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!

Chicago Pondering Huge Camera Network

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the big-brother-is-watching dept.

Privacy 377

andyring writes "According to ABC7 in Chicago, mayor Daley rolled out plans to install thousands of video cameras in public places across the Windy City. In some ways, I suppose there are positives, as all the existing and future cameras are tied in to the 911 emergency center, allowing a 911 dispatcher to actually watch the area in question when someone dials 911. Dispatchers will be able to control some of the cameras, such as panning and zooming in."

cancel ×

377 comments

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

to stop all re-threads here (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206807)

1. privacy violated
2. big brother
3. evil big government
4. real time real world quake laser tag finally!

Re:to stop all re-threads here (2, Funny)

XaviorPenguin (789745) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206852)

5. ???
6. Profit!!

Re:to stop all re-threads here (1, Funny)

gcaseye6677 (694805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207096)

If you can find a way to aim the cameras up womens' skirts, the profit step would definitely work out.

Re:to stop all re-threads here (4, Informative)

yintercept (517362) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207003)

Wanna see people driving around in Salt Lake City [utahcommuterlink.com] ? You can see roads before you drive. When you are late for work, you can call your boss and prove that you are in a traffic jam. The technology is going to happen. Personally, I think our best bet is to keep it as open as possible.

Re:to stop all re-threads here (1)

Three Headed Man (765841) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207079)

I hope they don't hire any slashdotters to run the monitoring system:

Zoom in! A Woman!

Re:to stop all re-threads here (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207177)

Hurray for technology making cops obsolete! They are a bunch of worthless assholes anyway. I've had many crimes against me that no cop can help with. If everything was videotaped those crimes could be solved.

Big brother isn't a bad thing for law abiding citizens in a democracy. If anything the laws will change more quickly to reflect reality instead of being about 100 years behind. If everything was videotaped the majority of people would all of a sudden be guilty of many crimes since they would be caught on video. Since it's the majority those laws would be invalidated. Majority rules.

move it! (5, Funny)

ximpul1 (607679) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206808)

ironically, i got that 'nothing for you to see here, move along' a few times before this story loaded

Re:move it! (1)

tail.man (203483) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207157)

Yeah, it is good when the gov wants to watch everything, but in NY at the rnc they broke folks cameras and arrested many. Ran Dather didn't cover the 500,000 plus protestors did he? Or the thousands arrested? He didn't cover the gitmo on the hudson, did he?

Wake up folks, your freedom is fading fast, but don't you feel so safe? Untilthe next orange or red alert..

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/september200 4/ 030904alexoncspan.htm

http://www.unlearning.org/editor30.htm

http://letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemoli ti on.html

First post is when (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206810)

you post first.

Fuckin' Daley (5, Informative)

Naikrovek (667) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206811)

This is also the mayor that destroyed Meigs Field under cover of night and with police protection to keep people away while he did it.

This guy is a fucker. Underhanded bastard with no concern for the citizens of Chicago.

Re:Fuckin' Daley (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206940)

What personally bothered me most about the Meigs Field incident was that he had lost several attempts to turn it into "Hillary Rodham Park" and a number of other park ideas as Meigs field lobbyists were able to hold it off, but under the veil of "potential terrorism" he tore it down.

That's like saying "let's tear down the roads on Wacker Drive and run the Chicago river through it because a truck bomb could be outside of a building". But obviously he doesn't want to do that, he just wanted his park and since he couldn't get legislation passed to do it, he had his chronies go in and do it for him and because he's the mayor of Chicago and part of a vast political machine he faced little recourse from the law or media for doing so.

Re:Fuckin' Daley - maximus prickus (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206958)

I hate this man more than Bill Gates.

The stress that the closing of Meigs has caused I'm sure has caused the the stress on O'Hare.

That is one guy whose shoe I'd spit on or spill something 'accidentally' on.

Re:Fuckin' Daley (4, Informative)

littlerubberfeet (453565) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207050)

The destruction of that airfield was fully illegal. It was done with bulldozers in the middle of the night. It was done in the name of "Homeland Security". I think Daley is just an asshole. On top of that, by destroying the runways, he destroyed emergency/alternate landing locations for aircraft with problems.

