Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Technology

Chicago Links School Cameras To Police 156

Posted by Soulskill
from the i'll-be-watching-you dept.
Farakin brings us a story about how cameras in roughly 200 Chicago schools are being connected to police headquarters and the city's 911 emergency center. The goal of the effort is to "consolidate video surveillance," and it will involve both routine monitoring and real-time updates to officers on their way to a crisis. According the the Chicago Tribune, "The mayor acknowledged the cameras provide only limited security, citing a spate of shootings in recent days that have claimed young victims during after-school hours." The story also contains a video in which Mayor Daley indicated that he expects the cameras to serve as a deterrent now that people know they're under the eye of the police.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chicago Links School Cameras To Police

Comments Filter:
  • by orclevegam (940336) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:28PM (#22681858) Journal
    Remember, Big Brother is watching.

    I predict nothing will come of this but a bunch of kids getting in trouble for flicking off the cameras. Or maybe someone will get creative and steal some of the cameras, now that would be awesome.
    • by zappepcs (820751) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:36PM (#22681962) Journal
      I have no clue why you were moded off-topic... wtf?

      You are right, and now that there will be fewer law enforcement officers around, and kids know where the cameras are... well, you can imagine where the crimes will happen now, right? Anywhere but in front of the cameras.

      Can I patent the business process used for this decision?
      step one - unholster gun
      step two - ensure that it is loaded
      step three - aim at your own foot
      step four - hold a press conference to announce your new plan
      step five - shoot your foot ...
      step six - make tougher anticrime measures^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H profit
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by KublaiKhan (522918)
        There's been some funny modding lately. I think there's some grumpy people with no sense of humour hanging around.

        And yes, I dare say that some clever kids will have the fields of view of all the cameras mapped out within the week. Or someone will bring in a paintball gun. Or any other of the various and sundry methods capable of disarming cameras.

        Either that, or they'll grab their nightvision goggles, their vests with the cellphone rig on the back, the fatigues, and just wait around for Jack Thompson to
        • by orclevegam (940336) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:47PM (#22682130) Journal
          Or they could wear one of these [slashgear.com], thanks for reminding me of it.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by myrdos2 (989497)
            I doubt too many people will be buying these, so... way to make yourself easy to track as you move around from camera to camera.
        • by joebok (457904) on Friday March 07, 2008 @07:06PM (#22682342) Homepage Journal
          I predict that nothing will happen to the cameras. The surveillance and the tie-in will be mutely accepted by a population conditioned and resigned to live in fear.

          Maybe I'm one of those grumpy people you mentioned...
          • by nurb432 (527695)
            No, everyone will feel so much safer and welcome the cameras...

            Or something like that.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by cayenne8 (626475)
            "I predict that nothing will happen to the cameras. The surveillance and the tie-in will be mutely accepted by a population conditioned and resigned to live in fear."

            I've heard it said before, and see it already coming true: "What one generation tolerates, the next generation embraces". Kinda scary....pretty soon, no one will still be around that even remembers what it was like to NOT have cameras everywhere, and every move and purchase saved somewhere and potentially tracked.

            *SIGH*

          • I'm guessing you've never been in a Chicago school. Its not that they are against cameras in schools.

            They're just against things that can be broken.
          • Maybe I'm one of those grumpy people you mentioned...
            Yeah. They're called "realists", by the way.
        • by nametaken (610866)

          To which the response from Mayor Daley will be, "we just need more cameras". If history tells us anything, you can bet that the company that gets the contract for any new cameras and centralization work is owned by one of Daley's buddies/family? Welcome to Chicago!

    • by Daimanta (1140543)
      Yeah, stick it to the Man. *ahem*
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by parvenu74 (310712)
      Let's see: public schools (which are paid for by the government) are installing lots of cameras to monitor people (an increasingly popular trend among governments) and then linking up their video feeds with government agents who might or might not need access to those video feeds.

      This seems perfectly logical to me... what part of it strikes you as odd?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by truthsearch (249536)
        He wasn't implying it's odd. He's implying it's bad.

        And it potentially is. Instead of a small set of local security officers monitoring activity, a much larger set of people, further from the scene, can watch everything. That opens up much more potential abuse and misinterpretations.
    • No use (Score:3, Insightful)

      by WillRobinson (159226)
      Friend of mine said in Ohio that the crazy drug users would get the police officers to chase them on foot while their buds would steal the shotguns from their cars to sell.

