Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Newark and the Future of Crime Fighting

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the bangalore-across-the-hudson dept.

Privacy 172

theodp writes "Newark Mayor Cory Booker is betting that cutting-edge technology will reduce crime and spark an economic renaissance. From a newly opened Surveillance Operations Center, cops armed with joystick controllers monitor live video feeds from more than 100 donated cameras scattered across the crime-ridden city. The moves are drawing kudos from businesses like Amazon subsidiary Audible.com, which has moved its HQ to downtown Newark, where space is 50% cheaper than in Manhattan. But are citizens giving up too much privacy?"

cancel ×

172 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

NIGS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24828425)

Are stinky monkeys.

Won't Stop Crime. (0)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828453)

If you put up cameras, they will crime in the shadows.

Kids these days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24828581)

Crime is a noun and not a verb.
Fail is a verb and not a noun.

Re:Won't Stop Crime. (4, Funny)

dintech (998802) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828623)

For that, we have Batman.

Re:Won't Stop Crime. (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828657)

Clearly then, the solution is to outlaw shadows.

Re:Won't Stop Crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24828759)

If you outlaw shadows then only outlaws will have shadows.

Re:Won't Stop Crime. (2, Funny)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828787)

If you outlaw shadows then only the outlaws will have them.

I worked in Newark for 9 years (3, Informative)

spineboy (22918) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828801)

And these are going to be soooo shot out.

I give them about a week or two , now that people know about them.

Crowdsource it! (5, Funny)

bennybertow (903069) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828479)

Just think about it. If everybody had access to these camera streams, everyone could watch everyone doing... er... crime. Then call the cops if needed. Would work like Wikipedia, as everybody could possibly vote on where the cops should be sent next, or which direction the camera should turn. Then make money with advertising.

Re:Crowdsource it! (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828667)

This police report is a stub. You can help the Metropolitan Police by expanding it.

Re:Crowdsource it! (4, Funny)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828751)

Don't bother. It's not notable enough, we're deleting it.

Re:Crowdsource it! (5, Funny)

laejoh (648921) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828923)

[Citation needed]

Re:Crowdsource it! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829745)

This street-corner mugging brought you by Pepsi!

Pepsi! the drink of choice for mugging victims for over 25 years.

Re:Crowdsource it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24829819)

...community volunteers with brown shirts and spiked baseball bats are standing by to beat the #$@% out of suspected criminals. This unparalleled example of community policing demonstrates the importance of solidarity, unity, and purity in fighting crime.

"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applau (3, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828483)

"So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause"

at least that's how this summary paints it.

They've had this in london for a while, and it's been a severe invasion of privacy.

There have been several instances where the police have used cameras to follow people home and actually gaze through their windows.

One particular man was so horrified he started protesting it, dressing up in bizarre costumes and skulking the streets provoking police responses.

note to self: scratch newark off potential career location list.

Re:"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous app (4, Informative)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828519)

They've had this in london for a while, and it's been a severe invasion of privacy.

And it cost billions of pounds yet doesn't help [guardian.co.uk] in actually fighting crime.

Re:"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous app (2, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829123)

The study that you linked does not indicate whether the cameras help prevent crime - only whether they were used to help in convictions. A California study that I read seems to indicate that crimes at least move out of the range of cameras. Too lazy to Google it at the moment :)

Re:"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous app (2, Informative)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829205)

The study that you linked does not indicate whether the cameras help prevent crime - only whether they were used to help in convictions.

The first one I mentioned in this post [bbc.co.uk] does. It's far from conclusive though.

Re:"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous app (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829919)

There is precious little evidence that CCTV actually helps in fighting crime overall. Privacy International's FAQ [privacyinternational.org] has a few comments and sources.

Anecdotally, I can tell you that despite high profile CCTV being installed here in Cambridge (hardly the crime capital of the UK), it did not help a woman I personally saw being seriously assaulted: there was no coverage in the alley where it happened, so the police came only when I called them. Nor did it help when a substantial sum of money was stolen from a community group's storage at a local church hall: despite reporting the incident within 24 hours and knowing within a fairly small window when it must have happened, there was no evidence that the police even looked at the CCTV camera footage covering the only main road access to the premises. Nor did it help on either of the two occasions when I have been called on to give serious first aid in recent years, despite both areas being covered by CCTV cameras and the casualty obviously being hurt each time. It doesn't even seem to help with traffic, where there are cameras overlooking busy road junctions that get clogged up for everyone when a few selfish drivers don't follow the rules.

They did have a good story in the local press about cameras mounted on buildings on one of the main shopping streets being turned to look into students' bedroom windows on the opposite side of the street a little while back, though.

Re:"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24828795)

No offense to Newark but you don't want to work there, live there or even look at Newark.

Maybe after they have cameras up for a few years you can come protest in some crazy outfit safely.

Re:"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous app (2, Informative)

rbannon (512814) | more than 5 years ago | (#24830297)

I live, teach and observe Newark daily. From my window I can witness a decay and despair that Booker and his team can only imagine. Whenever I travel abroad, I am perplexed as to why Newark, and other US cities, are in such awful conditions.

I also think the majority of Newark citizens are good, but have been worn down into behaving as if there were no rule of law.

Re:"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous app (3, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828921)

Screw your privacy. This is great. It should be accessible to the public at all times. This is a way to watch the cops and the politicians, not the other way around.