Mayor Daley might have kileld people. The fire department's Helicopter squad was based at Meigs. When it was moved, it upped the response time to the lake by 10 minutes. In April? 2004, they were too late in rescuing people off the lake.

There ware about 15 planes stranded at the field. It costs a LOT of money to have a $250,000 Piper disassembled, shipped, re-assembled and then have the airframe re-certified. Anyone in the AOPA/EAA/ General Aviation community will turn red and rant for hours when one goes and mentions Meigs or Daley.

Anyway, like the parent post, anyone with such bad judgement should never be alowwed to make important decisions.

"Fucker" is not a good description. "Murderer" might be more accurate.

Re:Fuckin' Daley (4, Insightful)

lidocaineus (661282) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207090)

While you are vocal, you are probably in the minority. Chicagoans seem to love the whole Daley persona, which entails everything from being "connected" (but always just shielded enough by placing plenty of people between himself and the others), to an admittedly hilarious speaking style. Basically, he's the tough guy, and he does a lot of placating efforts aimed at getting lots of public support for him (Chicago is *much* greener than it has been in two+ decades and definitely has a broader appeal because of it, property values have skyrocketed... almost too much in some areas)... so it makes all the shadyness around him more whimsical and laughable than threatening.

I know, it's strange, but he's got it down to a science.

Re:Fuckin' Daley (1)

BigDumbAnimal (532071) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207145)

Mike royko? Is that you? Must run in the family for the Daleys. See this book [amazon.com] about chicago politics

Re:Fuckin' Daley (1)

daeley (126313) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207201)

On behalf of Daeleys everywhere, I would like to say first that I'm sorry and second, please note that the extra 'e' in my version of the name means 'not prone to evil shenanigans' in the ancient Irish. ;D

First Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206813)

I got it!

First post (-1, Offtopic)

dasmi (749217) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206815)

First post! I've always wanted to say that.

chicago sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206823)

niggers and polacks, polacks and niggers

folks, when are you going to learn you're always going to be the also ran? if you amounted to anything then why didn't osama waste his soldiers on your beloved sears tower?

go choke on your poppyseeded buns and crap white trash deep dish pizza.

Re:chicago sucks (1)

madopal (308394) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206931)

Wow...can we mod that troll up so more people can get mad at such anonymous sniping?

Re:chicago sucks (1)

madopal (308394) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206965)

Whoops, the horrible racist and asinine comment was deleted already. Never mind.

Re:chicago sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207106)

You must be new here. Comments don't get deleted on Slashdot. Now I admonish you to return to fingering your six year old sister while cranking your pud on her crazy fat face.

Re:chicago sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206962)

I always thought of Flint, Michigan as the armpit of the USA, or Hoboken, New Jersey-- probably all of New Jersey... then that makes Chicago the arseh*le. NYC is already a kosher toilet..

Privacy in public (4, Insightful)

MikeMacK (788889) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206834)

Some people are concerned about big brother invading their privacy but Mayor Daley says the cameras will be located in public areas.

So what does that mean, I can't have privacy in a public place?

Re:Privacy in public (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206857)

So what does that mean, I can't have privacy in a public place?
You can until someone calls 911 to report you for masturbating in public.

Re:Privacy in public (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206910)

So what does that mean, I can't have privacy in a public place?

How good is your aim?

Re:Privacy in public (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206913)

So what does that mean, I can't have privacy in a public place?

It means that next time there are protests at, say, a political convention in Chicago, they'll be able to track everyone down and arrest them. There will be chilling effects on our 1st amendment right to assemble.

Re:Privacy in public (5, Insightful)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207023)

As much can be achieved by photographing/filming them :
You could also replace the 'protestors' with 'criminals' and your point makes alot less sense.

I think placing cameras , if properly used by lawenforcements / third parties, can only contribute to cleaning up some foul areas (as seen from first hand experience , in a bad neighbourhood in Rotterdam, the Netherlands) and might come in handy when they are in fact used for 'inspecting the area/accident' in case of an emergency.

I'm all for privacy ; but it is, and will be , a -public- place : Then again, i think drastic measures like this, should only be done after the city has made a vote for it in a 'referendum' (i am not sure if this is an english word) ; more or less a poll amongst the citizens of the city.

