Slashdot Log In
Cambridge, Mass. Moves To Nix Security Cameras
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Feb 12, 2009 01:14 PM
from the buncha-lefties dept.
from the buncha-lefties dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Citing privacy concerns, the Cambridge, Mass. City Council has voted 9-0 to remove security cameras scattered throughout the city. 'Because of the slow erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11, it is important to raise questions regarding these cameras,' said Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge city councilor. Rather than citing privacy, WCBVTV is running the story under the headline 'City's Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Cambridge, Mass. moves to nix security cameras by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Informative)
Except cameras don't catch people "redhanded". If they catch people at all it's almost always after the crime has been committed and the criminal has fled. Beyond that statistics show that public surveillance cameras do not reduce crime. Many studies of surveillance cameras have shown this to be the case.
CCTV Cameras
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/cctv_cameras.html [schneier.com]
Parent
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm personally OK with having cameras EVERYWHERE as long as:
0) They are maintained by a separate independent organization from the police, and council.
1) Everyone can watch each other, whenever they want.
2) You know who is looking at what (you have to sign up for an account).
3) An secure archive is kept (so if people fake footage, you can countercheck).
Currently the problem with "public" cameras is the public don't get to use them, only people claiming to work for the public get to use them.
There are too many cases where the police/authorities make a mistake, and for some reason the _all_ the cameras covering the incident weren't working at that time.
Parent
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Efficiency in law enforcement is great, but I'm not sure the efficiency of our policy makers in writing reasonable laws has quite caught up with our new technological abilities to enforce the law.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>every single person who exceeds the speed limit by 1 mph even for a few seconds get a ticket? Should every jaywalker get ticketed
IMHO - yes. Then I'd know I can only do 65, instead of wondering if 70 is "probably" okay, but maybe not, but maybe it is, but who knows? I prefer certainty. If it turns-out that arresting people are 66 is too stringent, then solution is to rewrite the laws to make them effective, not to just ignore them or apply them randomly.
BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy G
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO - yes. Then I'd know I can only do 65, instead of wondering if 70 is "probably" okay, but maybe not, but maybe it is, but who knows? I prefer certainty. If it turns-out that arresting people are 66 is too stringent, then solution is to rewrite the laws to make them effective, not to just ignore them or apply them randomly.
Um, no. You'd likely get a ticket just for not letting off the gas enough going downhill. Clearly stupid. Laws which are ignored to be stricken; it's obvious people don't want them, and that they fail to reconize human behavior.
BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy Giuliani cleaned-up downtown New York. It may seem anal, but in the process of arresting jaywalkers and subway barrier jumpers, he also caught a lot of thieves and murderers.
Well, I'm sure we could catch thieves and murders if we just allowed police to randomly search houses too. That doesn't justify making petty criminals out of almost everyone else.
Parent
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why laws like speeding, anti-drugs, and other issues exist is not to benefit society, but as an alternative revenue sources for states and cities. It saves taxes so locals like the laws and don't want them repealed.
In most states, a speeding ticket will cost about $200, but states like Texas and Arizona also will force out of state drivers to pay $100-$300 a year for three years if someone from out of state gets more than two tickets. This is easy cash from people who are are unwilling or unable to stay around for a trial.
In Arizona, it's common to have a road that has a speed limit of 65. Then a sign stating school zone that is valid at times of day (no flashing lights) and a speed limit of 25. Of course, there are 1-2 patrol cars nearby. This isn't for the children of Arizona's safety. This is to get a $1000 ticket from unwary tourists, plus bail money when the PD arrests the person for reckless driving.
Drug laws are also in place for ensuring revenue, especially forfeiture laws of assets. These laws make money for everyone but the stoner caught with the dime bag. From the attorneys, to the local city who gets a free car or house due to forfeiture laws, to the prison system (which is privatized), it is a whole economy that hinges on possession of controlled substances having very high penalties.
These laws are a proven income source, and no judge will ever rule against them if they want to remain on the bench. In fact these type of laws are multiplying. In 1-2 years, if someone even alleges piracy or IP infringement, computers can be seized and become city property via city means.
Accuse me of sounding Marxist, but laws also serve the purpose of keeping those who are at the top of the food chain in power. Just look at how our dear media industry gets laws and treaties passed (which bypass government checks and balances).
It would be nice to see a paring down of laws to pretty much mala in se laws, but this likely will never happen... too many people benefit from the current system.
