras can pan, zoom, and some are infrared. In fact they are so good that if you leave a crack in your blinds, they can zoom right in and see what you're doing in the privacy of your own home. Are you comfortable with that? I'm certainly not. I have nothing to hide, but I don't want Big Brother looking over my shoulder, whether I'm outside or inside my house. Besides, if this becomes the norm, how long before it's mandated that every single house has a camera in every room? After all, if you've got nothing to hide. . .:shrug::crazy:

[applegrove]

41. Cameras would make it happen overnight. Ten years is a lifetime. But

I commend your efforts. You must be very proud. Imagine if you had film!!! How fast would those landlords have done the stuff you wanted?

[MadHound]

42. Sorry, but cameras wouldn't have done jack.

Sure, it might have driven the trade off the streets, but it wouldn't have driven it from the neighborhood. The only way to do that is with people, neighbors joining together. All a camera would have done is cost us money, as it probably would have been shot out time and again. Cameras aren't infalible, nor invunerable. Sure, one might have caught the stupid ones, the small fish. But the big fish would have remained.

Sorry, but there is no justification, nor real use for cameras, and you can't convince me otherwise. Like I said earlier, I'm happy that I now live in the country, where the advent of cameras are still far off in the future. Otherwise I might be the one shooting them down. I find it sad and pathetic that people these days are so willing to give up their freedom, their privacy, their rights all for the illusion of a bit of security. What has this once proud nation turned into:banghead:

[chill_wind]

29. Unlike other countries, the US conveniently doesn't keep records

to support (or more accurately, belie) the "evidence" of deterrance.


"It is only in American cities, where accurate and complete records of the number of CCTV-derived arrests and convictions are not kept, that there is "evidence" that surveillance cameras are effective crime-fighting tools. (This putative evidence almost always consists of a handful of spectacular anecdotes in which surveillance cameras led to the capture of the criminal.) In the words of the principal of an elementary school at which CCTV systems were installed in the wake of the Columbine shootings, the value of such systems is merely "cosmetic," something to reassure insurance companies and prospective clients that "everything" has been done to prevent a reoccurrence."

http://www.notbored.org/change.html

CCTV's are most largely tools$$$ succesfully foisted on businesses and cities by insurance companies.

(and of course der "Homeland Security")


See what the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police)has said:

In March 2001, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) published the results of its survey into the use of surveillance cameras by 700 different law enforcement authorities in America. Entitled The Use of CCTV/Video Cameras in Law Enforcement, this report contains some very interesting information.

1. Eighty percent of the respondents said they were already using surveillance cameras, and half of the remaining 20 percent said that they would start using cameras soon.

2. Only 20 percent agree with the claim (often assumed to be true) that surveillance cameras are useful for "reducing crime." As a result, comparatively few respondents used cameras in public places such as subways, parks and public housing developments. (Note well that these are precisely the places in which the NYPD has installed cameras since 1997.)

3. Most respondents (over 60 percent) said that surveillance cameras were useful for "investigative assistance." As a result, the vast majority of cameras were used in police cars or interrogation rooms in police stations.

4. Slightly more than half (54 percent) said that cameras were helpful in "gathering evidence." But what kind of evidence? Significantly, the evidence most often gathered wasn't "positive" or "offensive" (proof that someone under arrest did in fact commit the crime he or she is accused of committing), but "negative" or "defensive" (proof that a police officer did not coerce, abuse or kill someone under arrest, despite claims to the contrary).

more: http://www.notbored.org/iacp.html
http://www.notbored.org/police-cameras.html

[DanCa]

33. I like the one that Barman carries in his utility belt.

He was digital camera before digi camera's were cool.

[Blue-Jay]

34. It looks something like this:

Oh wait! You said Camera!

Never mind.

[mmonk]

43. Monitor them as they monitor you. Camera to camera.