NYPD Anti-Terrorism Cameras Used For Much More 400
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the NY Times:
"The Police Department's growing web of license-plate-reading cameras has been transforming investigative work. Though the imaging technology was conceived primarily as a counterterrorism tool, the cameras' presence — all those sets of watchful eyes that never seem to blink — has aided in all sorts of traditional criminal investigations. ... 'We knew going into it that they would have other obvious benefits,' Mr. Browne said about the use of the readers in the initiative. 'Obviously, conventional crime is far more common than terrorism, so it is not surprising that they would have benefits, more frequently, in conventional crime fighting than in terrorism.'"
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Interesting)
In short, criminals are too stupid to be deterred by an increased threat of actually getting caught.
For the rest of us the idea that cameras make investigations easier (and therefore less expensive), and provide evidence that puts actual criminals in prison can generally be considered a win.
Re:Records retention? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? Isn't there a statute of limitations? :-)
Seriously, the right to conduct oneself privately is the foundation of all civil liberties. This is is why the 4th amendment to the US Constitution specifically prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.
"Unreasonable" has become the elastic operative through which the courts and executive have made impotent, the entire function of that amendment.
The role of the ubiquitous camera in conjunction with the compulsory license plate is just an abstraction of "Show me your papers, please" internal checkpointing - beloved of Inspector Jabert and Heinrich Himmler.
So, yes. The cameras themselves are indeed bad - the fact that you fail to perceive them as such? Just a sign of how irredeemable the loss of basic rights has become in your country.
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing really to do with stupidity. People tend to forget that they're being watched. It's a coping mechanism, I think. We can't always be on guard.
Where I work, there are cameras all over the floor. I KNOW that. And I'll still forget every once in a while that those are there. Then I'll see one, and I'll think "Oh, yeah... everything I do is being recorded. Have I done anything embarrassing lately?"
Re:Well, as long as it makes their jobs easier... (Score:5, Interesting)
a guy goes into the doctor's office for an annual physical.
the doctor says "I'll need a blood sample, a semen sample, a urine sample and a stool sample."
guys says "here, doc, that's my underwear. has everything you are asking for."
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Interesting)
Crime isn't prosecuted with 'deterrence/prevention' in mind. That would leave all the prisons very empty, and reduce law enforcement funding. Punishment for crimes committed is much more profitable. If everybody obeys the law, it only means we don't have enough laws.
Re:That's how it works (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. Some say it is a slippery slope, but it has been repeated again and again that something used only for "terrorists" ends up being used to chase down or catch low hanging fruit, such as the potheads smoking out behind a 7-11. Same with laws that were meant for would-be invaders from an enemy country who were looking to cause harm on US soil being used to go after some middle high school kids hanging out at a playground.
Me, being the cynical person I am, was wondering how long it will be before the camera system, originally meant to catch terrorists trying to kill thousands of people at once would end up being used to chase down misdemeanors such as loitering and criminal trespass [1].
[1]: The bar for trespass is really low in some places. Walking across a parking lot without buying at a store in a strip mall can get someone charged with this in some areas of the US.
Re:That's how it works (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be willing to bet if you looked back on when this was set up to begin with, the proponents would have vehemently denied it would be used for anything but what it was "intended for". (catching terrorists) And that testimony was instrumental in getting the green light for it to be set up to begin with.
IMHO, whenever something like this goes on the agenda, when the sales pitch is being made to the officials/voters, that they have to put it in writing that the very minute it gets used beyond those predefined and agreed on bounds, it's IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED.
If nothing else it would prove to make a very entertaining debate when the people swearing it won't go beyond "that" suddenly and most urgently fight to stop that harmless little "public rights safety" from being added to the books. "So tell me again, why is it you're so against that little clause, if you're insisting it'll never come to that???"
Re:Records retention? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I think that the dangers to "freedom" are somewhat overblown. What is legal and what is not has not changed. The difference is that our society has become a great deal better at actually monitoring individuals.
In some ways, however, it is really only a step backward in time. I grew up in a small town, and I became used to the idea that everyone around me knew who I was (and who to contact if I should step out of line). You worry about the government watching you, but from personal experience I think that you would be much better off to worry about your immediate neighbors. They are the ones that actually care about what you are up to, and it is your reputation with them that is actually most likely to effect your behavior. Yes, it is possible that the government might compile evidence of impropriety, but the worst they will realistically be able to do is tell your neighbors.
Unless, of course, you are talking about actual illegal activity, in which case you *should* be arrested. That's why we have laws.
For most of human existence it has been very difficult to hide improper behavior from your neighbors. Historically, we have lived in relatively small, very tight-knit communities, and your business was your neighbors business. The idea that you could go out in public and be anonymous is a relatively new idea. Apparently it is likely to be a short-lived idea as well.
If your definition of "freedom" includes being able to hide improper behavior from your neighbors, then yes, your freedom is in jeopardy. On the other hand, you only have to log on to facebook for a minute to realize that most people are more than happy to share the details of their life with whoever happens to be on the Internet. Most people seem to be willing to share details about their personal lives than even folks like me, that grew up knowing our neighbors' business, find uncomfortable. You can't blame government for that though.
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Interesting)
I've worked in that sort of an environment as well, and you are correct. After a bit you fail to notice the cameras. However, there is a huge difference between doing something that is merely embarrassing, and doing something illegal. My guess is that if you were planning on stealing something from your employer you would spend a great deal of time thinking about those cameras.
My father is a retired judge, and I spent a few summers working in his office when he was still a public defender. During that time I came to a shocking conclusion. Criminals become criminals largely because they are too stupid to find a more reliable way to make a living. Making it easier to catch criminals does not cure this stupidity. Most criminals simply aren't rational enough to properly judge the risks involved.
In short, the cameras at your workplace probably don't actually deter criminals either. It simply makes it easier to apprehend the criminals after the fact.
Re:Records retention? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/ [threefeloniesaday.com]
There is a bill before the California state legislature right now that would make it a crime to offer, in a public location, to sell a dog or cat. (No actual animal need be present.) "Hey Joe," you tell your huntin' buddy as you walk from the parking lot into the bar, "my dog had pups. Still want to buy one?" Under this bill, you've just committed a crime. The penalty? Up to $20,000 fine and one year in jail.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_917_bill_20110218_introduced.html [ca.gov]
Where is the outcry over this absurdity?