Chicago's Camera Network Is Everywhere 327
DesScorp writes "Over the past few years, the City of Chicago has installed video cameras all over the city. Now the Wall Street Journal reports that the city has not only installed its own cameras for law enforcement purposes, but with the aid of IBM, has built a network that possibly links thousands of video surveillance cameras all over Chicago. Possibly, because the city refuses to confirm just how many cameras are in the network. Critics say that Chicago is becoming the city of Big Brother. 'The city links the 1,500 cameras that police have placed in trouble spots with thousands more—police won't say how many—that have been installed by other government agencies and the private sector in city buses, businesses, public schools, subway stations, housing projects and elsewhere. Even home owners can contribute camera feeds. Rajiv Shah, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has studied the issue, estimates that 15,000 cameras have been connected in what the city calls Operation Virtual Shield, its fiber-optic video-network loop.' There are so many camera feeds coming in that police and officials can't monitor them all, but when alerted to a situation, can zoom in on the area affected. The ACLU has requested a total number of video feeds and cameras, but as of yet, this information has not been supplied."
That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:1, Informative)
The corrupt democratic machine has ruled Chicagoland for years. Obama was part of it.
More importantly, the experience with England clearly shows that cameras don't do much to prevent crime. Isn't there anything useful that Chicago can spend their money on?
Monitoring (Score:3, Informative)
We had about 200 traffic cameras in my last job. Experienced operators would let the video switch cycle between cameras, one per second. If anything strange happened the change in the regular pattern would be immediately clear.
Going beyond 200 cameras per person would be difficult IMHO and you couldn't pick up small incidents this way. It was mainly for big changes in traffic patterns like a car crash.
Obama is from Chicago (Score:1, Informative)
I sure he fully supports invading everyone's privacy.
Oh wait he does, he extended the patriot act and has kept in place all the intrusions of privacy Bush set up.
Re:Smash em. (Score:4, Informative)
Chicago has been violating the civil rights of it's residents for years in ways that are far more obnoxious than recording public spaces. What makes you think the good people of the windy city are going to grow a backbone at this point?
Re:How does this compare to London? (Score:3, Informative)
"Smart" is not a desired quality [ananova.com] in police officers.
Re:Public Disclosure? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In that case... (Score:5, Informative)
And even if you ARE doing something illegal, you have no reason to expect privacy in a public domain. Do your illegal activities inside the house behind closed curtains.
What REALLY pisses me off is when various citizens, trying to protect themselves from police abuse or to document police activities, are told THEY are not allowed to use their video cameras. If it's okay for the government to watch us on the public street, then it's equally okay for us to watch THEM with our handycams. And yet time-after-time I see videos on youtube where cops tell citizens "turn that off or face arrest". These cops not only violating our rights to document what we see on public streets, they are being hypocritical, and need to spend a couple weeks in jail as punishment (violating constitutional law).
I also see these citizens placidly complying, but I'm afraid I'd be spending a night in jail. I will not comply with illegal orders from cops that violate my natural, innate rights to observe and report what I see in my own city
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcWFmGtsTxg [youtube.com] - man arrested for taping in public area
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdlkKsyZY5w [youtube.com] - woman arrested for posting video taken *inside* her own home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQvHWgaVACE [youtube.com] - another wrongful arrest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NASIcf-LCyM [youtube.com] - I can't find the original video but this guy was arrested for using a camera in a public hallway - the same thing local news shows do every, single, day.
and on
and on
and on
Why is it necessary to record the police? So you can document abuses like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM [youtube.com] - Young man detained, refused right to travel, and interrogated because "you're carrying too much cash" ($4000). Last I checked it's not illegal to carry money from St. Louis to Arlington Virginia.
Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:5, Informative)
The second amendment is about militia members having the right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees [wikipedia.org].
Re:The real infringement on your rights... (Score:1, Informative)
I wish I had mod points to bump this up.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:3, Informative)
There are plenty, including members of the Supreme Court, who disagree.
The historical context indicates clearly that the term "militia" equates to all able bodied citizens*. Aside from that, there is the troublesome comma which separates and supports both the militia and the individual right.
I think the language is clear but read and consider these:
Note that they do not all support the idea that an individual should have the right, but they do all examine the historical context in detail and support the premise that the individual right is granted by the second amendment both as it is written and as it is interpreted by the federal judicial system.
Thousands upon thousands of pages have been written supporting both sides of the argument. As the amendment stands, as it is interpreted and also as it is taken in historical context it does grant an individual right. Our elected officials have the ability to amend the constitution, repeal that second amendment and even replace it. If they do so, it could be changed so that the right would no longer be one of individuals, but they have not and are unlikely make such a change.
* - what we consider able bodied citizens has changed since the amendment was written, we now include the poor, include women and do not allow slavery. This is an example of how the constitution can and should be changed.
Not a problem (Score:1, Informative)
The police will just seize all of the cameras [carlosmiller.com].
Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:5, Informative)
Not part of the Chicago machine? Um. Okay. Quoting USA Today:
"Quit job as financial consultant to become community organizer [ACORN employee] in Chicago." "Illinois state Senate, 1997-2005" Nominated to Senate by Governor Blagosovi...Blagodji...Blagosive... the impeached governor.
Re:city of big brother? (Score:3, Informative)
London has been that way for years.
No, it hasn't.
From the article, "[Chicago] links the 1,500 cameras that police have placed in trouble spots with thousands more--police won't say how many--that have been installed by other government agencies and the private sector in city buses, businesses, public schools, subway stations, housing projects and elsewhere. Even home owners can contribute camera feeds." -- but in London, any part of the government that's installed cameras has to say where they are (example [whatdotheyknow.com]), and private sector cameras aren't linked up to anything.