      These cameras will give a false sense of security to some, and total useless to victims other than to maybe prove something after the fact. "Ya he got the S*** beat out of him for sure" or "ya he got stabbed, and we cant tell who it is in that hoodie" There is no replacement for having security where its needed, and not where its not.
  • by palegray.net (1195047) <philip.paradisNO@SPAMpalegray.net> on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:28PM (#22681866) Homepage Journal
    How about taking some of the Homeland Security money and putting it into alternate crime prevention programs, instead of trying to deal with situations where kids have already been turned into criminals?
    • by Original Replica (908688) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:44PM (#22682114) Journal
      How about taking some of the Homeland Security money and putting it into alternate crime prevention programs, instead of trying to deal with situations where kids have already been turned into criminals?

      Because the kinds of people who's careers and businesses are tied police, military, and incarceration programs are very different from the kinds of people who are social workers. Guess which personality types run DHS?
    • by geekoid (135745)
      God forbid they try to focus the oneyu on better education. That would reduce crimes! And the bean counters in Police departments don't want that.
  • by DigitalisAkujin (846133) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:29PM (#22681882) Homepage
    There needs to be a cause and effect for a government to justify this. In other words, this makes sense to fight crime in schools as these are inner city schools we're talking about but do we really expect inner city schools to be as bad as they are forever? There should be a clause advocating the removal of the cameras if the situation has improved for a long duration of time (say 2 years?). Otherwise it really does start a 1984 society and that's not good.
    • Why pay to disassemble the camera network and then possibly pay to erect it again if things go bad, when everyone is used to them anyway.
    • In a couple years people will be used to them and those cameras will effectively been invisible. So, why remove them? Slippery slope.

      You're also assuming that these cameras will actually do something. Are you sure that's a good assumption? Because this sort of non-logic has been debunked over and over and...
  • priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Presto Vivace (882157) <marshall@prestovivace.biz> on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:31PM (#22681908) Homepage Journal
    How many reading teachers could have been hired for the price of those cameras? This is sad, just sad.
    • 1...maybe 2.....

      Honestly.... 40,000 salary plus some benefits.

      Cameras are cheap.
    • Re:priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dunezone (899268) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:47PM (#22682140) Journal
      Teachers might not be any better. My brother yesterday was teaching a middle school class as a substitute, one of the students made a smart ass comment about the NIU attacks. My brother instead of over reacting simply told him that his statement was in bad-taste.

      The student himself is a good student, he has no issues, he just said something that is out of line. Yet my brother got yelled at for not reporting him to the office. You know what would've happened to the kid if the other teacher reported it? One stupid statement and one slip up and this kid is sent to the principle, then a counselor is brought in, then psychiatric help, and his parents are called in. For one little slip up the kid is attacked from all angles as the bad guy. Nothing is really solved and the kid learned nothing about what he said, hes just told not to say statements like that anymore.

      Back in 1995-96 I was still in grade school, one of my classmates had a pocket knife on her key chain. When our teacher saw it, she told her not to bring it back to school and to remove it. Today if that happens, a school police officer is notified, the kid is detained, and finally expelled from school for a week. So instead of a kid spending a week in class learning, the kid is at home sleeping and watching tv.

      The thing is, you cant just hire new teachers. You need to hire competent teachers to teach the children and to shape them into good people. You ask me who has had the most influence in my life and I name my dad and then teachers, coaches, and professors. Not Michael Jordan, or Rappers, or anyone like that, I name people who have directly influenced me.

      Teachers (and no, I don't mean all of them) don't look out for the better good of the student anymore, they look out for their own job. And we wonder why the education system is failing.
      • Misplaced Blame? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pavon (30274) on Friday March 07, 2008 @07:46PM (#22682798)
        Why are you blaming this on the teachers when all of the problems you mentioned are the result of policies set by the school board and inflexibly enforced by the administration. A fair number of teachers do overlook the stupid rules, and even if they don't it's not their fault that the punishment for them is ridiculously out of proportion.
        • by dunezone (899268)
          Most school boards are comprised of individuals who were once former teachers and might still be teachers.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by mdwstmusik (853733)
            No they are not. Most school boards are made up of people who have never stepped foot in a classroom, but somehow believe that they know more about teaching than the people who do the job every day.
          • by pavon (30274)
            Maybe in your area. But in the four school boards I have dealt with over the years only one person was a former teacher, and current teachers and administrators were prohibited from sitting on the board as it was a conflict of interest. The boards were mostly comprised of folks that were also on the boards of home-owners associations or various "Think of the Children" activist groups.
    • by pilgrim23 (716938)
      I for one do NOT welcome our overlords... Three Liberty.... frequent watering required.....
  • I'm glad I got out of high school just before they started all this crap in the name of safety. I can just imagine a cop sitting at the monitors panning the camera as teenage ass passes by.
    • by IANAAC (692242)

      I can just imagine a cop sitting at the monitors panning the camera as teenage ass passes by.

