Eye In the Sky For City Crime Fighting 389
Tiger4 writes "The mayor of the City of Lancaster in the Antelope Valley of southern California is considering a high-definition video flying platform to aid in crime fighting. The aircraft, would circle the city constantly, able to zoom in on activity spots instantly. 'You never know when you are being watched or followed. It would be stupid to commit a crime. You see it with such detail,' said Mayor R. Rex Parris, who took a ride last week in a camera-equipped airplane with pilot Dick Rutan. 'I have every hope that Lancaster will be the first city to deploy it. I've never been so excited about anything.' Dick Rutan is the same pilot who flew around the world non-stop in the Voyager, custom built by his brother Burt Rutan at Scaled Composites in Mojave." The aircraft is nothing special, a garden-variety Cessna or the like, but "the camera is an example of technology developed for and used by the military making a transition to civilian applications, Rutan said."
Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, though, the whole idea is wrong on so many levels it's not funny anymore. Privacy aside, couldn't they at least use a platform that's better suited to long-term surveillance, such as a small (drone-sized), unmanned airship?
Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the system to work, it doesn't actually have to record every crime. It only has to deter people from committing crimes out of fear that they MAY be recorded.
That said, I think that constant surveillance will be the end of our republic.
And criminals... (Score:5, Insightful)
...never do anything stupid, so the Mayor pointing out "It would be stupid to commit a crime" is a really excellent example of how compelling the case is for using this sort of surveillance technology.
If politicians and police were honest about this they'd be doing a controlled experiment on these deployments, putting out these systems in ways that varied both in space and time that allowed them to determine whether these things had any effect on quality of life amongst the citizens, which is the metric that matters.
Instead, they are content to make stuff up, and the average person is so relentlessly anti-empirical that they have no idea what they are missing.
Re:Anyone... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask your friendly neighborhood drug lord.
The next version of the plane is then going to be armed with 20mm cannons. Why just watch crime when you can stop it dead?
Re:Next step (Score:1, Insightful)
Exactly. Like the stupid laws pertaining to tinted windows in cars.
bad idea + bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
The camera is an example of technology developed for and used by the military making a transition to civilian applications, Rutan said."
When you have the Military controling civilian security, the civilians become the enemy. This would normally just be a gross overstepping of the government, but to use it as a "transition" for EASing military is just crazy. Things are different in the Military. The rules, norms and expectations are completely different. You can't just take an MP out of the fleet, give him a badge and a gun, and expect him to take a squad car around the block with out incident.
-Rick
Re:Next step (Score:5, Insightful)
The new fashion accessory that every criminal thug just has to have: an umbrella.
Worst idea ever (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Someone to know the crime is happening and thus record it, send cops over, and prevent it.
2. No blind spots(good luck on a roaming platform. Last I checked, buildings still are 3d and thus will cause blind spots.
3. The criminals not to take the most basic of all precautions to hide there identity(sky masks aren't exactly hard to make or buy.).
So, in conclusion, it looks like some dumb ass company built this device and decided to market it to whatever sucker they could find. World keeps on turning.
Re:It was a matter of time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember what else trickled down. Drone aircraft for military use were originally unarmed, observation only craft. When they started mounting Hellfires and 25 mm cannon, there were a few debates about the legal niceties, but it basically just happened.
Useful big brother or foggy day crime spike ? (Score:2, Insightful)
This surely is big brother watching you.
How do you know who is the "guard dog" watching ?
Who is in power is surely willing to keep it and it will use all means available.
Get ready to long shot videos or images of possibly "strange" situation being broadcastet to destroy a political opponent.
(Hey, look, your candidate was walking on a notoriously gay road !!!! he was talking to a possible drug dealer !!!!)
Of course any plausible reason for doing it will be seen as irrelevant.
Talking about the bad guy, he just needs a mask or a foggy day to have a coverup, not so difficult.
The end result seems negative in many ways to me, I would rather have more COPS on patrol than a flyng spy on the sky.
Re:And criminals... (Score:5, Insightful)
so the Mayor pointing out "It would be stupid to commit a crime"
If this is true, then why are government officials so reluctant to have their own activities monitored? Why do law enforcement get so edgy about being filmed? Why are cameras not allowed in most court rooms? Why aren't public officials monitored all day long? It just stops crime, after all.