Re:Privacy in public (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207168)

our 1st amendment right to assemble

Just curious - is there a 1st amendment right to compile?

Re:Privacy in public (2, Interesting)

whovian (107062) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207191)

here will be chilling effects on our 1st amendment right to assemble.

Camera aren't needed for this. Weren't there demonstrators in the vicinity of the Republican convention who were arrested apparently for no good reason, other than as perhaps a potential threat?

Re:Privacy in public (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206949)

I think it is the permanent record part that scares people.

Re:Privacy in public (1)

BurritoWarrior (90481) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207053)

There is no expectation of privacy in a public place as far as the law is concerned.

Re:Privacy in public (1)

aberant (631526) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207172)

i dont understand why anyone is freaking out about this... there are allready tons of cameras on the streets downtown owned by business, the city, and whoever else... your allready being watched... smile!

The question... (5, Insightful)

bloggins02 (468782) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206835)

... is not whether such moves are useful. Arguably, almost all privacy-invading programs are in some way.

The question is: do you trust the government (and the people that work for it!) to use it responsibly?

I for one... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206836)

I for one welcome our new totalitarian overlords.

Re:I for one... (5, Funny)

Caedar (635764) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207004)

I for one welcome our new REPETITIVE OVERUSED JOKE overlords! (Please, for the love of god, don't mod my comment up as funny. That's only encouraging them.)

911 or 9/11? (3, Insightful)

sultanoslack (320583) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206841)

I suppose it will probably also be interesting for, uhm, the "national security" folks too. Great. ;-)

Good for Chicago, perhaps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206846)

Surprised they don't have this already, but don't we have exctly this discussion on Slashdot almost every other day. I know exactly what will be posted in response to this and I am bored of reading the same arguements over and over again...

"Mayor Daley..." (4, Interesting)

boomgopher (627124) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206847)

Sort of off topic, but can any Chicagoans explain this Daley family thing? Is this like some dynasty that won't die?
I'm surprised this family is still around and in power, am I missing something as to how great they are or something?


Re:"Mayor Daley..." (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206881)

I'm surprised this family is still around and in power, am I missing something as to how great they are or something?

It's kinda like vampires. They have no power until you elect them in, but once you do elect them in it can be problematic to keep them out of office.

KFG

Re:"Mayor Daley..." (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206936)

I'm curious about this too!

I'll be moving up to Chicago next month, and both times I've visited so far I've seen hundreds of things like "Mayor Daley welcomes you to Chicago!" "This Chicago Transit Authority bus brought to you by Mayor Daley!" "Mayor Daley Police Station #143!"

It seems like one can hardly go 5 feet without seeing a Mayor Daley sign :-p

Re:"Mayor Daley..." (2, Insightful)

lidocaineus (661282) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207132)

It's kind of hard to explain... all I have to say is that once you've lived here awhile (can be less than a month really), you'll understand it... and you'll either really really REALLY love him... or you won't. Not many fence-sitters in this town...

Re:"Mayor Daley..." (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206961)

It's just one of those Chicago things. Chicago is one of the worst cities in the US in terms of under the table politics and they're kinda like the Chicago version of the "Kennedy Family". They hav ealways been "friendly with the right people and they're very good at keeping the right people around/under them.

The current mayors dad was the one that setup the dynasty in the 60's or 70's, and he did a very thorough job.

Re:"Mayor Daley..." (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207013)

Mayor Richard J. Daley was the first, the greatest, "His Honor". RJ Daley was by far the best friggin Mayor the city ever had. If he wanted something done - it got done. If you had his endorsement, you got elected as President.

The morons that came after him when he passed on were Bilandic, Byrne, and Washington - all ineffectual imbeciles who couldn't wipe their ass if they tried. The city had problems under their administrations - snow wasn't removed, schools didn't work right, etc...

So we elected Richard M. Daley - RJ's son. And ya know what - Our City Works again... Say what you will about him being a mutherfucker - he is and we all know it - but the city WORKS. You know what you have to do to get shit done around here - treat the Mayor right. Get his buy in, make him look good, promote the City, put his name on the project and it's golden. Fuck with the guy and you can fugettaboutit. Amazingly enough - the only people that have a problem with this concept are the Feds - always fucking around here making trouble... They've been around as long as I can remember, suing, investigating, etc... and shit stays the same. If they'd just leave it alone, we'd get much more accomplished...

