NYC Adding 500 Cameras, Want to Track People, Cars.

New York Daily News ^ | March 22, 2006 | ALISON GENDAR and MICHAEL SAUL

[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."

[JamesP81]

Efficiency demands the $200 camera.

Efficiency be damned.

[FreedomPoster]

>>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.

Totally different situation, and you know it, or are underinformed.

[Jubal Harshaw]

I think you hit on, then glossed over, an important -- no, crucial -- point about the cameras. That point is that the cameras could be connected to the Internet.

If the cameras are connected to the Internet, and in public places only, then that is a far different thing than cameras that are monitored only by government agents. If the average person could monitor the cameras, that person could avoid crowds (as per your example) and possibly avoid crime (check out the next unlit block on your wireless before you walk there). Further, internet-connected cameras might even reduce the power of an abusive state by providing a record of police abuses.

For example, I was stopped recently in Costa Mesa, CA, for having all my rear lights out. My license was run, and I was harassed. The thing is that none of my lights were out, but I had no way to prove that after the fact. Publically-available camera images might have allowed me to pursue this matter.

Cameras are just a tool, like ... well, like guns, to coin a beloved FR phrase. If the tool is available to everyone equally, then it increases everyone's power equally.

The thing about 1984 is that only Big Brother had the cameras. It's the current, real world that is more like 1984. Today, only government has access to the vast majority of surveillance equipment, from satellites on down. Putting cameras everywhere, but allowing everyone to use them, is, in my opinion, a step away from Big Brother, because it reduces the information disparity between citizens and the government.

[FreedomPoster]

You forgot:

All that is not mandatory is forbidden.

[Brilliant]

The number one defense against crime, though, is to put the hoodlums in jail and let them rot, or better yet, execute them. If you put a criminal in jail for life, you end a lifetime of crime. But you can't do that unless you can catch them. And that is what the cameras are for. Guns are OK if you can carry them and you have the opportunity and ability to use them, but you shouldn't have to meet all those conditions in order to be safe from crime.

[Kenny500c]

If you want to catch some crooks how about putting some cameras on the floor of the N.Y. Stock Exchange?

[Living Free in NH]

Totally different situation, and you know it, or are underinformed.

It's not really that different at all. I'm not saying I'm against the wiretaps - actually, I'm all for them. But my point is that the cameras won't be used to track John Doe walking down the street. Who has time for that? But they can be used to determine who stabbed John Doe 27 times.

I'm sure folks would be thrilled if there were a greater police presence in their communities. What's the difference between a live cop standing on the corner and a camera (made in China, no doubt) on a pole? Paying cops to walk a beat can get awfully expensive.

[af_vet_rr]

No single security measure is going to be effective against every danger, but a comprehensive array of security measures is quite helpful.

My point is, and I clarified it in a later post, is that this isn't about a pretense of safety for you or I.

This is about five years from now when the police and politicians say we need to do more, that current measures are not enough.

It's also about 20, 30, 50 years from now, and how far the government has gone at that point, in the name of "protecting" people.

Look at Social Security, look at the income tax, These all started off incredibly small decades ago, and look at where they are at now. Is there any reason to think that beginning a surveillance-oriented society at any level of government will simply stop at some point? Is there any reason to think we won't reach a "papers please" society?

A child born today is not going to realize just how free and open our society used to be. For those of us of my generation it was very easy to point at the Soviet Union and East Germany and say "that's exactly what we don't want - common, normal people being watched by cameras everywhere, people being tracked, their activities and associations being tracked, etc.". Now it's not so easy, a child born today is going to grow up in the current "the government will protect you" atmosphere, and will not only be used to the cameras, but will be used to an intrusive government.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yes, it makes a difference to me, at any rate. Though with surveillance camera technology so inexpensive and readily available, huge numbers of businesses and a lot of private residences also have them, and don't have to make them obvious or notify the government that they have them, and there are also the ubiquitous cell phones that can snap pictures and even moving video images. This puts something of a damper on government (or more often individual officer) attempts to fabricate evidence of things going on in public places -- big risk that their lie would be exposed by a private camera, with serious possibility of prison time for the lying individuals. That officer who ticketed you for tail lights being out when they weren't, was taking a big risk, and he's likely to get caught before too long if he makes a habit of this.

At least 2 habitual subway flashers in NYC have learned the new rules the hard way, including a well-known chef and restaurant co-owner who has not only had his image and exploits sprayed across the front pages of the city tabloids (and all over the Internet), but is also no longer allowed on the premises of the restaurant he co-owns. Young ladies who used to react to flashings by getting scared, making the flasher feel powerful and in control, now take pictures of the flasher and turn them over to police (the first one posted the pictures of the chef on Internet social sites, asking for an ID, which she promptly got, along with several other women willing to testify that the same guy had flashed them, and THEN went to police; the most recent one was a teenage girl who snapped the guy's face AND his privates).

[af_vet_rr]

What's the difference between a live cop standing on the corner and a camera (made in China, no doubt) on a pole?

One can actually stop a crime, the other simply records it?

[Blue Jays]

Hi Jubal-

"...If the average person could monitor the cameras, that person could avoid crowds (as per your example) and possibly avoid crime (check out the next unlit block on your wireless before you walk there)..."

---

This type of person would be much better served becoming conditionally-aware and living in proper "Condition Yellow" preparedness rather than burying their nose in a wireless device while walking at night. Relying on an Internet-connected camera to "peer into the shadows" in search of criminals would be doing just the opposite in that situation. One should walk in potentially-dangerous territory with bold purpose: head up, eyes alert & scanning, and music headphones removed. Jabbering on the cellphone similarly reduces situational awareness.

I see what you're saying about equal access to cameras, and we all know that overreaching government people (being overreaching government people...) would want "special" access and capabilities for themselves. One could bet the bank on that.

~ Blue Jays ~

[Old Professer]

Can't wait for the crimewave of camera vandalism to break out.

[vrwc0915]

The sound of sheep bleating makes me want to hurl

[from occupied ga]

If you want to catch some crooks how about putting some cameras on the floor of the N.Y. Stock Exchange?

How are traders & stock brokers crooks? .

[from occupied ga]

Can't wait for the crimewave of camera vandalism to break out.

Ain't gonna happen - this is NYC where anti-gun anti-freedom upChuckie and anti-gun anti_freedom Hitlery were elected by substantial majorities. (I believe Manhattan voted 89% for Kerry) NYC people WANT more government intrusion in their lives. These are the descendents of the people who Adams said licked the hands that fed them.

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

agreed

[GovernmentShrinker]

It bears vigilance, but for New Yorkers to be making a big issue out of some cameras, while 2A rights in NYC have been essentially completely revoked, is just silly. We should focus on the big problem -- solve that one, and there will be no question about what we'll do if and when the government tries to go too far with its cameras (and the government would be much less likely to try).

[EnquiringMind]

"Big Brother, your home is in the Big Apple"

That's a good start.

[elkfersupper]

Okay, if all those cops and cameras make you safe from crime, what keeps you safe from the cops and the cameras?

[Blue Jays]

Hi Stuck-

You're from New Orleans and haven't yet learned that you need to be self-sufficient to protect yourself and your family when things go downhill? Wow.

~ Blue Jays ~