Crowdsourcing Big Brother In Lancaster, PA 440
Posted
by
timothy
from the nerd-campers-running-amok-at-the-market dept.
from the nerd-campers-running-amok-at-the-market dept.
sehlat writes "From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 165 public surveillance cameras are being set up to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition' of volunteers. The usual suspects, including 'the innocent have nothing to fear' are being trotted out to justify this, and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention: 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
Transparency (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is the surveillance done only by "a private nonprofit group?" In a truly transparent society [wikipedia.org] such an array of cameras would be accessible by anyone, not just a select few.
Re:Transparency (Score:1, Interesting)
Why is the surveillance done only by "a private nonprofit group?" In a truly transparent society [wikipedia.org] such an array of cameras would be accessible by anyone, not just a select few.
This has been the point I always bring up at city meetings when they talk of cameras. I don't particularly like the idea of cameras everywhere, or I'd move to Britian, but it wouldn't bother me nearly as much if the data was freely available to everyone, all the time, anonymously.
I brought that up at a recent council meeting, and the response was "What? We can't just have normal people watching the general public!!". I responded with the usual argument- If the people already watching the cameras aren't up to no good, then they shouldn't mind if we watch them too.. especially since they are cameras viewing public activities in public places. The usual response? Laughter, or simply being ignored.
The fact of the matter, is that these cameras are not being put in for anyone's safety, they are being put in so that those in power can have yet another source of information (and thus, control) over the public... but they are not willing to share this information.
I'm all for this if... (Score:3, Interesting)
I all for public surveillance only if we, the private citizen also get to have cameras on those who are doing the surveillance. Only then is it completely fair. Public surveillance is inevitable, just like we see in the UK...we might as well get used to it and make sure that the playing field is equal, that the government doesn't have a leg up over its citizens.
This isn't so bad (Score:3, Interesting)
If it really works, people hate it. (Score:3, Interesting)
The story of Adam's Block [justin.tv] is instructive. Someone set up two good high-resolution cameras looking out at a high-crime area in San Francisco's Tenderloin, and put them on the Web. Viewers could comment in real time, and log interesting events for later interest.
The drug dealers were angry. There were death threats. The camera owner finally had to take the cameras down and move. [sfgate.com]
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for the fact that people continue to not wear seatbelts, no matter what the law says. Laws don't make people do something. If people are dumb enough to drive without a seat belt, then why should the rest of society care? Yeah you might need therapy if you hit someone without a seat belt and they splatter all over the road, but you're going to feel bad anyway even if you hit someone and it wasn't even your fault.
Why should I care ? Because I'll have to pay increased insurance rates (auto AND health) because these people will be severely injured and need years of therapy.
It isn't right that I, by wearing my seatbelt minimized my injuries, am forced to pay for someone who 'couldn't be bothered' to obey the law.
If the laws were such that if you are injured because you didn't wear your seatbelt, your insurance (and the other person's insurance) don't have to pay anything, I'd be FINE with that.
About those cameras... (Score:3, Interesting)
Many areas use cameras sitting on top of the red lights to activate them. They don't record, they simply detect motion. Those of us who ride motorcycles are rather appreciative of that as induction loop sensors (those cuts you sometimes see in the road at intersections) usually don't work for us.
An example of cameras in our town (Score:5, Interesting)
The ratepayers fell into line very quickly and funding was given, helped by the robbery of an employee leaving working at just 6:30pm.
The first camera was installed at an intersection well away from The Square, not in it. The next camera was similar. More were installed. Then there was a headline, drunk drivers were being caught. It turns out they were turning the cameras to the streets surrounding The Square and watching up to 400m down side streets for patrons to leave taverns and pubs and directing police cars if "staggering patrons got into a car". When asked 6 months later why crime wasn't being reduced in the square the council said "oh, the ones there do not work, they havent been wired up."
A real snow job
Re:Transparency (Score:3, Interesting)
In a transparent society, you could photograph the Brooklyn Bridge without having a worry somewhere in the corner of your mind. You could photograph a police office arresting someone without worrying for your safety. And we wouldn't give a rats ass about who ELSE, government or civilian, has a camera - only that we have our own camera.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
So basically, you want to be able to get away with a crime you would be successfully prosecuted for if there was camera evidence. No sympathy.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:1, Interesting)
New Hampshire is the only state nationwide that does not have a mandatory seatbelt law. One of the few places left where adults are (mostly) allowed to make their own decisions. A bunch of us are working to keep it that way - check out www.freestateproject.org [freestateproject.org].