Re:"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous app (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#24830031)

Except that whenever the CCTV evidence could be used to help with that sort of thing, the cameras are mysteriously switched off. This has been infamously been the case both for London protests, where large numbers of peaceful protesters (and anyone else unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) were detained under very dubious authority for several hours by the police, and in the case of the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, where not a single camera on the London Underground managed to catch any of the events beyond his initial entry into the station. There has been no shortage of reports from campaign groups either, each with basically the same story: while police now seem to routinely film peaceful protests with camcorders, protesters attempting to film the police behaviour similarly have been threatened and forced to stop.

Re:"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous app (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829737)

"So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause"

at least that's how this summary paints it.

They've had this in london for a while, and it's been a severe invasion of privacy.

[Citation needed]
Sorry, but it is. I don't know of any cases where a CCTV video of a celebrity (for instance) has been leaked.

Most people don't give a moment's notice to the cameras -- almost all of which are privately owned or on the transport system, and most of which aren't monitored but are just recorded and referred to if needed.
Liberty is ending not because of the CCTV cameras, but by the rules about protesting and the police applying "terrorism" laws to others (e.g. environmental protesters).

There have been several instances where the police have used cameras to follow people home and actually gaze through their windows.

[Citation needed]
Mostly to know why they were following them home (because she was attractive, or because she was seen running from the scene of a crime?).

I'm not sure I care anyway, Joe Anybody can follow me home and look through my windows.

Re:"so this is how liberty dies, to thunderous app (2, Insightful)

irtza (893217) | more than 5 years ago | (#24830115)

Well, I seriously doubt that you are the type of person that would have set foot in newark prior to the cameras. I work there now and they have a camera on the street which I work.

The purpose of government is to provide a sense of security; to provide an environment in which you can flourish. Newark was nowhere near that setup. if walking down the street was taking a risk - I assure you that you would give up freedoms. The level of freedoms you will give up will be directly proportional to the level of threat you feel.

At a baseline, we have given up community property rights, the right to drive at will, along with hundreds of other petty infringements of our freedom just to make sure people don't run us over on the streets, or so car accidents are minimized. Cameras in PUBLIC areas allowing officers to see a broader area is hardly an infringement of our liberty. One, this provides more substantive evidence that a crime is being committed than the word of one officer. It forces ethical responses from the officers. It provides a real sense of security for the people there.

When you end up in an environment where robbery is as daily occurrence and murder isn't out of the ordinary, I would love to see you continue to insist that police officers not be aggressive and that the areas you are in be unmonitored. Most people will demand a more aggressive stand by law enforcement and honestly this sounds a lot better than road blocks and car searches.

Any numbers to compare? (4, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828495)

The UK has the most camera's per capita, I think. Are there any numbers available on how much crime has decreased in those areas where the camera's are? Also how much have they incread in surrounding areas where they are not.

Next what is the cost to keep them running and what was the value of goods being stolen.

Also it would be interesting to see if people feel safer because there are camera's to watch over them or if they feel unsafer to have camera's watch over them.

I can imagine that the cost is much higher and that theft has just moved and people feel less safe while it costs much more even when compared to what is stolen. So all in all good for the few companies in those areas, but bad for the community as a whole.

Only real figures will tell.

Re:Any numbers to compare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24828521)

Hit the nail on the head. I think somebody should see how many friends Mayor Cory Booker has in the company Surveillance Operations Center. Can you say corruption? I sure can.

Re:Any numbers to compare? (5, Informative)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828701)

The UK has the most camera's per capita, I think. Are there any numbers available on how much crime has decreased in those areas where the camera's are? Also how much have they incread in surrounding areas where they are not.

Crime doesn't move away when cctv's are installed. They simply have pretty much no consistent effects [bbc.co.uk] on crime rates at all. And they generally don't help with solving crimes [schneier.com] either.

Re:Any numbers to compare? (2, Interesting)

MathFox (686808) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828823)

As far as I know serious research on the effectiveness of the UK cameras showed (at best) a hardly measurable impact on crime.
Cameras can extend the eyes of the police force, but they do not provide more hands on the street. For and effective use of cameras you need communication with your officers on the street to direct them to the scene (and hope they arrive in time). Cameras are very good in recording crime and can help in catching criminals; some say that arresting suspects raises the registered crime rate, because 60% of petty crime goes unreported.

I see more in streamlining the administration, so that police officers spend less time in the office typing reports on (stone age) computers, and can spend more time patrolling on the streets.

Re:Any numbers to compare? (0)

rossz (67331) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828911)

The UK has the highest violent crime rates of all western countries. The cameras didn't cause this problem. It's stupidity on the part of parliament. They outlawed all firearms. That was bad enough, but then they did something so mind boggling stupid that it's a wonder the people of the UK didn't rise up and lynch the bastards. They made it illegal to use force to stop a crime. If some thugs try to rape your girlfriend/wife/daughter, and you take a cricket bat to their well deserving head, you will go to jail. It doesn't matter if that was the only way to stop them, you aren't allowed. Period. People have been sent to prison for years for trying to prevent exactly that sort of crime. They made the mistake of reporting the crime and were stupid enough to mention they fought the thugs off. The UK police have become so lazy that they take the easy way out and arrest the victim. They get an arrest on their record that helps them in promotion, and they didn't have to get off their lazy and cowardly asses.

The result of that law was the criminals had no fear. I've heard rumor that they may have just recently changed that law. I certainly hope so.