      Now it's the security guard behind the front desk of the big office building where you work.

      Not much difference, really.

  • Big brother (Score:2, Insightful)

    by IonHand (646698)
    Where would we be if big brother wasn't here to protect us from our selves? --- a lot more free thats for sure.
  • The system of putting cameras everywhere so people will know they're being watched is working so well in England.
  • TFA doesn't once mention recording. Wouldn't that mean that the video isn't admissable as evidence and thus, unless the crime's still being perpetrated when the police get there, useless for most situations?
  • For all the paranoid privacy freaks instead of the realistic people, do you really think the cops are going to just sit there and watch high schoolers walk by from miles away? Like they have time. They do seem to imply that the cops can view it from their car on the way to the place if a crime takes place. If that's the case, yeah they could just sit there while taking radar and tune into it. But then just make it only be able to be be accessed when it's "unlocked" from the HQ. Tada, problem solved.
    • by wattrlz (1162603)
      I've seen a few simillar systems in nearby municipalities and they most certianly do have someone watching the monitors 24/7. It's even a service from the local security companies to have your home cameras added to the monitor bank. I'm pretty sure they'll do the same thing here, if only to make people feel their tax dollars are at work. It doesnt seem reasonable to expend the resources to put in a surveillance system only to not look at it.
      Since you're redesigning the system so that it only functions
  • Group punishment? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chris_eineke (634570) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:39PM (#22682012) Homepage Journal
    Isn't adding surveillance to monitor a group a punishment of said group? One student flips out and goes on a killing spree, therefore all other students need to be monitored from now on -- that seems like a treatment, not a cure, for the problem.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by tgacid (1129301)
      On one hand, it could be seen as a punishment against a group, but how much of a punishment is it to have a security camera installed to monitor your own safety? I know my school installed outward-facing security cameras after some deadly violence not to actively go after any troublemakers on the grounds, but to have the option to reconstruct any scenes/entries of people entering the building in case anything did happen.
    • by kabocox (199019)
      Isn't adding surveillance to monitor a group a punishment of said group? One student flips out and goes on a killing spree, therefore all other students need to be monitored from now on -- that seems like a treatment, not a cure, for the problem.

      You know a great excuse for this? To slow/stop teacher/student sex. Go to fark just about any day of the week and you'll see some teacher or sub being arrested for having sex with student. The school can say, yes we screen all personnel for sex offenders so that the
    • by bendodge (998616)
      Correct. The cure is to have people who can fight back. Teachers with guns, anyone? Also, look up 'empty holster protest'.
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      One student flips out and goes on a killing spree, therefore all other students need to be monitored from now on -- that seems like a treatment, not a cure, for the problem.

      I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but it's not about one student flipping out.

      There are many public schools that are happy places of learning and there are also public schools that require students to wear clear/mesh backpacks, have metal detectors at the front door & have bullet proof glass for teacher's offices.

      If surveillance pushes "bad" student acts outside the school, it has served its purpose. Think of it as a preventative measure.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Revotron (1115029) *
      Are you trying to sound deluded? If you think violence is something that can be cured, you need historical perspective [wikipedia.org] and common sense. Consider how many school shootings have taken place in the last 50 years. [wikipedia.org]

      "One student flips out and goes on a killing spree, therefore all other students need to be monitored from now on"...

      One student? What would you say for if you were the parent of a child who was killed by a student who just "flipped out"?

      • One student? What would you say for if you were the parent of a child who was killed by a student who just "flipped out"?
        "Quick, somebody institute draconian measures to protect my delicate sensibilities from the statistical anomaly I just suffered!"