Solution: Move. (Score:2, Insightful)
If the city I lived in started doing this, I'd move and take my tax revenue with me (paltry as it may be).
Interesting sidenote: This morning on the way to work I heard on the radio that California is in even bigger financial trouble now: Banks are no longer honoring the state tax refund IOU's, student grants are no longer being paid, people on all sorts of state-run social welfare programs are no longer receiving the assistance they are used to, etc.
Why don't we hear of more people fleeing the state in droves? I've never lived in CA, but if I did the decision to move would be a simple one. The state government is bankrupt, and now they want to monitor me from the sky in hi-def all the time.
Big brother (Score:2, Insightful)
You never know when you are being watched or followed. It would be stupid to commit a crime.
When people in positions of authority start talking this way watch out because here comes big brother.
Fuck, I'm dissapointed in this half-hearted scheme. Why don't you just skip to the endgame and implant every one of your citizens with mood-altering gps tracking chips that transmit constant video and sound feeds of whatever they're seeing and hearing? I'll put money on the table that when the technology for that exists, there will be people in power who want to do it and general public who won't fight it.
I wish we could just hurry up and split species so that those who don't care can turn into HG Wells-like eloitards.
On another note, it doesn't matter that it's a plane, other cities like NY already use those and they're attached to blimps. So I'm sorry to tell this silly mayor that he won't be the first.
Re:Next step (Score:5, Insightful)
The camera is an example of technology developed for and used by the military making a transition to civilian applications
I disagree however. Once government's start using military surveillance techniques on it's citizenry they are no longer a civilian government's but precursors to a police state. And the guys excited about it . . . I'm not sure whether thats scary or disgusting!
Re:Anyone... (Score:2, Insightful)
Trying to counter irrational acts, rationally (Score:5, Insightful)
They either plan around it (unlikely) or commit impulsive acts when the opportunity arises. They also don't always commit their crimes out-doors, or in cloud-free weather. They also don't ever expect to get caught (if they did, that would be a deterrent - it isn't).. So while keeping a plane in the air (and presumably a control room staffed, to watch the spy cameras) and a mechanic on standby to refule it and maintain it, might sound like a good idea - and may even impress the voters the chances of it reducing crime are small.
Luckily for the mayor, it's impossible to correlate one act of crime prevention with any movement in the crime statistics, so whatever happens (short of someone stealing the plane), he, she or it will be able to call the initiative a success.
I do have a feeling though, that this plan was not exactly thought out. Any sale to a gullible official - who isn't spending their own cash yet comes out with statements like "I've never been so excited about anything" sounds like exuberance has got the better over common sense. I would expect that the money earmarked for this plan would be far better spent on orthodox police patrols: more officers, more man-hours and maybe even a few public awareness campaigns. Not as sexy, but far more effective.
Re:And criminals... (Score:4, Insightful)
I get your point--especially about law enforcement, but you need to recognise than "government" isn't a monolith. Many government officials and employees don't want the crazy surveillance of other people either.
It should already be (Score:2, Insightful)
It should already be stupid to commit a crime. This guy seems to think that criminals don't believe laws are logical and beneficial. If they are committing a crime, they have already decided they don't care about that. A lot of crimes ARE stupid and are committed without regard to logic or consequence. This guy seems to think criminals will suddenly start thinking twice.
Look, you can't PREVENT crimes. Even if you have a camera, you'll only just be watching one already in progress. And if a criminal is worried about the camera, he will probably shoot it down. With an unlicensed weapon, no doubt. Way to go.
Re:Why Lancaster? (Score:1, Insightful)
They can implement it there with minimal fuss from the public, which means it'll be acceptable in NYC within ten years.
Re:And criminals... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you certainly have all the right in the world to request the footage of the incident, which will do you a whole lot of good if the tape has been "misplaced" or just doesn't exist because the camera had a "glitch" just when it happened. *winkwink*
first reference to Orwell (Score:4, Insightful)
fallout (Score:2, Insightful)
If the video feed was open to the public, it wouldn't be long before there would be clips of the mayor's butt crack showing up on youtube, as he bent over to work in his garden, or the city council folks walking their dogs and letting them take a dump on neighbor's lawns, or local fatcat businessmen passed out drunk in their back yards, all the local cop cars on patrol making illegal left turns at stoplights, etc.