Oh, CCTV, the topic. Hi-tech was defeated by hoodies (coats with hoods on them) and (I believe) were instrumental in creating the excessively lazy police. Even when thugs were caught, the courts have a bunch of pussies for judges who would constantly let off underage violent thugs with NO CONSEQUENCES!

Re:Any numbers to compare? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24829181)

FYI, there are other newspapers available to read other than the Daily Mail.

You will not go to jail for the act you've described. Full stop. If you keep on hitting their comatose body with the bat until they are dead, then the situation is different.

Re:Any numbers to compare? (2, Interesting)

geniice (1336589) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829251)

Bollocks. Under UK law you have a number citizen's arrest powers which allow you to use reasonable force to detain suspects. The problems kick in when people start to lie about their motives and what they did and when the use of force becomes seriously excessive. Guns are not really an issues there was never much of a gun ownership culture in the UK anyway. Various surveys have shown that when people are asked what the penalty should be for various crimes they tend to chose below the current average court penalty.

Re:Any numbers to compare? (2, Informative)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829559)

Guns are not really an issues there was never much of a gun ownership culture in the UK anyway.

Not true at all. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/23/do2302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/23/ixop.html [telegraph.co.uk]
In a material sense, Britain today has much less of a "gun culture" than at any time in its recent history. A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials".

The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is copied from the English Bill of Rights 1689, as are many of the other "American" rights. Where do you think the various US states got their Castle Doctrine? [wikipedia.org] Seen many castles in the US recently?

Re:Any numbers to compare? (1, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829727)

... parliament. They outlawed all firearms. ....

Ill-informed American gun nut alert. Prepare for gusts of complete bullshit and "facts" gleaned from American gun advocacy groups trying to paint the rest of the world as "deprived" of their God-given Right to Bear Arms, and how they're all pansies/Commies/Muslims who Hate Freedom because they think guns are best left to the army and not vigilante cowboys.

Re:Any numbers to compare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24829179)

The UK has the most camera's per capita, I think. Are there any numbers available on how much crime has decreased in those areas where the camera's are?

Oh come on. I can just about understand people confusing "it's" and "its", but how hard it is to pluralise?! You add an S! No apostrophes required.

Re:Any numbers to compare? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829491)

I am glad that you think I am a native English speaker and thus should know this. Thanks for the compliment. I hope I make the same mistake when you pluralize in my language.

Except, of course, cameras don't work. (5, Informative)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828501)

Nope, they don't reduce crime. They don't even prevent them. They don't deter and they are pretty much useless.

CCTV cameras are everywhere in the UK, but, according to a recent report by the CCTV manager of Scotland Yard... They simply don't work, despite billions of UKP invested. You can read this analysis here [guardian.co.uk] .

Putting real, flesh-and-blood policemen, on the beat is the way to go. Putting cameras (which hardly qualifies as high-tech anyway) don't work.

Re:Except, of course, cameras don't work. (0)

amilo100 (1345883) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828545)

It depends. I am fairly sure that it is a lot easier to convict someone based on camera footage than word of mounth.

CCTV cameras have reduced crime in shops and businesses significantly - I see no reason why they should not be used outside of businesses.

Re:Except, of course, cameras don't work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24828693)

[quote]
CCTV cameras have reduced crime in shops and businesses significantly - I see no reason why they should not be used outside of businesses.
[/quote]
They do?

Where is the evidence?

Re:Except, of course, cameras don't work. (1)

amilo100 (1345883) | more than 5 years ago | (#24830185)

Okay, only anecdotal evidence â" one of my family members owns a bakery. Since I've installed cameras (9 months, 8 CCTV pal cameras) he actually have the same number as stock sold as for the amount of flour he bought.

The cameras recorded 4 incidents (of which 1 led to a disciplinary hearing and 3 led to convictions of theft).

The improvement in revenue was so high that it paid the costs of the cameras every two days. The cameras completely (or almost completely) eliminated the following problems:
  • Theft of stock
  • Theft in which a customer is assisted by the person on the till.
  • Theft of maize.
  • Employee maltreating a client.
  • Client cheating the person on the cash register with money.
  • Theft by clients.
  • Employees lying on their timecards.
  • Employees taking short cuts in production (which leads to an inferior product). Some examples of this is too long or two short mixing times. Dough that stands for excessive times.
  • Sabotage â" either breaking machines or changing settings (usually by one group who dislikes a person in the next bakeing group)

Cameras overall lead to better employee-employer relationships since bad employees can be eliminated and there is not the aura of suspicion.

Re:Except, of course, cameras don't work. (2, Interesting)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829107)

Not really, its detoured the passive "weekend" criminals, but its made the other ones even more skilled at what they do, survival of the fittest.

And the main reason for not having them outside the "business" is because as a customer, you have a choice to enter the property that a business is located, but you are forced to travel the streets to get from point A to B, and B might not be this paranoid business with cameras.

If my business was to take a firehose to everyone who entered my store, does that mean it gives me the right to hose down anyone who walks within reach of my firehose? After all, a firehose can be used to stop crime, and fires, or water plants... they should be everywhere! You're a terrorist if you refuse to get hosed.

Re:Except, of course, cameras don't work. (2, Insightful)

monsul (1342167) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828547)

Nope, they don't reduce crime. They don't even prevent them. They don't deter and they are pretty much useless.

CCTV cameras are everywhere in the UK, but, according to a recent report by the CCTV manager of Scotland Yard... They simply don't work, despite billions of UKP invested. You can read this analysis here [guardian.co.uk] .