        Somehow, I don't think so.
  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:40PM (#22682032) Journal

    I think the intresting bit is at the end of the story, 50 police officers were to be hired, but budget reasons (cuts?) led to a delay of a full month before they could start training. Meanwhile a program to get cops on the beat and civilians to do the paper work was also delayed, again seemingly because of budget reasons.

    Note that it is purely MY speculation that the budget reasons were cuts, but it is hard to imagine how for instance an increase in budget would cause a delay.

    There is actually a rather neat trick that you can pull with this. I announce a new plan to hire 50 cops. Nice headline, people feel good about it. Delays are caused and the program is scaled back. Sometime later I announce that 40 cops have been hired. Nice headline, people feel good about it, 90 new cops on the beat... AHA! You spotted it eh?

    If I am really good I also silenty get rid of 60 cops and score another headline NOT with the firing but with the budget savings I have been managing. Ain't I good, can you guess how the next election will go?

    The problem is simple, you need to follow the news in depth and keep on a story and anything that might relate to it. For instance the increased budget for the DHS from which this camera system is payed, where does that money come from? Could it even be that the reason the budget office did not have the money for civilian office workers and the new cops was because the money went to the DHS instead?

    But people hate in depth reporting, note how many people here scream bloody murder when a new development in SCO is reported or shout DUPE when an article is really an update. For many people news is what is happening now, but for a crafty politician that leads to an easy way to pull the wool over everyone's eye.

    • The real tragedy is that the alderman in high crime areas latch onto the cameras and want them everywhere, despite the fact it reduces the funding to put cops on patrol there, which unlike the cameras, actually reduces crime. In this case, it sounds like they are at least reducing the cost of a rather pointless venture. As far as I am aware, the cameras have led to no arrests.
    • If I am really good I also silenty get rid of 60 cops and score another headline NOT with the firing but with the budget savings I have been managing. Ain't I good, can you guess how the next election will go?
      Interesting, except that police layoffs are extremely rare and the police ALWAYS fight in court and make a big public scene. There is no way a mayor or city council can hide a police layoff.

      • You allow early retirement, don't replace those who leave and don't expand as the city the police works in expands. Simple stuff.

        • by rtechie (244489)
          That's not a layoff, that's a shrinking police force. And police forces don't necessarily need to grow. If the economy picks up and crime goes down, so does the need for police.

          Of course, that's not the reason for the "shrinking police force" you describe. The reason for that is tighter city/county budgets. Not every city thinks it's a great idea to raise taxes to hire more cops.

  • Predictable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:41PM (#22682044) Homepage Journal
    So, slippery slopes don't exist and only tinfoil hatters believe in them? Right?

    Morons. Giving your rights and freedoms away like it was candy.
  • False Alarms (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Datamonstar (845886) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:49PM (#22682172)
    Would a group of students wasting the police's resources by staging some convincing (and likely quite humorous) staged incidents indicate to people who little protection camera systems like these would provide? Or, perhaps a female student who may be prematurely displaying the signs of puberty could be the focus of the same camera everyday due to her class schedule? These sort of things are prone to more abuse than they are to help, and I can guarantee that I'd have cracked up some particularly hilarious pranks to pull on a school camera system, if one were present at my high school.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Unlikely_Hero (900172)
      It would get them expelled for "terroristic threats/acts" and probably for some bizarre version of obstruction of justice.
      School systems suck for the kids in them, especially public...ESPECIALLY PUBLIC...(especially Chicago)
      • True, but horseplaying and toy weapons never got anyone expelled and definitely never prosecuted while I was in school, although I do remember many an office trip.
        • Rather disturbing isn't it? It seems some people won't accept any amount of kids being kids and are so terrified that they see threats anywhere and everywhere
  • The school district added cameras and DVR's a few years ago and recently added the ability for the police to tap into the system in the case of a 911 call or triggered burglar alarm. From what the school district said at meetings, it sounds like the police cannot legally tap into the signal at will, only when there is an emergency call initiated. That doesn't mean the police won't peek (we have some questionable police officers in town) but I think they have better things to do with their time.

    Getting beyond the school shootings scenario, the biggest problem at schools in our area is vandalism. Students sneak into the building, trash classrooms, equipment, the athletic field, etc. Now the DVR will record them, and if the alarm is triggered the police view the video feed to learn where they are in the school, how many there are, and if they are armed.
    • by pavon (30274)

      Getting beyond the school shootings scenario, the biggest problem at schools in our area is vandalism. Students sneak into the building, trash classrooms, equipment, the athletic field, etc. Now the DVR will record them, and if the alarm is triggered the police view the video feed to learn where they are in the school, how many there are, and if they are armed.