Welcome to Chicago, home of deep dish pizza, kick ass ribs, and Mayor Daley...

Finally, I am 100% against the cameras, but if he wants 'em, they're going in and you ain't gonna be able to do shit about it except take your criminal activities to the fringes of their view... Just like in London...

But Grandpa, you don't watch TV. . . (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206853)

TV watches you.

KFG

Re:But Grandpa, you don't watch TV. . . (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207137)

Remember folks, the shows you watch on TV aren't the product the television industry is selling.

You are.

(Hits DVR button, plays video back a second time for added effect.)

I can see it now... (5, Funny)

rackhamh (217889) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206864)

Caller: Operator, help, I'm being chased! I'm at the corner of 7th and Broad!

Operator: Okay, I see you. Oh wait, hold on, the camera's stuck.

Caller: Forget the damn camera, I need help!

Operator: Maybe if I press this button... these stupid things always lock up right when you need them...

Caller: Help! He's gaining on me!

Operator: Hey Bob, can you come over and have a look at this? Camera 76 is stuck again.

Bob: Yup, we should have a tech out there some time tomorrow.

Caller: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuugggggh!

Re:I can see it now... (1)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207046)

Your forgot Step 2 :

"Tonight, on World's Funniest Citizen Beatup..."

Ok, Step 3 : Profit.

Re:I can see it now... (1)

jhkoh (588461) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207124)

Caller: Mr. Wizard, get me out of here!

Operator: I got a patch on an old exit. Wabash and Lake [yahoo.com] .

;-)

Re:I can see it now... (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207165)

Why am I seeing this as an opener to Survivor Season 14: The Ghetto.

Hmmm (4, Funny)

EvilGoodGuy (811015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206866)

It sounds like a great idea if used properly, but then again so does communism. Tin hat crew stear clear of Chicago

Excellent book: Transparent Society by David Brin (3, Informative)

joelparker (586428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206872)

How will these cameras affect our freedom?
For some good ideas, read some David Brin:
The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? [davidbrin.com]

Re:Excellent book: Transparent Society by David Br (2, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206922)

Last I checked, there was plenty of freedom before cameras even existed.

Stuff like this limits our privacy AND freedom.

The Witness Program - Peter Gabriel & Human Ri (4, Informative)

joelparker (586428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207049)

Last I checked, there was plenty of freedom before cameras even existed.

There are major exceptions: places where there's minimal freedom until cameras arrive. -Joel

A Lens on the World: Musician Peter Gabriel Provides Human Rights Activists With Cameras for the Cause [changemakers.net]

By Ann Hornaday, Washington Post, Nov 21

...

For the past decade, activists and nongovernmental organizations all over the globe have taken up video cameras to document injustices in their countries, sometimes risking their lives to bring human rights abuses to light.

Women in Afghanistan used hidden cameras to capture the depredations of Taliban rule and, later, the aftermath of the U.S. military campaign. Garment workers in the U.S. territory of Saipan smuggled a camera into sewing factories where women worked 14-hour shifts under lock and key, often without pay, to make clothes for the Gap and other American retailers. In Sierra Leone, young women spoke publicly for the first time about the rapes they endured during a brutal 10-year civil war. In Burma, civilians who are being forced into relocation camps by that country's military regime are filming the activities of the very army that threatens to kill them.

What these and more than 150 other groups have in common is Witness, a nonprofit group founded by musician Peter Gabriel in 1992 that provides cameras, technical training and distribution support to people whose stories would otherwise most likely go unheard and unseen.

The more than 25 documentaries co-produced by Witness have been broadcast on television, used in network news stories, shown at film festivals and meetings, streamed on the Web and presented as evidence in federal courts, international tribunals and the United Nations. Though only one film has resulted in the filing of criminal charges, many have been used as evidence in war crimes trials or have prompted long-awaited policy changes. Others have simply spurred progress toward collective healing. Nearly every Witness film has illuminated crimes, injustices and crises that otherwise would have been known only by their perpetrators and victims.