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah we are also one of the few states apparently that are a single party state for recording. Only 1 person in a conversation need be aware of the recording of a phone call for it to be admissible. This also means that if you are the one recording you do not have to tell the person at the other end (as you are the single party) apparently.
Re:Following the UK's lead... (Score:3, Interesting)
Cameras don't take away your freedom; they don't change your rights. They only make it more likely that you will be caught if you are doing something you don't have the right or freedom to do.
The case for cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
I was in a chip shop in Manchester England late one night when some young thugs tried to start a fight because a fella objected to them jumping the line. They said quite openly that the only reason they didn't beat the head off him was because there was a camera pointing at them. This was in the same year that some poor night clubber was beaten to death in an early morning disturbance over a bag of chips (French fries). Manchester has a vibrant nightlife, but it is heavily policed and I was always grateful for that. Do not underestimate the power of drunken people in large groups. Without some innovative approaches to law and order, it would be impossible to have late night bus services and the thriving club scene.
It's all well and good living in leafy suburbs where crime is almost unheard of and declaring that survailance is an unnecessary restriction on freedoms, but some people live in areas where this kind of thing is needed.
In her seminal book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs described how the design of city streets can influence crime levels. The presence of other people on a street, or the perceived presence of people who might be looking out from their windows, is enough to keep crime at lower levels in residential areas. Deserted areas such as back alleys, sprawling parking lagoons, or empty retail or office parks late at night, are all much more dangerous. The design of many American cities in recent decades has seen some short-sighted car-centric planning methods that has led to an increase in the number of these dangerously barren areas. In an ideal world, these single-use zoned areas would be retrofitted into mixed-use zones where there is a permanent human presence. In the real world, cameras are the next best thing.
Older cities like San Francisco have much of their area populated at all hours of the day and night because they were built before the days of single-use zoning. Is the presence of people on the street a curtailment of civil liberties? What's the difference between a camera recording an incident and an eyewitness who can later give testimony? The only difference that I can see is that the camera can't be intimidated and doesn't need to be put into a witness protection program.
Re:Following the UK's lead... (Score:4, Interesting)
"you don't have the right or freedom to do."
Histories greatest struggles have been about men doing things that their societies thought they didn't have the right and freedom to do. See the founding of america, women getting the vote, and on and on.
People don't see eye to eye on principles (see: copyright infringement vs theft), and the idea that there is one superior model to all others is a bunch of BS.
Principles are guidelines only and are subject to change as the environment, people and culture change around them. For instance, many of us can't imagine owning slaves or being able to legally mistreat slaves today as a *right* and a principle of *freedom for the owner*.
What is a right and what is a freedom is determined by people themselves.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)
In any case the seat belt may help, it may also become life threatening.
How can a seat belt become life-threatening in a accident in a parking lot at 20 kph, which is a common situation that seat belts save lives in?
Ask any emergency room doc if they wear their seat-belt. They'll all tell you they do, because they've seen too many nights when someone comes in after a 100 kph head-on with minor contusions when wearing a seatbelt, and someone else come in with multiple fractures after a fender-bender when not wearing a seat-belt.
The statistics back up this impression: wearing a seat-belt reduces the risk of both death and serious injury by about a factor of two. If you don't wear your seat-belt based on purported additional seat-belt-induced risk you are in the same category as people who believe in creationism, healing crystals and energy therapy. That is to say, an anti-empirical kook who hates the very foundations of science.
Re:Neighborhood watch? (Score:3, Interesting)
-1, Troll
Heh, toldja. Opinionated moderator is opinionated. It'd be too much to expect an anonymous moderator to be smart enough to understand the purpose of the moderation system. If you disagree with a post, you post a response detailing why you disagree. If you actually feel that the post is a troll (intentionally written to incite retaliation and not further meaningful discussion or provide useful information), then you mod it as troll. But those that are to stupid to formulate a proper rebuttal must sadly rely on the moderation system to promote their uninformed viewpoints.
Bring it, 'tard boys, I got Karma to burn. And even if, in your impudent rage, you mod down every post I ever made and will make, you only succeed in proving your lack of reason.