      This is a good point. The school I went to has had a handfull of breakins, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars of theft and damage. They have never caught any of the people involved. Part of that is probably just laziness on the part of the police, but still cameras would have been very nice there.

      At the same time I would absolutely refuse to allow any school that my kids were attending to treat them like prisoners - I do not want our children to grow up thinking that Big Brother tactics are normal a

    • Well, there's the DVR "solution." Or the cheaper actual solution of getting better locks. Hard to trash a room if you can't get in.
  • Damn those convenience stores, supermarkets, gas stations, banks, schools, etc., for invading my privacy just so they can catch a few crooks. I mean, it's not like I'm on their property or anything.
  • cameras (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Badbone (1159483) on Friday March 07, 2008 @07:06PM (#22682340)
    The cameras arent about deterrence or consolidation. In fact, these cameras dont have to be connected to the police. All that matters is the perception they are. They are just there to get kids used to the idea of having cameras watching them, and having those cameras connected to the police.

    What once was unthinkable will become commonplace. The first few years, kids will rebel, maybe even take down a camera or two, obscure its picture, that sort of thing. Given enough time, the kids are sufficiently inured to the cameras, and they wont even see them anymore.

    Kids that dont notice cameras will grow to be adults that dont notice cameras. Thats the whole point of this exercise. Get em while their young.

    • by KKlaus (1012919)
      Apparently the school council is run by the Illuminati. The bureaucrats that enacted this policy don't give two craps about what happens after the kids grow up and leave school ("not my problem"). They aren't trying to brainwash kids into becoming sheeple when they grow up because there's no reason for them to. How would the school principal and council benefit? Answer is they wouldn't. Yet for some reason people feel the need to claim broader conspiracies whenever cameras are involved? Life is not a
  • by segedunum (883035) on Friday March 07, 2008 @07:11PM (#22682394)
    They're not tackling the root cause of why they're having to do this. The fact is that an awful lot of kids in school in the US can get very easy access to weapons that allow them to kill people very easily. As long as the US at large is OK with accepting that kind of risk, and public anxiety quickly dies down after every shooting, then trying to half-heartedly try and film everything that people do is quite simply pointless.

    It's also no deterrent at all. We've seen from the vast majority of shootings that those involved are quite willing to shoot first, and then shoot themselves so that there are no consequences. The notion that cameras are going to be a deterrent is well wide of the mark.
    • by Belial6 (794905)
      "The fact is that an awful lot of kids in school in the US can get very easy access to weapons that allow them to kill people very easily."

      ALL kids have access to weapons that allow them to kill people very easily. This is not only in the US, but in every country in the world. Don't fall for the "guns are evil" line. Don't underestimate the amount of damage that can be done with a glass jug of gasoline combined with a bicycle lock, or a car. Removing access to weapons is simply not physically possibl
      • by segedunum (883035)

        ALL kids have access to weapons that allow them to kill people very easily. This is not only in the US, but in every country in the world. Don't fall for the "guns are evil" line. Don't underestimate the amount of damage that can be done with a glass jug of gasoline combined with a bicycle lock, or a car.

        Ahhhh, this is the classic delusion that comes out every time when the issue of guns is discussed. Which is easier? Shooting people from a hundred yards whilst being able to make a swift get away, or havi

        • by Belial6 (794905)
          Ahhh, hyperbole. You do know what a 'yard' is right? And what a hundred of them looks like? Let me put it in perspective for you. It's the length of a football field. When is the last time there was a mass shooting where a kid was shooting people from a hundred yards away? I'm guessing it was right after the mass stabbing. If you are lying, it isn't really logic now is it?

          The reason you have to keep repeating this piece of "logic" is that it is utter BS, so people dismiss you as not having valid i
          • by segedunum (883035)

            Ahhh, hyperbole. You do know what a 'yard' is right? And what a hundred of them looks like? Let me put it in perspective for you. It's the length of a football field. When is the last time there was a mass shooting where a kid was shooting people from a hundred yards away? I'm guessing it was right after the mass stabbing. If you are lying, it isn't really logic now is it?