Re:Excellent book: Transparent Society by David Br (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207155)

But the cameras aren't going away, barring total technological collapse or something.

Brin is NOT advocating putting cameras everywhere in his book. He just asks "given that there will be cameras everywhere, what is the best outcome for society" i.e. how can we make the best of things?

Any "trusted few" with access to the cameras is immediately empowered over the average citizen. The only way, at least in Brin's view, to keep a semblance of freedom, is for the cameras to be made public access - if a camera is watching a public area, its signal should be multicasted over the net to the public, and anyone who wants to tune in should be able to. Otherwise, you're just building a panopticon to enable an eternal police state -see "1984".

In the UK, there is some semblance of law regarding this, you're supposed to be able to request any footage from a police camera you are caught on - but the police drag their feet when you request, presumably to let the secret service vet thing - they often claim "oh no that camera was off that day". Hence, I think the footage needs not only to be available but available in _real time_.

not in my back yard (4, Insightful)

anthonyclark (17109) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206874)

well, I had thought moving to the US would've let me escape pervasive closed circuit cameras, ah well...

The problem with blanket-covering an area with cameras is that after a while, the criminals simply go elsewhere...

Maybe it's like Go; we place our cameras around the country and slowly force the criminals into one little area and take it over?

About as absurd as thinking cameras will solve crime problems...

Re:not in my back yard (4, Funny)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206934)

The problem with blanket-covering an area with cameras is that after a while, the criminals simply go elsewhere...
Somehow, this doesn't sound all that bad to me. Tell you what: let's put cameras on my street, and let the criminals migrate to your street.

In my livingroom! (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207054)

Perhaps... but I contend it's more fun when the criminals don't know the cameras exist and you still catch them.

As an example I present pictures from 2 months ago when a neighbor broke into my house.

The missing link... (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207084)

The Pictures [brendangrant.com] .

MaybeI should have checked the preview more carefully next time.

Re:not in my back yard (1)

anthonyclark (17109) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207113)

That's the same specious argument polluting companies use. Yet crime, like mercury laden water, will still seep back through and affect you.

Re:not in my back yard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207082)

The problem with blanket-covering an area with cameras is that after a while, the criminals simply go elsewhere...

Speaking as a recently mugged Chicago resident, I think that's the fucking idea.

Christ, what are you people doing out there while you're walkin' down the street that you don't want caught by a camera? It's not about privacy. Y'all act like the security guards watchin' the monitors are gonna capture your images and sell it to their friends, then track you down and install cameras in your houses and bug your phones.

A message to the tinfoil hat crowd: you're not that interesting.

Re:not in my back yard (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207089)

Good idea, let's do it like Go:
Put cameras on the 4 corners of the city and all the criminals will gather at the center of the town. We'll just have to catch them with a net (oh my god, best Go pun ever...)

Re:not in my back yard (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207184)

> Maybe it's like Go; we place our cameras around the country and slowly force the criminals into one little area and take it over?

Won't work. If anything, cameras attract criminals. Just watch C-SPAN. :)

Still privacy concerns (4, Interesting)

ElForesto (763160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206877)

With the pan/tilt and zoom features, what's to stop a camera from peering into a window? How long until they start adding things like infrared or night-vision? Maybe I'm just speaking for the tin-foil hat brigade, but these questions need to be asked.

This says nothing of the rights of the accused to face their accuser. When one of these systems is used to, say, issue a traffic citation, who's the accuser? You have no witness to the crime. It opens up a whole new can of worms, IMO.

Re:Still privacy concerns (2, Interesting)

Peyna (14792) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206960)

If your window shades are open, the cops can look in. If they happen to see your stash sitting on the counter, they have probable cause.

The fact that the witness to the crime is not a person is irrelevant. If the videotape shows that you did indeed run a red light, and the facts are indisputable, what does it matter that a cop didn't see it? Just because a police officer didn't see it, doesn't mean that you didn't break the law.

Re:Still privacy concerns (1)

ElForesto (763160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207017)

You know as well as I do that digital imagery is easily forged, often with convincing results. Putting all the trust into "infallable" digital systems is lunacy. It's usually easier to out a person as a liar than a computer.