Parent
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy Giuliani cleaned-up downtown New York. It may seem anal, but in the process of arresting jaywalkers and subway barrier jumpers, he also caught a lot of thieves and murderers.
Check out Ch. 4 of Freakonomics. It claims (and backs it up pretty thoroughly) that Giuliani didn't do much to clean up New York--the crime wave dropped nationwide at that time. "That time" was roughly 16 years after Roe v. Wade.
Parent
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
You have got to be shitting me. Guess you don't recall the days when a cop actually walked his beat and knew the neighborhood. Far more effective than these invasive cameras which in practice record the crime as it happens and don't actually prevent anything. Ask our Nanny State British cousins how much they like their cameras.
Parent
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask our Nanny State British cousins how much they like their cameras.
For the most part? We know they are inneffective and almost all are not even watched.
The main reason they irritate people is the cost of keeping them active, not for 'slashdot modpoint gaining outrage' at the erosion of our civil liberties.
Our civil liberties are doing just fine thanks, most of the problems we have no are the result of OMG TERRORISTS!!!111ONE pressure from the US, and that again is losing steam at a rapid rate.
Unlike you, our country once got the shit bombed out of it nightly for YEARS, and we survived, started up a national health service, and began a process of ensuring personal freedoms which we still enjoy today.
You guys seem to be reacting to one single bombing event by imprisoning your population behind survellance and suspicion for years and removing all pretense of freedom.
Go you...
Parent
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless there is a couple making out, or a fine looking woman in a short skirt bending over, then suddenly the person watching the camera gets REALLY attentive.
For those who say that there is no expectation of privacy while in public, I say fine and dandy, that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. My opinion is that there is a huge difference between something being witnessed only by people on the scene and something that is recorded permanently on camera and can be shown to people who weren't there, even many years later.
The difference, for example, of being seen doing something embarrassing that becomes water-cooler gossip for a bunch of people you don't know, which is quickly forgotten, or of ending up on some reality-TV caught-on-tape type nonsense which your kids might see 10 years from now.
Sorry, went off on a tangent. Yeah, UK response to the bombings in WW2 was nothing short of heroic. I wish my own countrymen and women would show the same backbone over the much smaller threat of domestic terrorism. But that's kind of the point. Liberty comes with risks, and they only way to negate the risks is to give up liberty. That's what these cameras are doing, in my opinion.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Forcing your neighbors to pay YOUR health bills is not freedom. It's graft.
How very selfless of you. I won't bother debating the reality of the national health service to you, since you've obviously decided that being ripped off by profit led private health firms and forced to go without health care if you've not got the money to pay is a better system.
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Informative)
Christ. Ever heard of the IRA? They're a recognized terror group [homeoffice.gov.uk] residing within the UK.
Parent
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Last I checked, CCTV receives overwhelming public support in the UK, regardless of its effectiveness.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/07/ukcrime [guardian.co.uk]
Parent
PubliCamz 4 da future? (Score:3, Interesting)
When will you get it right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When will you get it right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Once maybe. If you do it systematically, it becomes stalking and/or grounds for a restraining order.
Parent
Re:When will you get it right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. I can record you every day. and in fact I do to some people, without legal issues.
There is a bus stop in front of my home, one of my security cameras cover that area and I record every person that get's on and off the bus. (motion recording is passe' record 24-7 and have event markers)
so wah! and yes I have been asked for video from the cops. I require them to supeona me for my own legal defense.
Parent
Re:When will you get it right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm assuming you're a private citizen, so you most likely don't have the power or the resources to abuse this system in quite the same capacity that the government has the ability to. Government and is priorities constantly change.
Parent
Re:When will you get it right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:When will you get it right? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not really the issue, and you've missed the point.
There is a wide gulf between having no expectation of privacy and accepting a surveillance culture.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is NO expectation of privacy when you are in public. Security cameras, when placed in common public areas are no problem. Heck, I can video tape you all I want on a street corner, as long as it is for my own private amusement.
Yeah, if walk through your camera shot in a public place, that's one thing. But setting up a network of camera's to track everything I do, everywhere I go from the moment I step out my front door until I make it back again... that's a whole other ballgame.
