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 ...
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!
Exactly.
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 ~
Ping.
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.
How's tricks?
If you say so, but No need to cower. A pleasure enlightening you.
Have a good one!
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.