Re:Still privacy concerns (1)

tsg (262138) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207043)

If your window shades are open, the cops can look in. If they happen to see your stash sitting on the counter, they have probable cause.

And what's to prevent them from watching someone who forgot to close their shades while dressing?

The fact that the witness to the crime is not a person is irrelevant. If the videotape shows that you did indeed run a red light, and the facts are indisputable, what does it matter that a cop didn't see it? Just because a police officer didn't see it, doesn't mean that you didn't break the law.

The problem is that the cameras record everything, not just crimes.

Re:Still privacy concerns (1)

osobear (761394) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206990)

Pretty much the same thing that has stopped (the overwhelming majority of) cops from parking their cars and staring through your window.

Cameras are a tool that allow one person to do more: they are efficient. In the end there are still people doing the watching, just like we have now, only hopyfully less people (= cheaper).

Where this goes (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206878)

Eventually, they'll be able to tie these cameras into face recognition software-which will mean that anybody with a warrent out for them will have a _very_ hard time anyplace cameras like this are deployed.

Re:Where this goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207133)

"anybody with a warrent out for them will have a _very_ hard time anyplace cameras like this are deployed."

Is that really a bad thing?

Already done (2, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206879)

In Oregon, ODOT has cameras all over the state- though mainly in the Portland Area. Tripcheck [tripcheck.com] gives up to the minute road conditions in a number of weather and traffic sensitive areas around the State.

Re:Already done (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206943)

Can those cameras give any detail more precise than "There is a red car in the center lane of I-5"? For example, can they be used to read license plates?

Re:Already done (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207024)

No. Though that's just a matter of time. Of course, for ODOT's main purposes (managing the COMET Incident Response trucks and giving the public a view of what's happening on the roads) that kind of detail isn't a business requirement.

Re:Already done (1)

loraksus (171574) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206981)

Those cameras have about the same resolution and picture quality as an analog 8mm.
I presume Boston will think of deploying something a bit better in the quality department.

Re:Already done (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207045)

Or Chicago. Depends on the purpose though. The lower the resolution, the lower the bandwidth on the fiber, and the more cameras you can afford to deploy. Cost in money and bandwidth will be an issue on any such network.

Cool...! (2, Funny)

Zaranne (733967) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206882)

Now my stalking can take on a whole new dimension.

Notes to self:
1. Hack into the Mayor Daley's databases.
2. Download photos of person to be stalked.
3. Fly to Chicago and track him/her down.

*evil laugh*

Nice...

Great news ! Always wanted to be on TV. (3, Funny)

irn_bru (209849) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206915)

I am sure that it will be very comforting to know that when you've been shot/stabbed/assaulted that you'll end up in the police departments Christmas Video and very possibly even get to star in some highly 'educational' Fox 'documentary'.

The perfect dying thought I'm sure you'd agree...

Re:Great news ! Always wanted to be on TV. (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207027)

You might end up on the newest reality TV show, "America's Funniest Security Cameras", with your host, Bob Saget.

Thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10206918)

That's one more city I can cross of my list of places to live. Seriously, I grew up in the midwest and was thinking about moving to Chicago some time. A couple suggestions - how about spending the money on more and more competent 911 workers and more police officers? How about improving the actual city? Or even just fixing the damn traffic. Where I live now there's no one suggesting cameras because outside of a few rowdy blocks or bars in the downtown, there's not much crime.

Not new (1)

jeffs72 (711141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206924)

Chicago already has monitoring of some of it's 'rougher' neighborhoods. They've been labeled as 'blue light districts' by the locals, since the camera domes apparently have police lights on them. This was reported on USA Today a few months ago.

I forgot to mention (2, Informative)

jeffs72 (711141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206969)

The usa today article is HERE [usatoday.com] . The article was pretty informative.

And to ask the dumb question........ (3, Insightful)

ARRRLovin (807926) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206929)

How will that let 911 operators do their job better?
How does *almost seeing* the situation help? I mean, granted, they're probably not going to be the crappy webcam quality cameras we think they are, but still it escapes me how this will actually proactively help an 911 operator help a victim. It might help them after the fact, but not before or during.