            You're waaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy off on a tangent because you don't have a clue how to answer the general argument. Arguing about what a yard

            • by Belial6 (794905)
              Ok, so you have confirmed that you are lying as opposed to being ignorant. It is clear that you don't know how guns actually work. You make the comparison between an unlikely, if not impossible situation, and compare it to an unlikely if not impossible situation. You then get condescending because everyone does not make the conclusions that guns must be evil due to your faultily logic. Finally, when called on your faulty logic, you go into denial mode, and try to claim that pointing out your faulty logi
              • by segedunum (883035)

                Ok, so you have confirmed that you are lying as opposed to being ignorant.

                If you have a response to the argument that guns are fundamentally different weapons compared to anything else in terms of the distance and ease with which fatal injuries can be made, I'm all ears. Anything else is just mental gymnastics and denial.

                It is clear that you don't know how guns actually work.

                It's self-evident you don't know what a gun's primary purpose is, which is a tad worrying.

                You then get condescending because every

                • by Belial6 (794905)
                  "Guns. Now what are they for? They have one purpose, and one purpose only. To kill people."

                  You are either a liar or an idiot. It is well established that guns have more the single purpose of killing people. Of course, your not interested in what guns are or are not for. You think they are evil, and are willing to lie to get others to believe the same way.
                • Guns. Now what are they for? They have one purpose, and one purpose only. To kill people.

                  I've shot hundreds of rounds from dozens of guns in my life, and I haven't killed a single person. Mind telling me where I went wrong and misused those guns?

    • segedunum claims:

      The fact is that an awful lot of kids in school in the US can get very easy access to weapons that allow them to kill people very easily.
      <sarcasm> That's impossible, Chicago's gun laws are among the strictest in the hemisphere. Why, guns are nearly as illegal as crack, and we all know how impossible cocaine is to find in Chicago!</sarcasm>


      All handguns are effectively banned in Chicago, all weapons are registered with the city, and Cook County laws are not much less strict, same goes for Illinois state law -- Illinois has more restrictions on who may possess firearms than Canada, and all the laws in the world wouldn't have done much to prevent the NIU shooting.

      Selling firearms across state lines without going through a Federally licensed dealer is also criminalized, so it's not the fault of adjoining states with less controls. And if availability is the issue, then why wouldn't these incidents be more common in places outside of Chicago, Illinois, a city with laws that go beyond any laws Hillary or Barack would admit to dreaming of for America?

      These "weapons that allow them to kill people very easily" have been around for hundreds of years, the real question is what has changed in these kid's heads "that allow them to kill people very easily"?

      If another young adult wanted to kill 5 people, he could just as easily bring in a kitchen cleaver or a few mason jars filled with gasoline; every teen has access to these, so there's something besides availability stopping the average teen from mass murder.

      • by segedunum (883035)

        Selling firearms across state lines without going through a Federally licensed dealer is also criminalized, so it's not the fault of adjoining states with less controls.

        It's trivially easy to do, and get away with. You can't prevent absolutely everything from crossing state lines unless you have stop and search checkpoints.

        If another young adult wanted to kill 5 people, he could just as easily bring in a kitchen cleaver or a few mason jars filled with gasoline; every teen has access to these, so there's s

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rubycodez (864176)
      no, access to weapons is not the problem. I had access to weapons and ammo when I was a kid, and strangely enough I never used them on another human nor threatened anyone with them. My father and his friends used to take their weapons to school and put in their locker for hunting after school, as did my grandfathers. Total shootings by kids in those school districts over five decades: zero. total stabbings: zero.

      we have quite a few subcultures in our country with no regard for human life. we have men spa
    • They're not tackling the root cause of why they're having to do this. The fact is that an awful lot of kids in school in the US can get very easy access to weapons that allow them to kill people very easily. As long as the US at large is OK with accepting that kind of risk, and public anxiety quickly dies down after every shooting, then trying to half-heartedly try and film everything that people do is quite simply pointless.

      Lack of surveillance is not the problem.
      Availability of weapons is not the problem.

  • Only 200 cameras? (Score:3, Informative)

    by owlnation (858981) on Friday March 07, 2008 @07:21PM (#22682500)
    In the UK we call that small a number of cameras "freedom".
  • I can't wait for some TEACHER to get busted doing something inappropriate on camera and then the teachers union will demand these camera's be removed as an invasion of the teacher privacy.