Putting real, flesh-and-blood policemen, on the beat is the way to go. Putting cameras (which hardly qualifies as high-tech anyway) don't work.

That's an oversimplification. CCTV works against certain kinds of crime (burglary for example) but it is quite ineffective against others such as mugging (much more fast paced). The error made by the british was to think that cameras solve ALL kinds of crime

Re:Except, of course, cameras don't work. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24829103)

CCTV absolutely DOES NOT work against burglary. You will find that most thieves aren't concerned with being captured on CCTV because they know that they won't be identified and even if they were that the police won't be able to find them. If CCTV deterred thieves then shoplifting would be down. Yet thieves will steal just about anything (laptops, TVs, etc) knowingly directly in front of a camera. The shops can show the police the footage but almost never does anything come of it.

Re:Except, of course, cameras don't work. (4, Interesting)

dattaway (3088) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828905)

I can confirm these cameras DO NOT prevent crime. I have a drug house in front of mine. Lots of vandalism, theft, noise, and hooliganism. So I got a top of the line $2500 PTZ network camera. Here's my little story:

The camera did what I wanted it to do. It takes clear snapshots of the fistfulls of cash, the hits from the water bongs, and where they hide the goods. Great pictures. Gave them to the police. That was months ago. Drug house still going strong. Recently, the camera caught the guy returning from a bad hit and run accident and tried to hide his car in the back yard. The guy is still running around. If I bought the camera to watch a bunch of thugs, its working. To reduce crime, haha. They know the camera is here and wave their middle finger at it.

Here's my Axis network cam if you want to play with it:

http://www.dattaway.net/ [dattaway.net]

There's links at the bottom of the camera page for some of the pictures I saved as the drama continues...

Didn't expect that, didjya? (1)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829259)

Here's my Axis network cam if you want to play with it:

Heh. How long did it stay up? Did it make it to the 100,000th slashdot visitor, or perish nearer the 1000 mark. Kudos for courage though...not many would dare flirt with the slashdot effect.

Re:Didn't expect that, didjya? (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829315)

Heh. How long did it stay up? Did it make it to the 100,000th slashdot visitor, or perish nearer the 1000 mark. Kudos for courage though...not many would dare flirt with the slashdot effect.

I can thank the poor bandwidth here in the USA to prevent the camera from melting! The Axis network cameras are pretty good about limiting connections and queing users in the control group. The camera runs Linux and it has an active development community, so I'm always free to tweak the settings if needed. These make great public cameras to play with....if I only had the bandwidth!

I put a few of the good pictures on a better server:

http://rs6.risingnet.net/~dattaway/shame/index.html [risingnet.net]

Re:Except, of course, cameras don't work. (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829829)

I am sorry to hear this, and I sympathize with you. All I can say is, do not give up!

Re:Except, of course, cameras don't work. (1)

GauteL (29207) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828917)

I know this is unpopular but the source you yourself cite, clearly suggests that the problem isn't necessarily that CCTV is inheritly flawed as a weapon against crime but inefficient use of them.

The problem seems to be that the footage is rarely used by police officers investigating crimes, because they can't be bothered going beyond local councils to retrieve video and because storage and retrieval is awkward and time consuming.

Because the footage is rarely used effectively, criminals are also unlikely to be deterred by them.

Personally I am uneasy about all the CCTV, but I don't think it is fair to argue with blanket statements about their efficiency.

Re:Except, of course, cameras don't work. (1)

kahei (466208) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829581)

1) Sentencing rates are so low for street crime in the UK that I don't think anyone cares whether there is a camera there or not. That's a problem with the UK's social/political/bureaucratic stance, not with the use of cameras.

2) The Guardian is hardly neutral or impartial; you'd expect them to claim cameras are bad, it's part of their viewpoint. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that given the tremendous number of factors not controlled for, opinion is likely to outweigh the few conclusions we can draw from the statistics. Comparing camera numbers and clearup rates borough by borough leaves so many variables as to be pointless.

3) The camera programme has cost 200 million over the last 10 years (according to a link you posted above). The fact that you say 'billions' says a lot about the psychological factors involved.

Personally, I don't think that you can turn English people into responsible adults with any amount of cameras. But the hysterical reaction some people have to the cameras does shed some light on the underlying issues.

Not proven yet (1)

Fjan11 (649654) | more than 5 years ago | (#24830067)

The experience in the UK is not proof that cameras cannot reduce crime. From the article you linked to:

Often [officers] do not want to find CCTV images "because it's hard work". Sometimes the police did not bother inquiring beyond local councils to find out whether CCTV cameras monitored a particular street incident.

In short: they put up a lot of cameras in the hope it would prevent crime. It turns out it didn't. This, however, does not prove crime won't reduce if you actually start using the camera's.

My guess is that if you could properly digitise all the footage so a computer could automatically track a list of suspects from with the time they left their house to the crime locations you would catch a lot more.

As someone who lives in the UK (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828541)

Where we have probably more surveillance than anywhere else in the world, let me shed a little light on how CCTV winds up working in the real world.

