Skip to comments.NYC Adding 500 Cameras, Want to Track People, Cars.
Posted on 03/22/2006 6:39:18 AM PST by af_vet_rr
New Yorkers, get ready for your closeup.
The NYPD is installing 505 surveillance cameras around the city - and pushing to safeguard lower Manhattan with a "ring of steel" that could track hundreds of thousands of people and cars a day, authorities revealed yesterday.
The NYPD also has applied for $81.5 million in federal aid to install surveillance cameras, computerized license plate readers and vehicle barriers around lower Manhattan, Kelly said.
But don't expect the NYPD to install its cameras without battling the New York Civil Liberties Union. The watchdog group's associate legal director, Chris Dunn, questioned the plan.
"Commissioner Kelly may be ready to launch us all into a surveillance society, but we believe cameras are not a cure-all for crime and terrorism," Dunn said. "It is far from clear that cameras deter crime."
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
I don't even want to think what NYC will be like 20 years from now.
We should be doing this a LOT more. Remember when the Brits were bombed, and they ID'd the suspects within minutes, and arrested the accomplices? We'd have no idea who did it, if that happened here.
It would also reduce general crime.
Big Brother, your home is in the Big Apple.
"We should be doing this a LOT more. Remember when the Brits were bombed, and they ID'd the suspects within minutes, and arrested the accomplices? We'd have no idea who did it, if that happened here.
It would also reduce general crime.
I think you're going to find, shortly, that most people on Free Republic don't much like the idea of Big Brother watching our every movement.
Most people on FR may not like it but then they don't work in lower Manhattan.
It would also reduce general crime.
Perhaps we should also ban guns? How about having document checks at every street corner so we can ferret out the illegals?
I just fail to understand "conservatives" that are so willing to trust big government under the guise of "safety".
If constant surveillance of this sort is absolutely necessary for the safety of people living and working in lower Manhattan, then lower Manhattan should be vacated in its entirety and turned into a park.
"Ring of steel" -- my hairy purple donkey.
It is a ring of mush. Good only for possibly finding the perps after they have committed the crime.
If they want a "ring of steel" they need to allow concealed carry. I have no fear of armed bankers and stockbrokers walking the streets of Manhattan, but the thugs and muggers certainly do.
Taking pictures of the license plates of stolen and rented cars will never prevent terrorism or crime.
I was in Lower Manhattan once and some guy was walking down the street backwards and whistling at people. What the hell?! Kind of looked like this guy:
An easier solution to the problems of crime in lower Manhattan is to move to someplace else. Like Utah. I moved here 24 years ago and have never regretted it for one second. I'm very happy with a substantially lower income. I can shoot, hunt, ski, camp, fish, carry a concealed weapon with the greatest of ease and especially nice is the fact that the legislature only meets for 45 days once a year.
That freak show picture made me almost barf up my breakfast....Triple hurl........../seoul62
Of course, none of the cameras has stopped the recent bunch of car break-ins and such in downtown.
When you're in public, there is no privacy.
It's not like they are looking in your windows. When you walk down the street, you are subject to being observed or filmed by anyone. Why shouldn't the government monitor public areas where crime is prevalent? The primary job of government is to maintain security.
I hope you're kidding.
I suggest that you move out of your $6 million downtown condo immediately.
Nope, I'm not. No one has given me a good reason yet why government should not monitor high crime public areas. Just that they don't like it. That isn't a reason.
You'll never convince them that anything that goes on in NYC is good...I'm giving up on it.
I'll vote for that!
But there are `V for Vendetta'/`Handmaid's Tale', loony left March Hares who will tell you different. It's a government conspiracy, can't you see?
Why, we're Winston Smith being hounded by Big Brother . . . when in fact the camera are recording insurance fraud or speeders.
But that's not very exciting, is it?
I expect Hollywood to give us a truly radical new movie soon: in it, George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are heroes saving the world from hateful terrorism, while Saddam and bin Laden are evil conspirators. Our troops are brave and fearless while the terrorists are cowardly murderers.
But I won't hold my breath . . . .
Well, then - enjoy your Gulag. Just don't advocate it for the rest of us.
David Lee Roth?
Statists of all stripes are dangerous...whether right or left. Cameras will NOT make anyone "safer" and are purely reactive in nature. Something has to happen before they become of any use.
For all the fans of these devices out there...how are you going to feel when you're scooped-up in an investigation because you bear a striking resemblance to a criminal as captured by a grainy image from a faraway camera? One might be cleared down the road, but you have to deal with friends, family, and employers during the media crush.