The spy in the sky program would end pronto then.
Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? (Score:4, Insightful)
But as soon as an individual points a camera at this aircraft, you can bet that police will be telling them they're not allowed to do it, that they must delete the photos, or arresting them on some terrorism charge (at least, that's what would happen in the UK). It's as if objects, buildings and so on have more of an expectation of privacy than individuals do...
Not sure why your post would be marked insightful since it is pure speculation. There are valid concerns with top secret items and the gov't not wanting you to take pictures of them. For example if the gov't came out with a new plane that had some new, awesome and secret technology it makes sense they don't want you taking a picture of it. This technology is nothing new...it's been featured in games, tv shows, and hell is just a combination of technology that's been around for decades with some relatively new technology (HD TV).
/. could make said device...it may not be as good as what these cops will have - then again they have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on professional gear - but it will do the same thing.
Feel free to take all the pictures you want of this aircraft...once the military sells something to civies it loses it's top secret status.
BTW this technology amounts to an RC airplane + HD cam corder + a transmitter of the cam corder. I'd imagine someone here on
Re:Next step (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, sure, I'm guessing we'll all be embracing the next logical step in govt. surveillance!! The all seeing HD eye in the sky.
Wait, did I forget my [sarcasm] tag??
Sadly, there will be a decent number of people that will go for this. More and more these days a saying I heard awhile back is even more pertinent:
What one generation tolerates, the next generation embraces.
Re:Solution: Move. (Score:4, Insightful)
When you move out of your parent's basement, you'll find the world a bit less black and white and that Brave Words (while free and easy to make on the 'net) cost money and are sometimes hard to implement.
Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's part of the problem. We should be innocent unless proven guilty, not until proven guilty.
This fallacy presumes that we're all guilty, and it's just a matter of time until someone catches us. We need to stop referring to it as such.
This whole country is being turned upside-down by very subtle, un-noticed changes in our vernacular. We need to stop that.
Re:Next step (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In a world where umbrellas are outlawed... (Score:4, Insightful)
only outlaws will have umbrellas.
Relinquish your right to carry an umbrella. After all, if you carry an umbrella, you must have something to hide.
Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Next step (Score:2, Insightful)
It is important to distinguish between privacy "concerns" and concerns of the legality of a system.
Such constant surveillance is plausibly within the current surveillance limits established by the Supreme Court through Katz v. US and its progeny. After all, how much of a reasonable expectation of privacy do we have in our public actions. (There are cases dealing with flyovers using targeted cameras which may preclude Lancaster's use of this system, though.)
Nevertheless, such an intrusion on the everyday activities of citizenry is a privacy concern. This means that whether or not it is allowable under the law, the question (and concern) is whether it should be done regardless of its legality.
There are reasons why this is and should be a concern for normal citizens (even outside the fallacious arguments of the "you don't have anything to fear if you are doing nothing wrong" camp).
First, the belief that someone is watching has chilling effects on the activities of people. This is a benefit for the prevention of crime, but is a negative when you throw in the impact it has on legal actions that may also violate social norms.
We try not to legislate social norms in this country but, rather, legislate laws that balance utility against liberty. (Note the word try -- there are always cases of bad laws, either intentionally or unintentionally passed.) Government run, controlled, and accessed surveillance in effect chills actions beyond social norms in a way that is nearly as effective as legislation.
Second, this is a fairness issue here. Surveillance only flows one way -- information taken in goes to the government. It is not widely disseminated. Therefore, those in power to review the information also have the power to highlight and bury information as they deem necessary. These people may deem it necessary for valid reasons, or invalid ones based on avoiding the embarrassment of friends or family.
Allowing all people to access the surveillance would alleviate this problem. The information will be free so, as an above poster commented, ordinary citizens will also be allowed to see when the watchers are caught figuratively (and literally) with their britches down. Even so, you will still have a chilling effect based upon social norms.