  • There are always blind spots where no camera can see.
  • You can't expect particularly high quality images. I can't count the number of times I've seen CCTV footage on television where it appears that the police are seeking an amorphous grey blob. The cameras appear to be improving slightly but don't bet on it.
  • If the cameras are controllable from a central control room, then getting a decent shot of someone breaking the law is dependant on there being no attractive women walking past in the opposite direction at the time.
  • Those who think that this could ultimately be a good thing from a civil liberties perspective - I know of no CCTV camera which has caught evidence of police misconduct, even when there is strong reason to believe that they should have done so. (Why this should be the case I leave as an exercise to the reader)
  • Those who think this is a bad thing from a civil liberties perspective - this depends entirely on how law enforcement uses the tool. There's a temptation there, but to be honest there are so many cameras relative to the number of people looking at them that I can't see mass suppression being an issue unless/until we have computer software which can reliably analyse the video feed of every camera and react in real time. Which is not to say that such software won't exist, but I don't think it does yet.

Re:As someone who lives in the UK (2, Informative)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828807)

Those who think that this could ultimately be a good thing from a civil liberties perspective - I know of no CCTV camera which has caught evidence of police misconduct, even when there is strong reason to believe that they should have done so. (Why this should be the case I leave as an exercise to the reader)

Toni Comer [guardian.co.uk] was shown in CCTV footage being repeatedly punched in the face by a South Yorkshire PC, but the IPCC rejected [ipcc.gov.uk] her complaint of assault, presumably because she had the wrong skin tone.

So the cameras do occasionally pick up obvious misconduct, but good luck if you think anything ever comes of it.

Re:As someone who lives in the UK (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828887)

i'd cut him a little slack, she sounds like a crazy coked up bitch that took 3 officers to subdue her.

he would have been dragged through hell for that indiscretion which was entirely of that womans own making. in the context of this arguement though, CCTV doesn't have some kind of cop protection built in, the boys in blue simply don't lash out as much as people claim. CCTV doesn't stop crime i'm in agreement there, the money is better spent on cops walking the beat just like they used to.

Re:As someone who lives in the UK (2, Informative)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829841)

If you read the linked article, she was drunk and epileptic rather than coked up, and officers trained in restraint should never, ever need to punch a woman in the face to subdue her (Sean Connery notwithstanding).

Now that the cops have pepper spray, there's even less excuse.

I'm in full agreement with spending the money on foot patrols rather than CCTV, especially round here where both the camera that covers our street and the ones in the neighbouring park are regularly out of action - happily Hampshire Police are getting more officers out on the beat and it's not before time.

Re:As someone who lives in the UK (1)

squizzar (1031726) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828963)

There's cameras on the footpath that runs past then end of the row of houses where I live, probably due to the amount of drug dealing that used to go on there. Handily they put up a camera so now the drug dealing goes on outside the front of the house, or round another corner - all out of view of the cameras. Unless you surveil everyone, everywhere it ain't going to work, it will just push street crime into slightly shadier corners.

Re:As someone who lives in the UK (2)

mo^ (150717) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829121)

To you and the guy a few posts up.... why do you have a problem with drug dealers??

If they steal your stuff, they are burglars...

If they mug you for the cash they are violent offenders...

If they trash your property when stoned they are vandals...

But consensual financial exchange for goods is something you think needs to be watched?

wow dude, get a fuckin life

Re:As someone who lives in the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24829597)

"why do you have a problem with drug dealers??

If they steal your stuff, they are burglars..."

Maybe they don't steal his stuff, but they probably do steal his neighbor's stuff.

"If they mug you for the cash they are violent offenders..."

Maybe they haven't mugged him (yet), but they more likely than not have mugged someone else. He seems to believe he has pretty clear evidence that one of them was involved in a hit-and-run accident.

"If they trash your property when stoned they are vandals..."

"But consensual financial exchange for goods is something you think needs to be watched?"

And it's not like drug money doesn't end up going to support all sorts of bad things (destabilizing South American governments and terrorist organizations, funding gangs and organized crime in the US). Probably one of the most socially irresponsible ways for someone to spend their money.

Re:As someone who lives in the UK (1)

albyrne5 (893494) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829815)

I think you'll find a lot of regular tax-payers money also goes into destabilizing goverments in South America, the Middle East, The Balkans, etc.

Re:As someone who lives in the UK (1)

squizzar (1031726) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829613)

My point was that the cameras do nothing to deter crime - in this specific case drug dealing which was the reason for the camera to be put up - but that they simply move it, whether that crime be drug dealing (the law says it's a crime, whether I agree with that or not is irrelevant in this context) or vandalism or any of the other things you mention. You won't get mugged on that footpath either, you will get mugged around the corner where the camera doesn't point. Which brings me back to the point I was making: Unless you surveil everything everywhere you can't prevent street crime simply with cameras.

Oh, and I know bad words too, you stupid cunt.

Re:As someone who lives in the UK (3, Funny)

flyinhigh (1067038) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829009)

As someone that lives in the UK as well, the criminals don't even care if the cameras see them, because most of the images are totally useless. Also when they put the cameras in they pulled bobbies off the beat. So now instead of getting mugged and just losing your wallet, they stab you first and pull your wallet because its faster. Thank the lord im moving to the U.S. next month.

Re:As someone who lives in the UK (3, Funny)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829789)

So now instead of getting mugged and just losing your wallet, they stab you first and pull your wallet because its faster. Thank the lord im moving to the U.S. next month.

Where you will be shot first, then lose your wallet?

England (1)

VirtBlue (1233488) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828549)

Come live in england, big brother is watching....

"Giving Up"? (1)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828615)

Since when do citizens "Give up" their privacy? In this case, and in most cases, they're having it taken from them by the government...

Re:"Giving Up"? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828659)

When the citizens don't throw out the leaders who make these decisions, they are giving up. A leader can only be a leader as long as there are people willing to follow him.

