Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Privacy

LAPD Surveillance Cameras Go Unused 106

Posted by samzenpus
from the unopened-mechanized-eye dept.
First time accepted submitter Ethanol-fueled writes "Most of the surveillance cameras installed downtown and operated by the LAPD have not been working for two years, according to interviews and records reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Many of those broke and were never repaired, and six cameras allocated to the Little Tokyo section weren't even plugged into the LAPD's monitoring bank. In one case, a 53-year-old man died after being stabbed and beaten in Skid Row — right below one of the malfunctioned cameras. It probably also didn't help that the cameras themselves were prone to being coated with pigeon droppings and the system backend being stored in a room so small that overheating was frequent. One LAPD Deputy Chief compared the situation to buying a used car without an extended warranty — 'We know the reasons it doesn't work. Now we're trying to make it work.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LAPD Surveillance Cameras Go Unused

Comments Filter:
  • Whats new? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26, 2011 @11:19AM (#38494036)
    I'm sure all the politicians were patting each other on the back the day they installed it. And I'm sure their Security industry golf buddies got a nice contract and sent a fat kick-back.

    I don't think anyone is surprised no one actually gave a damn about it.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26, 2011 @11:28AM (#38494088)

      Indeed. Government has already made their money here. Once agan, I feel the need to point out that in the business of government -- where they spend other people's money -- there is no such thing as a loss. Even when they fail completely, they still win. Every dollar raked through the business of government increases their leverage, and their ability to exploit that cash flow for personal gain. It's no wonder that every year government costs more, both in terms of revenue and administration: that's exactly how the game is played, and that's exactly the kind of people who would desire power over others in the first place.

      • by frisket (149522) <.ei.liramlis. .ta. .retep.> on Monday December 26, 2011 @12:04PM (#38494314) Homepage
        This has absolutely nothing whatever to do with "government".

        Companies are every bit as stupid as this, installing "new technology" because some dickhead at the top insisted on it, and omitted to make any provision for its continued operation. Everyone in IT knows this (see ./ articles passim).

        And let's not have any blather about "responsibility" either: companies are just as able to cover up the stupidities of their senior execs as government offices are.

        And while we're at it, let's skip the rubbish about "other people's money". Companies spend and mis-spend other people's money with impunity* every day — how the fuck do you think we got into the current recession? It sure as hell wasn't governments doing all those shady hedge fund deals with borrowed money; it was banks: those wonderful much-vaunted joint stock limited-liability business-can-do-no-wrong corporations, run by greed-raddled execs and owned by greedy or ignorant stockholders who actively or passively encouraged their activities.

        * Yes, impunity. The people responsible have been rewarded for their misdeeds, just like the cretins responsible for the government mismanagement which enabled it.

        This whole "let's just blame the government" nonsense is simply a blind cooked up by corporate shills trying to cover up their own ineptitude. The governments are equally to blame with the corporates for their foolishness and stupidity. Blaming just one of them alone isn't simply incorrect, it's dangerous.

        • by cusco (717999) <brian.bixby@NoSPam.gmail.com> on Monday December 26, 2011 @01:04PM (#38494836)
          I'm glad you got modded up, I would have if I hadn't commented elsewhere in the thread. I work in the physical security industry (key cards, alarm systems, cameras, etc.) and it never fails to amaze me the new and inventive ways that corporations find to waste money just in my field. A local power company (not our customer) spent what I would guess to be $30,000 to put a camera and alarm system on a pole yard, but didn't spend the $5,000 to finish the fence across the back side of the lot. Cameras and alarms were from one chunk of budget, fencing had to come from maintenance and facilities budget. One example of many.
          • by khallow (566160) on Monday December 26, 2011 @01:56PM (#38495310)
            What happens when a business loses enough money that it goes out of business? It goes out of business. What happens when a government agency loses enough money that if it were a business it'd go out of business? It keeps making mistakes and often gets rewarded with increased fund or power for making those mistakes. (Eg, the federal government through several mistakes let terrorists take down the World Trade Center towers. Laws like the Patriot Act "fix" that by giving them more money and power.)
            • by Anonymous Coward

              The company goes out of business only to be replaced by another company run by the same crooks. To make it even more interesting, these same crooks are also being installed into various government positions where they can ligitimize their criminal activities.

              My parents were swindled out of a $50k deposite on a home by a businessman who bankrupt his business three separate times, each time personally making off with large sums of money. When suit was brought against him, his government friends stept in to

              • by khallow (566160)

                The company goes out of business only to be replaced by another company run by the same crooks.

                My parents were swindled out of a $50k deposite on a home by a businessman who bankrupt his business three separate times, each time personally making off with large sums of money. When suit was brought against him, his government friends stept in to make sure he could not be held responsible.