Re:And to ask the dumb question........ (3, Insightful)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207012)

They'll get a better analysis of the situation. For example:

- Caller reports "There's been a major accident and there are bodies everywhere!"

- 911 operator turns on camera, notes that the involved vehicles have already been pulled off to the side of the road and nobody seems seriously injured, and only dispatches one ambulance and one police car.

obligatory (1)

antimatt (782015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206945)

"Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Chicago?"

"Uuhhh ... I think so, Mayor, but where are we going to get ten thousand cameras at this time of night?"

Zooming cameras eh? (3, Informative)

loraksus (171574) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206947)

"Dispatchers will be able to control some of the cameras, such as panning and zooming in."

Yeah. On tits and ass.

(search for breasts)
a la http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecur ity.cfm?ID=10059&c=111

This is just another case of law enforcement making up (or wanting to) for gross incompetency by using technology.

So, in the Future® (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206953)

Everyone will be wearing these [cnn.com]

This doesn't bother me as long as... (4, Insightful)

coyote_oww (749758) | more than 9 years ago | (#10206992)

/flame-retardant suit on

This doesn't bother me as long as the cameras are completely public. That is, they are essentially web-cams whose content is recorded. Anyone can review any part of any recording. Anyone can make/keep their own copy of the video. CRCs digital signatures stored as "official copies" in multiple locations, etc. (e.g. some protection against screwing with the images after the fact.)

I like the idea of a transparent society. Let's be as transparent as possible - that is the best way to weaken entrenched power.

But then, I'm the guy who's number one desired feature on my next car is the ability issue tickets around me for bad driving. I want to be able to turn into a cop, only with the paperwork automated. Having full time camera on every inch of roadway is the closest I can get for the moment...

No, I don't value your "privacy" on public roadways. Its a public space. You don't get to be private in public. You have to play nice with the other kids.

I'll take off the flame-retardant suit in a few days. Maybe.

Sign Me Up (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207000)

Dispatchers will be able to control some of the cameras, such as panning and zooming in.

How does one become the dispatcher in control of the beach cameras? I hear there's a lot of 'crime' on the beach that needs thorough investigating.

Cameras and Chicago (2, Funny)

Hollins (83264) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207025)

In May, Chicago tested a red light camera system for two weeks then started using it to issue citations.

On August 28, I received a citation in the mail for a red light violation. The photo was taken May 12 and showed that I coasted through a right-on-red at a blazing 11mph instead of coming to a complete stop. For this, I am fined $90.

From articles in the Chicago Tribune, it is clear that the photo was taken during the 'testing' period and that the city has since gone back to those test shots and issued citations, in my case three and a half months after the fact.

I'm now more careful to come to an absolute complete stop when making a right on red (in Chicago during rush hour, this will often elicit a honk from the driver behind you), but I'll dread checking the mail for the next three months.

You deserved your ticket (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207154)

Listen up. My brother was paralyzed from the legs after someone like you ran through a red light thinking there were no cars around. My brother was in a crosswalk and had the walk sign, but the guy didn't see him because my brother happens to be a midget and there was newspaper boxes blocking the view. The guy ran off (maybe to work for the mayor, who literally hates the little guy) and wasn't caught but now my brother has to drag himself around in a minature wheelchair.

Ohhh, I made that up. Never mind then, keep running red lights.

We're creating a monster (4, Insightful)

IvyMike (178408) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207059)

Here's what scares me: all of the money rapidly being poured into surveillance today is creating an industry that will (obviously) lobby for more and more surveillance tomorrow. I don't see our freedoms stabilizing; I see the emergence of a business model that relies on stripping away our privacy.

And yes, I know that privacy has been eroding for a while, but it feels like it's getting much worse, much faster, now.

More scariness in Emerging 'Surveillance-Industrial Complex' Is Turbo-Charging Government Monitoring, ACLU Warns in New Report. [aclu.org]

Masks Illegal (2, Insightful)

pentalive (449155) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207075)

I wonder with these cameras springing up in more and more places and the spectre of face recognition software being added, I wonder if masks will become illegal...