Re:"Giving Up"? (1)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828775)

So has there been an election since this initiative began? I don't think so. How do you expect them to "throw them out"?

Re:"Giving Up"? (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829065)

there are elections all the time. it doesn't just have to be for the top positions where effective change can be made. Think of it like point releases or bug fixes until the next major version comes out.

Giving up what? (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828821)

Since when do citizens "Give up" their privacy? In this case, and in most cases, they're having it taken from them by the government...

The simple fact is that the notion anything you do IN PUBLIC is in fact private, is utterly insane.

There are lots of great reasons to not like cameras all over. Giving up some imaginary "privacy" component to your public strolls is not, nor will it ever be, one of them.

People need to get a grip and understand they cannot walk around in a protected bubble 24/7.

Re:Giving up what? (1)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828945)

Care to share one of these reasons?

Re:Giving up what? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829105)

you don't need lots, just one - their a waste of money and they don't prevent any crime at all.

Re:Giving up what? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829627)

Privacy is not black or white - for most of history, there was a reasonable expectation that, if no one was around, I wouldn't be seen - let alone be permanently recorded. This was not at all "imaginary". Whether this expectation should be changed or not is a matter of opinion.

Re:Giving up what? (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829647)

People need to get a grip and understand they cannot walk around in a protected bubble 24/7.

Funny you say that, because that's the reason they're putting the cameras there.

The simple fact is that the notion anything you do IN PUBLIC is in fact private, is utterly insane.

Rubbish. The difference is that with cameras, you are being watched. Without the cameras, people can see you and that's it. It's the difference between a passer-by and a stalker.

Re:"Giving Up"? (0, Flamebait)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829979)

Apparently, you don't know the meaning of the word "privacy". These cameras are in public, not private. Quit treating public space as private and you won't have any problem.

Now, go buy a dictionary or go back to 4th grade.

Lower population = lower crime (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828635)

When freedom-loving people decide to live, work, and do business in adjacent towns instead of this one, their crimes-per-square-mile rate will plummet.

Re:Lower population = lower crime (1)

DreadfulGrape (398188) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829199)

Not always. I don't think it has worked out that way in Detroit...

the Square Mile of London (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24828655)

Right in the centre of London there's a square mile managed not by the Metropolitan Police but by the City of London police, and it's armed to the teeth with CCTV. Unlike recent America, a few years ago London did have a real problem with terrorism: every few months the Provisional IRA would plant a bomb, so the idea initially was to identify suspicious behaviour and/or to have records of just about fucking everything, so the perp dropping the bag or whatever could be identified after the fact. Did it stop the bombings? Of course it fucking didn't. This is London, not some village in the middle of nowhere:

(1) A wig, fake moustache, make-up and (fuck me this is high-tech!) change of clothing are enough to make anyone's face completely unrecognisable by current CCTV standards, and anyone will have mingled quickly into the crowd of a million other Londonners;

(2) Over time, criminals learn where the cameras are: each time evidence comes to court, each time someone infiltrates the police. I have one family member who works in a police operations centre, and he had to go through all the security vetting bullshit - the usual crap that's easily defeated by planting someone who (oh, much like, say, those in the 9/11 attacks) has a spotless record to date.

Now the terrorism threat is over (no really, compared to London when the Troubles crossed to the mainland, it's over), what do the City of London police busy themselves with? You may have heard of them as the guys that over-zealously notified a Church of Scientology protester that they shouldn't write signs saying mean things [guardian.co.uk] about the organisation. And it has nothing to do with the `Church' giving junkets to high-ranking policemen [guardian.co.uk] , of course. They also occasionally follow those who look like they shouldn't be driving high-priced cars (remember this is around the rich financial district).

Re:the Square Mile of London (2, Informative)

Alex (342) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828679)

"London did have a real problem with terrorism: every few months the Provisional IRA would plant a bomb"

Mostly funded by "concerned" east coast Americans, see NORAID.

Gee thanks,

Alex

This is the dumbest thing since loaved bread (2, Insightful)

cornjchob (514035) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828747)

Terrible crime will continue so long as terrible abridgements of liberty continue--people are always going to want grog, coke, meth and weed, and many people are ready to pay a lot of money for it. And just as many people are ready to do whatever they need to to make some money.

This is going to do is cause prices to go up, which in turn will lead to worse turf wars and drug related violence, which shakes everything else around it up. It's a white elephant, I hope this post will encourage some /.ers to look into this. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is a great place to start. We're talking $69,000,000,000/year to fight MARIJUANA. In fact, well over 800,000 in '06 went to prison solely for marijuana related charges, of these something like 70, 80% are minorities (though by a very large margin, drug users are white). If you want to get rid of crime, you need to get rid of the black market for drugs.

HAVE NO FEAR! (3, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828767)

It is Newark.

Keanu Reeves [imdb.com] will (eventually) save the day.
With a little help from Ice-T and his cyber dolphin friend Jones.

Re:HAVE NO FEAR! (1)

longbot (789962) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828961)

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to make the obvious Johnny Mnemonic reference.

I knew I couldn't be the only one here where that's the first thing that comes to mind when someone says "Newark" and "cameras".

'Public' is not 'Private' (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828791)

You have no expectation of privacy in public. That is why we have those two words - 'public' and 'private'. Unless these concerned people scream at folks who dare look at them when they are out in the street, the problem is not that they are being watched, but something rather different.

Re:'Public' is not 'Private' (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829885)

True and, as the article pointed out, the ACLU negotiated rules about the cameras not pointing into people's homes, and about the feeds being stored for no more than 30 days.