                So you try to make a claim about serial fraud in business and shortly thereafter the involvement of government shows up. To create lasting injustice, you need someone with more power than a mere business can muster.

                • by Anonymous Coward

                  So you try to make a claim about serial fraud in business and shortly thereafter the involvement of government shows up. To create lasting injustice, you need someone with more power than a mere business can muster.

                  And who got called in to stop the serial fraud in the first place? The government, via the justice system. Who got called in to make that behavior illegal to begin with? The government.

                  To create lasting justice, you need someone with more power than a mere business can muster.

                  And of course, when

                  • by khallow (566160)

                    To create lasting justice, you need someone with more power than a mere business can muster.

                    That's right. Look in a mirror. That's one of the people who's responsible for lasting justice.

                    And of course, when you elect a bunch of pro-business (often operating as nominal libertarians of one kind or another) hooligans into office - especially on the local and state level - you get predictable results: lasting injustice.

                    Ah, a libertarian bash. Hooligans disguise themselves as plenty of ideologies. But certain ideologies such as the ones that speak of "fairness" or using the government to fix everything seem particularly susceptible to exploitation.

                    • by sjames (1099)

                      You missed an important subtlety. He said operating as nominal libertarians. That is, they call it libertarianism but it's really just putting business interests (or more likely crony) above individual rights.

                      As for hooligans, I find they come in all stripes and will change the ideology they espouse as necessary. They truly care for nothing but the power and money they can grab.

                    • by khallow (566160)

                      You missed an important subtlety. He said operating as nominal libertarians. That is, they call it libertarianism but it's really just putting business interests (or more likely crony) above individual rights.

                      I doubt Mr. AC complains as much about nominally progressive hooligans.

                    • by sjames (1099)

                      The crooked cronies relevant to this thread who want to put business interests above individual rights find it easier to use libertarianism as a smokescreen. It's the prohibitionists that use a progressive smokescreen.

              • *My parents were swindled out of a $50k deposite on a home by a businessman who bankrupt his business three separate times, each time personally making off with large sums of money.*

                Of course, there's something to be said in favor of due diligence when putting down $50k deposits. Your parents should have done due diligence, but didn't. The government has no incentive to even try... after all, it's not their money.

        • by Bartles (1198017)
          Companies didn't take other people's money at gunpoint. And when they foolishly spend other people's money that other people gave to them voluntarily, they go under like they're supposed to, making room for other companies that aren't so foolish. At least that's how it used to work. Now risk is rapidly being removed from the market, profits are privatized, and losses are public. Welcome to fascism (economic variety).
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by khallow (566160)

          This has absolutely nothing whatever to do with "government".

          Companies are every bit as stupid as this, installing "new technology" because some dickhead at the top insisted on it, and omitted to make any provision for its continued operation. Everyone in IT knows this (see ./ articles passim).

          The only problem with your claim is that the Los Angelos Police Department is a government agency not a company (at least, yet). So observing that companies occasionally make bad decisions is irrelevant. Second, enough failure in a business and the business goes away. The LAPD will still be kicking until Los Angelos ceases to be a going concern.

          And let's not have any blather about "responsibility" either: companies are just as able to cover up the stupidities of their senior execs as government offices are.

          The obvious rebuttal is that corporate executives go to jail for the sort of stuff that governments pull routinely (such as understating or not even bothering to sta

          • Governments do go out of business. They lose elections, and the cronies they appoint end up working honest jobs. And they don't spend "other people's" money, they spend our money because we choose to give it to them to spend. You don't have to like democracy, but that's how it works. If you would rather live in e.g. some libertarian utopia, by all means go and set up your own.
            • by cusco (717999)
              They don't even have to set up their own, there are two already waiting for them; Haiti and Somalia.
              • Ah, yes, it's the Godwin's Law of Libertarianism: As an online discussion on Libertarianism grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Somalia approaches 1.

                Similarly to Godwin's Law, the person invoking the comparison loses all credibility as they are forced to resort to hyperbolic comparison rather than factual information.

            • by khallow (566160)

              Governments do go out of business. They lose elections, and the cronies they appoint end up working honest jobs.

              That doesn't happen in the US. For example, the CIA and NASA haven't ever lost an election.

        • by jc42 (318812)

          This whole "let's just blame the government" nonsense is simply a blind cooked up by corporate shills trying to cover up their own ineptitude. The governments are equally to blame with the corporates for their foolishness and stupidity. Blaming just one of them alone isn't simply incorrect, it's dangerous.

          Some years ago, when I was preparing to leave academia for a much better-paying job in "industry", I read a rather timely bit of "advice to graduates". The author predicted that nearly everyone present would, after a few months in their first job, slowly come to realize that the company was incredibly incompetent, especially the people at the top who had little if any understanding of how their company worked but still gave orders to their underlings. Many of you will eventually ask yourself "How could t

          • When this analysis is applied to whole civilizations you get this wonderfully reassuring treatise [amazon.com].