    Or perhaps the parents will demand access to the feeds so they can monitor their own kids, and open a whole new can of worms. Once the technology is in place, its only natural that the parents should take an interest in monitoring their own kids education. What good parent wouldn't? And I'm sure all sorts of unexpected 'in
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by IdeaMan (216340)
      It unfortunately could work the other way. There is a friend of mine in jail for 20 years as a child molester for a crime he didn't commit. He was a teacher, and if there had been cameras at that time he would have been exonerated.
      All it would take would be a couple of those, or proof of the students harassing the teachers to cement their usage.

      The big problem here is getting the population to expect this depredation of their liberties by starting with kids. When those kids grow up they'll think it's nor
    • Actually, In South Korea, they do have cameras in some class rooms. and they do have an online feed where parents can watch what is going on inside the classroom.

      Luckily, in South Korea, only old people watch streaming video of the children's classroom.
  • Indoctrination (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Purity Of Essence (1007601) on Friday March 07, 2008 @07:27PM (#22682582)
    Once again school kids without rights are being exposed and desensitized to horrible human rights abuses they will learn to accept as "normal" when they become adults. The sickening jackbooted dehumanization of America marches on.
  • Anyone have any details on how they're implementing this? I'd love to know what servers they're using, the details on the networking required for the feeds, the way they structure the observation room (one person can only effectively watch a certain number of feeds, I've heard 60ish from one vendor, i think it's higher but not much).

    D
  • Let's face it: American system is so fucked up beyond belief that we must have cameras in schools. Don't like it? Find a private school for your ankle biter and STFU. I remember studying in Soviet Russia where kids fell into two categories: The ones who kicked ass (literally) and the ones who got the sorry end of that stick (but only for a short period of time). Eventually, things worked out pretty well because bullies always got what they deserved and normal kids learned how to stand up for themselves
    • by FSWKU (551325)
      Don't think that private schools are any better. If anything, they are home to people who are even WORSE pricks because they have a sense of entitlement to go along with the fact that they would rather be out catching VD than learning.

      I'll agree with you wholeheartedly on how ridiculous it is to be punished for standing up for yourself. I went to a private HS myself, and we had our share of annoying asshats. During one class period round about my 3rd year, I had been catching hell all day from a few of s
      • by $criptah (467422)

        Yeah, you are probably right about the number of "entitled" pricks who to go to private schools just so they can wear those funny outfits and brag about being elite on their college resumes. Unfortunately, the cost of private education is pretty high and this brings us back to the public school system where something has to be done. I am sure it is possible to find some decent private schools that are not made for the cream of the crop.

        Not having to listen to the gov't is one of the major advantages of

  • Farakin brings us a story about how cameras in roughly 200 Chicago schools are being connected directly to the parents of the children by the intelligent sensing of their implanted RDIF tags. The goal of the effort is to "consolidate video surveillance," and it will involve both routine monitoring and real-time updates to parents on their way to a crisis. Especially for the children who have had a history of trouble.
  • And when the cameras don't stop shootings, what next? RFID tags? GPS trackers?

    It's the guns, stupid!
  • is paved with good intentions.

    And a few cans of spray paint can cure many ills.
  • I propose we put a camera in Mayor Daley's office, and any other place we damn well please. Maybe we should also be able to track them using GPS. And how about all elected "public servants" being made to take random drug tests?

    Elected officials and people who are paid from taxpayers' money work FOR US. We are their employers. We have every right to know what they're doing at work, where they are during the work day, and what drugs they're taking.

  • It's impossible to explain to someone who hasn't worked with Chicago Public Schools (CPS) or an equally corrupt public school system how fast this will be used for corrupt, ill-thought out and simply evil reasons.
    I met some of the most corrupt sick people I have ever met in my life when I worked as an IT manager for a CPS school. Not the other IT people, they were quite amazing; but the upper administration of CPS and a great deal of the teacher's unions.
    There will be shitloads of blac
  • by Myria (562655) on Saturday March 08, 2008 @01:15AM (#22684906)
    If you treat kids like criminals, don't be surprised when they start acting like criminals.
  • But not in that way.

    Why not fight the cameras with a "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!1!" campaign?

    After all, if the cameras are in school, they'll be taking pictures of young kids. What's to prevent those pictures EVER falling in the hands of big bad child molsters?

    Isn't that why they're banning camera phones, cameras etc from parrent attended events in school? If so, why the fuck should live feeds be allowed?
  • They might as well require new school uniforms as well: orange jumpsuits.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

Working...