However, cameras are a waste of public funds. Police forces love to cite case studies on how they used cameras to catch some criminal, but really, there hasn't been much change in crime in cities where the only change to the police department was the use of cameras. Notice that in this case, a lot more was changed: new computers (well, computers period, according to TFA), new administrators, etc. My guess is that the reduction in crime was due to those factors, and not the cameras. Frankly, anyone with a brain in their head can figure out where a camera's blind spot is.

new ark could be 'future' survival of man'kind' (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24828847)

fear is unprecedented evile's primary weapon. that, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' greed/fear/ego based hired goons' agenda. Most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'war', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid scheme. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Multiple causes and effects. (1)

pgillan (1043668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828869)

1. Government starts installing cameras. 2. Regardless of whether or not the cameras actually work, the businesses see that the state/city is pouring some money into the area. 3. Companies start moving in, renovating exist properties or building new. 4. Property values go up, and the poor can no longer afford to live there. 5. The poor move away, and the crime rates go down.

UK Police often don't bother with CCTV (2, Informative)

Redlemons (1313923) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828967)

A couple of years back I used to cycle into the city to work. I used to leave my bike tied to the bike parking outside the city council offices, an area which is heavily covered by CCTV.

After finishing work one night, I came back to the bike park to find my bike missing. I found some 'bobbies on the beat' and reported it.

Anyway, I got a call back a couple of days later, asking if I could be any more specific about when it happened (I'd been on an 8 hour shift), as unless I could tell them the exact time my bike was stolen, they weren't going to bother checking the CCTV . . .

I realise that police have more important things to do, but then what is the point of putting up security cameras overlooking a bike park if you aren't going to bother using them?

Re:UK Police often don't bother with CCTV (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829189)

I realise that police have more important things to do, but then what is the point of putting up security cameras overlooking a bike park if you aren't going to bother using them?

Because a stolen bike isn't why its up there. Its up there to record things like violent crime, vandalism, or muggings, so they can catch the people responsible.

Your bicycle is, or should be, covered by your household insurance. Make a claim, get a new bike, and let them worry about the police having no interest in an investigation.

Re:UK Police often don't bother with CCTV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24829651)

You're right, of course.

I don't think much violent crime happens in bike parking spots though, so they really ought to face the cameras some place else!

Re:UK Police often don't bother with CCTV (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 5 years ago | (#24830327)

How many muggers and vandals ended up as they are because they started off stealing bikes and realised they could get away with it?

Re:UK Police often don't bother with CCTV (2, Interesting)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829541)

>Anyway, I got a call back a couple of days later, asking if I could be any more specific about when it happened (I'd been on an 8 hour shift), as unless I could tell them the exact time my bike was stolen, they weren't going to bother checking the CCTV . . .

That's because they have still analog cameras or shitty software. With real surveillance apps you should be able to select a rectangle with the bike's frame and fast forward until it changes more than a certain percentage. (bike no longer there but ignoring people running behind or before)

I keep getting images of ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828985)

... cameras dressed up as crime-fighting ninjas in my head.

Seriously though, cameras don't fight crime. At best, they are used to convict the people who commit the crime. In a few cases, they may be used to identify a perp who is known to the police. At worst, they drive crime to other areas (and probably residential areas, since those are the people who have the least ability to lobby for similar "protection").

But ultimately they fail because this is a technical solution to a social problem.

Could work but it all depends (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 5 years ago | (#24828993)

These things generally depend on the technical competence of the cops on the ground (And static cameras are pretty useless). I know people who work in low level law enforcement (Council street wardens) who use the technology to good effect. I know of cases where the cameras have been used to follow a perp from the scene of the crime for over 10 minutes until the cops finally arrested him. I also know of cases where the person on the ground has redirected the cameras to capture the crime in progress before going in to make an arrest.

However these instances are still pretty rare and where the cops are not tech savvy I bet they are non existent. As for the guy who dressed up in strange outfits as a protest he'd have been better off going to the PCA and asking if they had a RIPA sign off.

oh yeah, and, 'will it work' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24829211)

you know, one of those 'mundane details'

100% for. (1)

DallasMay (1330587) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829247)

Ok, I am all for privacy, but when you are in public you are not in private. Period. Let me say that again, when you are in public, you are not in private. Everyone is for privacy until they are the ones who were jumped. Only then do they wish they had the cameras.

Robocop? (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829335)

Wake me when Robocop starts his patrol.

CCTV (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829453)

Well, London (and the UK in general) is just finding out that CCTV has pretty much zero effect on crime in local areas. They never cover everywhere, and in the areas they do cover the CCTV only provides evidence. It doesn't deter much, as was previously thought, but it assists in detection and conviction. We even have these fancy "follow the person through the crowds for the surrounding mile and work out where he went" cameras - they don't work as well as you think, even with a human operator and hours of recorded footage.

I worked in a school that had CCTV in every corridor, classroom, toilets (not inside the actual cubicle but the washareas) and outside. The locally assigned police officer visited about once a month to collect various CCTV on the cases that had occurred in school and were going to court.

