Cameras Help Cops Catch a Killer

CrazedWalrus writes "Philadelphia police recently captured a serial killer with the help of a combination of Homeland Security and private surveillance cameras. Police examined video from 50 different cameras and pieced together relevant footage from 12 of them, and eventually were able to identify the murderer. Once caught, he confessed to several other murders spanning the past eight years. Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?"

Why do we need more cameras?

[macadamia_harold]

And not only that, if you look at the U.S. Conviction rate for murder in the United States as compared to the United Kingdom, you'll see that the U.S. conviction rate is several times higher [usdoj.gov]. Even though the U.K. has more cameras.

With results like these, again, is there really an argument for these cameras? Police seem to be doing just fine without them.

The Cameras are neutral, its the users that...

[astonishedelf]

.. are the problem. I live in the UK, which is one of the most heavily CCTV'd societies in the world (or so I'm told). There are several major problems with CCTV. The first of which is the 'arms race'. I have read that since the various CSI series have come up, criminals are watching them to learn the techniques to defeat forensic scientists. There will be a new generation of CCTV savvy criminals who are aware of the problem and will devise methods of defeating CCTV. There are already methods of defeating CCTV which currently exist - blind spots, changes of clothing, changes of clothing, reflective materials ' dazzle camouflage', operating at times of the day or night when CCTV are less effective, and using decoys. The other aspect is that analysing CCTV footage is time-consuming. I speak from personal experience. As a criminal defence lawyer, I am planning to use CCTV footage to help counter police testimony that my client assaulted a police officer. As far as I can tell, from the CCTV footage, no assault took place. The problem is that such footage can be misused. Potential abuses of such footage hardly need to be stated. The biggest two that come to mind for me are the enormous potential for misidentification and consequences that flow. Imagine if a guy that looked remarkably like you got caught on CCTV doing a robbery? Don't think that's possible? Consider this scenario - you walk into a petrol station (gas station for the yanks), leave two minutes later having forgotten your wallet, another guy looking like you but CCTV savvy evades the cameras and robs the store, the two of you like pretty similar (remember robbers also shop for clothes same place you do), and the footage and other circumstantial evidence, gets you nailed. Misidentification of forensic evidence. Has happened. A policewoman in Scotland was convicted for a criminal offence after the Forensic Lab got the fingerprint ID wrong. The problem with stories like this is that they assume that all CCTV footage is like HOLLYWOOD. The reality is that CCTV footage varies in quality, and the distance from camera has a major impact on the ability to identify the person on it. Mistakes happen but juries might end up being hypnotised by scientists muttering mumbo jumbo. There are plenty of stories of scientists overstating the quality of their research and the evidential material thereof. These guys usually get found out but its no comfort if you'd just had your entire life taken away because someone made a mistake. The other major problem is the potential for abuse by a paranoid state power. Anyone remember the McCarthy era? Nuff said. I guess the problem for most of us is that the potential for crime prevention is so massive that it is hard to argue against it. What scares me is that what is moral and what is legal are not the same thing, and the law is a very blunt instrument. Most of us have done a dumb thing or two in their time. No harm was done. Now there may be no hiding places whatsoever. My £0.02 worth.

Re:I don't have a problem.

[simm1701]

And you say that as a joke.... Its already being done here in the UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire /6222779.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:I don't have a problem.

[it0]

What if the cameras are only there to watch for criminal activity? What if all other activity is disregarded? Does it make you pause to think that maybe you're a tad paranoid?

The kind of slippery slope argument you're using here works both ways. Yes, cameras can be abused. But what if they aren't being abused and never will be?

Because in the end we are dealing with humans. In the netherlands we have a policy that if there hasn't happened anything within X time then all the material needs to be destroyed.
The material can only be accessed by police officers.

I would say there is little to no corruption in the netherlands but after investigating 30 cities it turned out that the above 2 rules in most of them were not followed.

Next to that there are some more disadvantages:

* Crime does not disappear, it just moves to where there are no camera's
* When there are camera's everywhere, why should you care about crime, somebody else is taking care of it.
* What about the future with face recognition, etc. You are standing too long in one place, etc.
* Also new laws/city ordanances are introduced like you are not allowed to wear a mask, else the camera system will not work, i.e. you cannot be recognised. However since you have done nothing wrong why do you have to identified? In the netherlands we are required to carry identification but we only have to show it when we are suspect of something with a clear reason!!!

Re:this is sickening

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI The "Frog in Boiling Water" example is just silly, and has been disproven several times (for example at http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview11-18-02.htm [uga.edu] ). While it's a cute analogy, it's just not true.

Cameras are in PUBLIC

[geoffrobinson]

You have no legal expectation of privacy on the street. It is in the public domain. If the government points a camera there, there is absolutely no invasion of privacy.

If they point the cameras inside your home, that would be an invasion of privacy and would require a warrant.

Re:Same as always

[Anonymous Coward]

"...toe the line..."
Slashdot grammar Homeland Security Guard (911)

Re:Same as always

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with allowing cameras on the streets is that next they want them in the home

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=6506 [informatio...ration.com]

Suicide statistics and sources

[Dobeln]

From the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm [cdc.gov]

"Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001 (CDC 2004)."

"In 2001, 55% of suicides were committed with a firearm (Anderson and Smith 2003)."

30622x55%=16842 deaths

Re:I don't have a problem.

[TheSkyIsPurple]

You're making alot of assumptions.
There was no assault. I never threatened her ever for anything.
The damage (can't give details) she supposedly suffered fell entirely under civil laws, which is why the police were never involved in the firstplace.
This is entirely a case of a sociopathic person who is entirely comfortable working within the court system and using every possible angle to cause harm. And since historically, the man is the clear abuser and the richer and gets free because of it, I, the innocent in this case, have to go through extraordinary measures to prove that I wasn't the culprit. (remember, not a criminal case, so standard of evidence is lower for her side)

Even after all the hassle, I'm still a strong opponent of a basic loser pays system, because I am strongly against the "rich person's defense" problem.
I'm also against making Bankruptcy easier even though it would solve my currentl financial problems nicely.

Re:Same as always

[Hijacked Public]

It is also worth noting that even in the USA, the general public are not allowed armour piercing weapons (eg - P90)

This is not quite correct. The ability to pierce body armor is more a function of the cartridge than the firearm itself, and the P90 fires a 5.7x28mm cartidge. In the US I can purchase a pistol over the counter chambered for 5.7x28 with nothing more than the standard background check and without any waiting period.

The ammunition I can buy in the same shop as the pistol is a hollow point version of the fully jacketed round usually used in the P90, but both can pierce Level II body armor. Level III body armor, more common in the US military, stops both rounds. Commonly available 308 Winchester ammunition available at every Wal-Mart I've ever been in does just as well in terms of getting past body armor.

The P90 itself is a class III weapon in the US by virtue of it being fully automatic and having a short barrel. Civilians can still have all of them they like if they pay the government their $200 fee each time they buy one. Without the $200 fee we can buy the PS90, a semi-automatic version with a 16" barrel. It can fire the same round as the P90 and will achieve the same external ballistic performance.

Re:Suicide statistics and sources

[Dobeln]

In 2001, there was a total of 29 573 firearms-related deaths in the US.

The source is the same as before, the CDC har a handy death-o-matic, where you can see who died from what each year: (You can also get newer data than 2001 - up to 2004 at the moment, it seems)

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.h tml [cdc.gov]

This means that roughly 57% of all gun deaths were accidental in 2001.

802 cases, or 2,7% of firearms related deaths, were accidental. (2001)

11 348 cases, or 38% were homicides. (2001)

In 231 cases, intent was undetermined. (2001)