          • The thing is that while what you say is true, most companies have a large degree of incompetence, it's a self-correcting problem - because companies have limited funds they can only become SO incompetent and still survive at all. While it's true in large groups humans allow incompetency to thrive through inaction, people are also capable at times of working around incompetence when it matters. Companies really function more often than not because of the 3% of employees who know where and how to bend the r

            • by geniice (1336589)

              The proof again goes back to the cameras in question. Can you really imagine ANY private company where a vast number of physical security measures simply do not work at all?

              Sure. There's even a market for fake cameras or at least there used to be. Real ones may have got so cheap that it has ceased to be worthwhile. Even if we assume a flawlessly run company its entirely possible that they have broken security stuff that wasn't worth scrapping when it became obsolete or experimental stuff that turned out to be not worthwhile but was never removed.

              In real companies non working gates (or gates simply left open) and broken CCTV is entirely possible (does security even have a main

              • Sure. There's even a market for fake cameras or at least there used to be.

                Putting in fake cameras is utterly different than deciding a camera is really needed somewhere and then letting it break without repair or even knowing what is broken!!

                In real companies non working gates (or gates simply left open) and broken CCTV is entirely possible (does security even have a maintenance budget?)

                OF COURSE physical security departments have maintenance budgets. Something like that broken is fixed in days, if not hou

                • by cusco (717999)
                  Hee, hee, you're funny. If there isn't a government agency or insurance company breathing down their neck "something like that broken" is fixed in weeks, if not months/years/ever. Stockholders don't give a shit if 100 bottles of Oxycontin disappear from the pharmacy since it's covered by insurance, but $15,000 to install a camera system to catch the thief, and $10,000 to install security to prevent the next theft comes off the bottom line and affects the share price. In the real world stockholders and th
            • by cusco (717999)
              Can you really imagine ANY private company where a vast number of physical security measures simply do not work at all?

              Yep, our company has dealt with several. Normally the situation arises because the original system was installed incorrectly by the maintenance/facilities staff, ignored or actively sabotaged by IT, and covered up by managers and executives that have since moved on. Generally when the customer finds out what it's going to cost to bring things back up to the level of 'functioning adequ
              • by jc42 (318812)

                Can you really imagine ANY private company where a vast number of physical security measures simply do not work at all?

                Yep, our company has dealt with several. Normally the situation arises because the original system was installed incorrectly by the maintenance/facilities staff, ignored or actively sabotaged by IT, and covered up by managers and executives that have since moved on. ...

                Heh. I held off replying to see what other responses might appear. It seems that at least a few people here don't have that "private business never does anything wrong but governments are always incompetent" belief system.

                A few years back, I was one of the organizers of an evening event at an organization that I consulted for. When I got there maybe 10 minutes before it was to start, I found the place dark, and a crowd of people outside. Nobody with a key had showed up, and calls hadn't gotten throug

                • by cusco (717999)
                  The repeated claims sprinkled throughout this thread that 'incompetent people are always fired in private businesses' are amusing as well. I'd be willing to bet that every one of them could point at someone in their own office who invalidates that claim, if they had just thought for ten seconds about it.
        • If in a private company you spend a lot of money on a system that totally doesn't work, eventually there are problems and people find out and things change.

          Companies often can overspend or get people who get kickbacks from suppliers, yes. But in the end even though they may have overpaid they get a system that roughly at least works.

          In government as we can see from this story there is NO limit to the scope or size of failure that is simply accepted with a shrug, and there is no responsibility whatsoever -

    • by erroneus (253617)

      Actually, this article signals people to complain "you need to spend more money and be more serious about surveilling us!"

  • Ethanol-fueled (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    First time accepted submitter Ethanol-fueled writes

    Really? I am quite sure there have been stories by him before. He's a known long-time Slashdotter, after all.

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by Lumpy (12016)

      he is user 1125189.. he is not a "long time slashdotter" with a 7 digit UID.

    • Re:Ethanol-fueled (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) on Monday December 26, 2011 @01:09PM (#38494868) Homepage Journal
      You must know my history here to be surprised. I'm admittedly surprised that my submission was accepted. In fact, I just stumbled out of bed still reeking of booze to find this, and it's apparently not a hallucination.

      But seriously, guys. Not only did I live in Los Angeles for 3 years, but I wanted to address the "theater" part of the security theater as it relates to the trend of installing municipal cameras. Criminals will realize that they're bullshit and continue to, well, be criminals. The cop(s) assigned to watching the cameras could have instead walked the beat, arrested criminals, and got real work done.
      • Historically, a beat cop's job was to go around and black-jack the thugs into the shadows and make the street safer for the tax-payers. Somehow a confluence of enforcing numerous new laws and civil-rights lawyers for the unlicensed thugs has made actual public service a lower priority; A pretext now, actually- if crime rates continue to fall, expect new laws to criminalize more of the tax-payer class as they are much safer and more convenient to arrest and incarcerate than professional felons.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Big Brother is lazy.