Call me a Luddite if you wish (I'm not, I'm in the technology sector...) but I'd prefer my police and criminal investigations be fully prosecuted the traditional way. Inviting more and more cameras is a lazy shortcut and will lead to mistakes. Don't fall for the cheap bait of "public safety" assurances.
~ Blue Jays ~
Yeah, or Tim Robbins or Gene Simmons too!!!
Carlie Brucia wasn't a `jackboot licker'. http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/carliebrucia.htm
Pathetic. Who said anything about a gulag? You can pay hundreds of billions of dollars to employ tens of thousands of policemen to walk the beat, or you can install a $200 camera. Efficiency demands the $200 camera.
Your argument reminds me of the Dem's claim that Bush is spying on everyone in America because he's intercepting phone calls from terrorist phone numbers overseas to the US. It's a nonsequitur.
A tragic story for sure. That is why my children are never out of my sight in public and I have the will and means to stop any threat to my children. Did a camera help that poor girl and what she had to endure?
I suppose you're against DNA evidence as well, as `intrusive'?
This doesn't bother me at all. And if these are like the existing cameras, anybody can link to them via the Internet. Came in very handy during the Republican convention, when I had to be in the office on the weekend, and the leftists were threatening to march through an area very close to my office, that the police had declared off limits, to an illegal mass demonstration in Central Park. I could check what was going on in the streets before leaving the office, to make sure I wasn't going to find myself tangled up in a violent mob scene. The leftists' planned civil disobedience didn't really materialize (sort of like their planned mega-protests this past weekend), but if they had, I could have monitored the situation from the safety of my office, and waited until the streets were under control before venturing outside.
Of course we should be vigilant, and if we detect any abuse of the surveillance camera network, we must raise a massive ruckus. But I'm not interested in hamstringing our law enforcement agencies by declaring them guilty before they've done anything wrong. Keep in mind that al-Qaeda operatives are perfectly free to set up a similar network in the city. There's no shortage of tall, strategically-placed buildings where anyone can rent or sublet an apartment.
That's just the point, Carlie Brucia is still dead. The outside world is dangerous and to place faith in cameras, RFID tags, and monitors to magically "create" safety is misplaced.
~ Blue Jays ~
No, because it was apparently not being monitored closely enough.
Game, set, match.
You did. You just used different words. And you repeated it in the next sentence.
You can pay hundreds of billions of dollars to employ tens of thousands of policemen to walk the beat
I guess you think you nanny state logic has me cowering
Hi Blue Jays, didn't mean to ignore you.
If you say so, but No need to cower. A pleasure enlightening you.
Have a good one!
OK, so you're saying that employing policeman to walk the beat is the equivalent of forced labor camps? I can see this conversation is going nowhere.
"...I suppose you're against DNA evidence as well, as `intrusive'?..."
If a police officer approaches me in a crowded shopping mall and asks me for a DNA sample, you're darn right I'm opposed to it as being intrusive! That's essentially what government cameras are doing, they're peering into our lives and monitoring our comings and goings even though we've done nothing wrong. It is a broadbrush approach. I'll also stake the value of my home that any bureaucrat pushing for cameras will stridently advocate facial recognition software next year. It's a no-brainer.
Do you feel any apprehension at all knowing that your identity would be known and that you were FReeping from the Starbucks hotspot on the corner of Nassau Place & Liberty Street on Wednesday, March 22 @ 11:20 a.m. while wearing a beige dress and red scarf? Why should your life or mine be an open book to someone who happened to pass a civil service exam?
~ Blue Jays ~
Yet the vast majority of them will also tell you that the Bush wiretapping issue isn't a problem - because they're only looking for terrorists. Can't have it both ways...
If they're not mugging folks on Main St, or running red lights, what are they worried about?
George Orwell's book 1984 was not so much a warning, as a training manual.
Freedom through Surveillance.
If you aren't hiding anything then you shouldn't mind a cavity search comrade
If you don't have anything forbidden by the party then you shouldn't mind if we take a look in you house
My opinion is that one could also learn about traffic jams and mass demonstrations by listening to the radio, watching TV, or accessing sites like FoxNews.com for updates. That should provide more than enough information to make a decision about one's evening commute home on trains, buses, and ferries. This prevents us from having to contend with statist abuse of the camera network, which would be a bundle.
~ Blue Jays ~
The downtown and financial districts of all big cities are blanketed with cameras already.
I can't imagine a square block in business areas in Manhattan that isn't already covered with cameras.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.