The ever-present, heavily-advertised, constantly-recording, 30-day picture perfect records with precise timing and location info didn't do much to help him. It didn't stop gangs of kids coming back in on the holidays and kicking doors down (the kids wore hoods, fortunately the police were able to identify them based on "teacher's guesses" and a lot of clever questioning, rather than hard-and-fast "this is definitely X" CCTV evidence, or capturing them red-handed). It didn't stop theft of laptops from inside classrooms (and locked offices) at parent's evenings. It didn't stop bullying. It didn't stop teacher's from committing various acts (pushing a kid against a wall) which got them sacked and talking to a policeman. In fact, only about 1 in 10 things did we actually have useful camera footage for and once we confiscated a mobile phone from a student because it had better footage on it.

CCTV doesn't prevent. It provides evidence. Sketchy evidence. Good policework can take an initial guess and push it through to a conviction but if someone gets stroppy it's extremely difficult to prove that blob-in-a-hood-A was actually person A unless you catch them red-handed. It doesn't matter how much you spend on recording equipment and cameras, most of this stuff isn't seen with a human-eye, so why should a computer-eye do any better? Most crimes, people don't care that they are visible. If they do care, they do it somewhere they are not visible which isn't difficult even in an enclosed school, let alone an entire city.

That said, CCTV in public spaces is fine by me so long as it's 100% that it's only recording public spaces. Hell, I record the public alleyway beside my house just in case but that's technically not allowed because of some silly rule. But relying on CCTV to do anything but provide a slightly better hint at who committed X is a waste of time, unless you can track them perfectly until a police officer can grab them. Even then, it can be hard to prove that any wrongdoing occurred, depending on the crime.

and here you will find (1, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829593)

the opinions of the typical slashdot demographic:

1. middle class to upper middle class
2. suburban, or if urban, living in a low crime area

meanwhile, if you actually go to newark, and ask a sampling of residents their opinion: cameras, gunshot microphones, etc.: that's 100% welcome for them. its funny how the constant threat of violence reorients what your concepts of freedom and invasion of privacy mean. ie, to mean: freedom from street violence, and no invasion of your privacy by street thugs

i hate to say it, but a lot of what slashdotters consider to be the real debate on the concepts of freedom and privacy is actually a luxury that the poor of the world would consider alien. the hackneyed line "he who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" is frankly, wrong. not morally wrong, logically wrong. for without security, a lot of that which you take for granted, including your entire ideological and political agenda, would not be possible. you can't educate, you can't earn a good income, you can't have peace of mind, you can't have civilization and progress without security

security is the foundation of society. societies with low crime and high security and societal stability have higher incomes and greater standards of living. please get the cause and effect here right: security makes this possible. a lot of money does not make crime go down. pushing crime down, makes standards of living go up. you simply can't build the more involved societal environments necessary for higher riches. you must have law and order, or society will break down in economically measurable ways, and in measurable quality of life ways, including respect for your rights and freedoms

how do you make poor areas of the world rich? the first thing you do, is you give them a highly secure environment. and in a society with high security, other freedoms and higher concepts of civilization can begin to be addressed. the concepts the average slashdotter concerns themselves with when thinking about freedom and privacy are impossible to address in a society without any security. the security must come first. please recognize that: security comes first, is of paramount importance. its upon that foundation of security that makes the debate, that you consider of paramount importance, even possible. the truth of course is that your entire ideological and political agenda fall secondary to the need for a high security environment

many of you disregard and belittle the concept that makes your entire mindset possible. you forget your foundation, and thereby serve to undermine your own set of concerns

now mod me into oblivion and consider me a fearmongerer and freedom destroyer. go ahead, shoot the messenger. i am merely describing common sense attributes of the realit you live in, but you don't like to hear it

i don't care if you reject this message. the average slashdotter is, frankly, out of touch with reality

meanwhile, the residents of newark know exactly what i am talking about

disregarding or belittling the concept of security for people whose daily security is a constant issue, simply makes them disregard you, as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. and they are right about you on that point

Re:and here you will find (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829939)

Only one problem: they DO NOT WORK. They don't prevent crime, they don't help to punish crime. The desperate and ignorant are given a placebo and they welcome it, what a surprise!

the hackneyed line "he who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" is frankly, wrong. not morally wrong, logically wrong. for without security, a lot of that which you take for granted, including your entire ideological and political agenda, would not be possible. you can't educate, you can't earn a good income, you can't have peace of mind, you can't have civilization and progress without security

Remind me, was the security America has in other areas made possible by cameras watching the streets? I'll tell you: no. Fundamental foundation of society? It is, but the cameras have nothing to do with it.

Read the quote again: temporary security. You're talking about permanent security. This offers neither, only the illusion of the latter.

Re:and here you will find (1)

Icarium (1109647) | more than 5 years ago | (#24830301)

My biggest problem with using that quote is that it is often quoted incompletely:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

For some reason, whenever this quote is dragged out, one or both of the bolded sections is often omitted. Granted, even in context I don't that the measures being implemented are granting any safety, temporary or otherwise. On the other hand, being able to walk around in public without being observed is hardly a right, essential or otherwise. The quote, in full, is neither morally nor logically wrong. It is simply misquoted too often to have ay bearing on the issues it is normally dragged into.

Put Cameras on cops, not on corners (1)

alohatiger (313873) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829795)

Each officer should have a camera, linked live to the station (like the video feeds on the Marines in "Aliens"). The dash camera on cop cars should also be fed live to the station.

This would a) provide evidence for conviction of criminals apprehended by cops and b) provide evidence against dirty cops.

On the public streets, you aren't in private! (1)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 5 years ago | (#24829827)

So what makes you think you are entitled to privacy there? If you want privacy, stay in private places.

Next we'll have people at the ballpark suing the network because they showed up on TV when a foul ball went into the stands.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>