Great News (Score:3, Insightful)
It good to hear that at least one city council has worked up enough back-bone to stand up to law enforcement on this issue. I hope the Chicago City Council comes to a similar conclusion and convenience Mayor Daley that this is a waste of money and shut our surveillance system down in lieu of hiring more officers, if necessary. Unfortunately Mayor Daley pushes public surveillance pretty hard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is more than one sane city council. Somerville, the next town over from Cambridge, just recently passed a similar law. I believe that the Somerville version halted the camera instillation, killed plans to put up more, and put them under review as to if they want to keep few that are already up.
May cost thousands? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:May cost thousands? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Give WCBVTV some credit! (Score:5, Funny)
They could have said "City's Move To Nix Security Cams May KILL YOUR CHILDREN!"
I mean, remember poor Caylee?
title? (Score:5, Funny)
Cambridge, Mass. Moves To Nix Security Cameras
Did anyone else think this meant they were installing security cameras running BSD?
Why it could cost thousands (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't stated explicitly, but it appears that the city used part of the grant already to install the first few cameras.
It isn't that the physical removal will cost money, but that they may have to reimburse the feds for the grant money now that they have opted out of the program.
Also, this is not certain -- which is why it "may" cost thousands.
Motive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a thought, and maybe my tin-foil hat is too snug, but could the local govt find themselves removing these cams because the _police_ didn't like the notion that _they_ might be filmed in public doing things they shouldn't do, like, I dunno, beating protesters? I'm not saying that's happened, but where's the outrage from the police and the protestations that they need these cameras to "protect teh childrenz"?
Oh, hello, this is the UK. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh hello, this is the UK. I say, would you mind lending us some of your politicians? We'd be very much obliged.
Re:Oh, hello, this is the UK. (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, take them all.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a question: Why not sell them at auction with the caveat that the winning bidder has to also remove all of them from service, completing a specified removal procedure? Does that make too much common sense?
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it's not like some bored MIT students would figure out how to hack into them and have their own little surveillance network...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't they just deactivate them and leave them in place? That shouldn't cost too much, I wouldn't think... Yeah, it's not like some bored MIT students would figure out how to hack into them and have their own little surveillance network...
While I don't care for that idea, either, somehow the idea of a bunch of nerds with no lives watching me isn't all that terrifying.
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, often things like city wide security and red light cammeras are not monitored by actual government employees but companies sub-contracted out to do the job. Canceling the contract generally has a penalty involved.
Parent
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Funny)
Installing camera system: $264,000
Turning them off and leaving in place: $0
Big brother not watching you anymore: priceless
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell people we're turning them off: $0
Raise taxes to pay for the cost of operating them in secret: $0 (it ain't *their* money!)
Still using cameras to spy on law abiding americans: priceless
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Funny)
Massachusetts isn't going to let you in with an M4.
Or a Light Brite.
Parent
Re:wankers (Score:5, Funny)
Cambridge MA is full of a bunch of nerds and malnourished artist types.
And apparently, 9 Al-Qaeda operatives on city council.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Disagree. Security cameras may not stop crime, but they can be used as evidence in a trial, rather than let the criminal get-away to kill somebody else.
We just had a case like that in Pennsylvania where some crooks broke-into a bank. Had the cameras Not been there, they would still be running free. But now they are sitting in jail. Cameras are just another method of collecting evidence.
Re:Security cameras. (Score:5, Interesting)
Speak for yourself.
My interior security cameras at the house trigger the alarm and page me when motion is detected in zones if the alarm is armed. They also were successfully used as evidence to put away the punk that robbed me. Thieves are brain dead and will look directly at cameras.
also the driveway camera triggers the doorbell if a car sized object enters the driveway.
Security cameras are very useful and work great.
PUBLIC security cameras are useless except for government violation of civil rights.
Parent
Re:could someone please explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it would be easy for the government to cherry pick a few shots of you at certain times and use them as evidence to convince a stupid jury that you broke a law.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - Cardinal Richelieu
Parent
Re:could someone please explain to me (Score:5, Interesting)
bceause the "gubmint" is in a conspiracy to frame you
Uh, after enough police scandals [google.com], prosecutors knowingly prosecuting innocent people [gossiprocks.com] (withholding exculpatory evidence showing that the person did not commit the crime [reason.com]) and D.A.s declaring that they only believe in DNA evidence when it claims a man is guilty but not when it shows that the accused was either of the two men who raped a woman [truthinjustice.org]... I think its fair to say that the people in government are more than happy to frame anyone they wish.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So who was the bright spark that thought up the idea of representing "east" with a "W"? Now what can we use for "west" - dammit "W" is taken!!
The International Telecommunication Union. [wikipedia.org]