With this stuff going on perhaps there is a need for a new fasion statement, Burkas for everyone (you know those head to toe concealing black robes with only eye slits covered by lace worn by women in the more "strict" islamic cultures)

Oh great (1)

Nybble's Byte (321886) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207085)

So now the doughnut eaters will be voyeurs. Just what Chicago needs as they phase out the worthless toll gate attendants who steal money in favor of I-Pass...not needed as the expressways were paid for long ago...job security as some of the unnecessary tollway workers get put into this new thing...bureaucracy at its finest, and along with that butt-ugly new Soldier Field and the loss of Meigs Field, we can thank the Dishonorable Richard M. Daley, a slimeball if there ever was one...

Division and Halsted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207086)

Why is this a NEW suprise, they (law enforcement)
Have been doing it for years now..

BTW that camera setup on division and halsted
is a bit suspect

You know what? (4, Insightful)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207110)

I actually wouldn't have a problem with cameras in public places, as long as EVERYONE HAD ACCESS TO THEM. Think about it - if you could see what "they" could see, then it would take away a lot of the privacy concerns. Not all of them, of course, but at least the people being monitored would have access to the same information that "they" do.

Using cell phone cameras (2, Interesting)

ikegami (793066) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207114)

A system allowing 911 to use the caller's cell phone's camera (should the user allow it) would be much less intrusive (and technologically neat!)

How is this any different? (5, Interesting)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207118)

OK, so it might sound 1984ish to have cameras everyone in public. Certainly it makes me nervous. But how is this survailence worse than what the IRS has been doing for the last 20 years at least? The IRS is already entitled to every bank and ATM transaction, every credit card transaction, a record of all the charities you give to, a record of all income you make, and if you are a buisness, a record of everything you spend your money on. All this long before The Patriot Act or 9/11 or George W Bush or the War on Terror / War on Drugs.

Certainly tracking a person's every financial transaction is far more dangerous to democracy - (Did you order those movie tickets to Farienheit 9/11 by phone? The government has a record! Did you donate to the Green Party, or the Natural Law Party, or The Libertarian Party? Who you vote for might be secret ballot, but the government knows who you donated to! Did you fly out and rent a hotel to participate in a protest? The government knows! Pay by credit card for your web server? Don't think your controversial political web blog can't be traced to you!).

You never hear a peep from so called "Civil Libertarians" about what I mentioned above... probably because challenging the complete and total financial survailence of every American means that it would be hard to tax people, and be hard to pay for those expensive government entitlement programs that have so effectivly eliminated poverty, racism, and war (yeah right!).

Having cameras in public places is more akin to having a police officer on every corner. Yes, it can (and probably will) be abused... but people are regularly abused by Police officers without using any hidden cameras. And at least in public places, there is the understanding that you are in public and can't expect total privacy.

It seems to me that people are OK with Big Brother, so long as Big Brother will give us the illusion of "freedom". The government can know everything single detail about your political, social, and economic life. But god forbid they catch you on camera picking your nose or something!

Does it work? (1)

chill (34294) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207173)

The question is, do cameras like that help reduce crime? London and parts of England are blanketed with these types of cameras, and while they have been shown to cut down on vehicle thefts, the statistics show no affect on violent crime.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Pa ge =%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200206%5CFOR2002062 8c.html

However, that is from 2002. Can anyone find more recent data?

The two areas I think would be of interest are:

Do they help prevent crime? and Do they increase the conviction rates after the crime has been committed?

Areas in the UK have these already... (1)

McCall (212035) | more than 9 years ago | (#10207179)

We have a small network of cameras in most towns and on nearly all motoways already in the UK.

I live in a sea side holiday resort and I believe the cameras are very effective in the town where I live in locating areas where large drunken crowds are gathering at pub and club closing time. Police are despatched accordingly thus reducing drink related crimes.

The motoway system looks out for crashes and congestion, again despatching police accordingly and altering large display system with speed restrictions.

I personally think cameras are good, but then again I don't have any reason to worry about people watching me as I walk down the street or drive on the motoway...

Conversation from last month: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10207185)

Other: "I know this guy from Chicago. He says his family is all mob."

Me:"Ah. They work for the city of Chicago then?"

Other: "Yeah. How did you know?"

Me:"I'm from Chicago."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>