Third, there are real questions as to whether this is the best method of achieving the alleged goals of law enforcement. Does surveillance work better in creating a safe society, or does active police interaction within a community work better? Studies are inconclusive and often fail to properly measure effectiveness. The methodology of studies connecting cost-per-arrest are inherently flawed since some arrests do more to provide a community safety than others.
In the end this is a far more pervasive and intrusive surveillance than the past aerial surveillance referenced by the poster above.
So, privacy concerns from eyes in the sky were not settled decades ago. First, you confuse privacy concerns (which are necessarily ongoing and ever-changing in nature) with legal concerns (which are more static, albeit not completely static). Second, the surveillance discussed by the OP is significantly different than the kind you reference and, therefore, even the legal concerns of this program were not "settled decades ago."
- John
Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? (Score:3, Insightful)
>> If its going to be in the Air all the time, and just circle. Why don't the replace it with a few balloons or Zeppelins as fixed air platform.
OK, I'll bite: Because the mounting harness of the camera system sold by the contractor buddy of the Mayor, is custom made to install on airplanes sold by the golf partner of the contractor. The owner of the balloon/airship company was not aware of the project, and so couldn't offer to chip in for the Mayor's summer vacation trip.
-dZ.
Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? (Score:3, Insightful)
Alan Parsons Project (Score:4, Insightful)
I am the eye in the sky
Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules
Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind
And I don't need to see any more
To know that
I can read your mind.
Re:Next step (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to sound like I like this sort of thing, but we didn't have privacy in the past. We are just returning to a more village type of mindset.
Yes, except that in a village, everyone had the scoop on you, but you had the scoop on them, as well. Consequently, everyone agreed to ignore each others little indiscretions. With where we are headed now, the government has the scoop on us, and we have...nothing on the government. That imbalance of power makes this a very dangerous situation.
Re:Next step (Score:2, Insightful)
The other abuse factor is that it is selective, based on the operator.
"Gee, that's my friend Charlie with walking towards those drug dealers..." (pans camera away from Charlie)
"Gee, looks like those officers are about to nightstick-sodomize that homeless dude..." (flies drone back to landing strip for "maintenance")
"Gee, looks like my girlfriend... WTF?! WHO IS THAT GUY?!" (zooms in close, follows them around, dupes the tape for his personal use... and during this time, ignores the punks roughing up random passersby in front of the convenience store across the street.)
Re:Next step (Score:3, Insightful)
If this "sentimate" (sic) isn't in line with "tin-foil hat over-reactions," I don't know what is.
I call Bovine Scatalogy.
... up". Besides, I know this is /., but did you read TFA? Mayor Parris was practically drooling over himself as he contemplated the possibilities this thing opens up for him.
As is, privately owned security cameras aren't worth the effort for the government to monitor on a large scale. NSA/ATT aside, law enforcement generally needs a subpoena or warrant to require you to release your private security camera's recordings. With this new technology, surveillance is possible 24x7 without the necessity of obtaining those pesky warrants and subpoenas. As if that's not enough (and I think that it is), while we have had "sky cams" the new camera is using technology that previously was only available to NASA, the military and maybe a handful of others, but this camera will be available to local law enforcement as well...and as you admitted, the previous air cams were not "ALWAYS
Call me a tin-foil hat if you want, but I just can't convince myself that GP was overreacting.
Re:Next step (Score:5, Insightful)
Our mayor (yes, I live in the AV) would indeed outlaw roofs if he could. This is the same guy who said that he would seize and kill law-abiding citizens' pets if doing so would discourage gang members from owning dogs.
Think I'm making this up??
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/26/local/me-dogordinance26?pg=1 [latimes.com]
======
"What happens when these gang members that you're trying to target move on to Dobermans or German shepherds? You going to restrict them too?" Listman asked the council.
"If they move on to cats," Parris responded, "I'm going to take their cats."
======
He's an ambulance chaser by profession, which means in his worldview, there is only one solution for every social ill: SOMEONE MUST PAY!!
The man is a menace to the Constitution.
Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely. The first prerequisite for crime prevention is that the police actually give a rodent's posterior about protecting citizens, instead of getting themselves on TV and beating the PR drums. Heck, my car radio was stolen out of the parking lot where I work. My employer turned over the video—complete with clearly visible license plate of the truck these yahoos were riding in—and nothing has happened. That was a year ago.