  • wear and tear (Score:3, Informative)

    by Christopher_Wood (583494) on Monday December 26, 2011 @11:26AM (#38494084)

    I've worked with cops and I'm not terribly surprised - "excessive" wear and tear was always a problem. This isn't the first expensive system I've heard of being kept in a closet. Give it a few years and the dust might have been a factor too.

    (I'm not sure if it's actually a surveillance state if nobody's looking through the broken cameras.)

    • Re:wear and tear (Score:5, Informative)

      by vlm (69642) on Monday December 26, 2011 @11:30AM (#38494104)

      (I'm not sure if it's actually a surveillance state if nobody's looking through the broken cameras.)

      The purpose of a surveillance state is to encourage fear and intimidation and conformity and servility. You don't need to actually use the cameras to infect society with those values... just install them. Its to intimidate the permanently downwardly mobile middle class and the 60's radicals now turned grandparents, not to scare the lower class criminals.

      • You don't even need to install them.
        If you look at your local store, there are domes EVERYWHERE in the ceiling for camera's, but only a few have a camera in them..
        The very thought that you MIGHT be watched makes most of us behave better.

      • by Hentes (2461350)

        I went to school in a pretty bad neighbourhood, and trust me criminals knew perfectly well that those cameras were there just for show. People got robbed in front of them every other day. Luckily a law was passed that required the police to have at least one policeman watching the cameras all the time, and there were cops close enough so they could come when needed, which made it a little better. But cameras are just tools, they won't solve the problem just by themselves.

    • by Sulphur (1548251)

      I've worked with cops and I'm not terribly surprised - "excessive" wear and tear was always a problem. This isn't the first expensive system I've heard of being kept in a closet. Give it a few years and the dust might have been a factor too.

      (I'm not sure if it's actually a surveillance state if nobody's looking through the broken cameras.)

      Wait for courtroom commentary on some preventable crime, and they will hire tube watchers from the gaming industry.

      • They won't have to pay anyone. Go down to the closest retiree hangout and ask people if they want to help 'prevent crime' or 'stop criminals' or some such buzz words and you'll have more volunteers than you know what to do with. Several Seattle-area municipalities are doing this and the politicians love it, since it gets the people who are most likely to vote involved in a program connected with their name. The programs have actually done absolutely nothing at all to reduce crime, but the PR boost is pri
        • by jc42 (318812)

          WTF??? The moron installers didn't even use a $1.50 chunk of bird spike to keep the housings clear?

          Like the cameras, installing "bird spike" isn't always as effective as its sellers might tell you. A few years ago, a local historic church had a bird problem. The main doors opened onto a large covered walkway, the width of the build, which had the usual decorative ledges and decorations that were excellent bird perches, and they decided to Do Something About It. They installed bird spike on top of the ledges.

          The local sparrows, starlings and pigeons understood just what this was for. They started b

          • by cusco (717999)
            That's hilarious. There are various flavors of bird spike with different applications. The best stuff for ledges that I've seen aren't "spikes" so much as angled wires that touch the ledge on the bottom and the wall at the top. Birds can actually land on it, but it's an uncomfortable perch (they slide down) and nesting material falls off. Standard bird spike would let a bird grab a spike while leaning on the wall, which lets them bring in nesting and other material. Cameras generally stick out from the
          • by Thing 1 (178996)
            Electrified bird spike? Shouldn't be too expensive until the current arcs, right? (Which should happen less often as time goes on.)
    • Re:wear and tear (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Monday December 26, 2011 @11:55AM (#38494258) Homepage

      Like when cop car cams were starting out and they were getting "broken" a lot? Yup, I remember those days in the 90's right after rodney king. the VCR in the trunk would get bashed, or the tapes would get magnetized a lot... (big honking magnet on the casing will screw it up badly)

  • by rickb928 (945187)

    "compared the situation to buying a used car without an extended warranty "

    No, more like buying a new car and leaving it at the dealership, taking the keys. At best, it gets vandalized. At worst, it gets hotwired, joyridden, used for a few drivebys, and then stripped and vandalized. Oh, and you're still taking the bus.

    Dumbass. He can't even illustrate the fail properly. Who gets fired for this? Oh, let's guess...

    Yep, right again.

  • by Lumpy (12016)

    Bet you $100 that it was designed to fail from day 1. it was under funded, someone that has NO education at all in tech was in charge of it, and everyone involved that had a clue was ignored when they voiced their concerns.

    This is typical of ANY local government project. some idiot in finance believe he can cut corners to bring the costs down.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      I doubt it was designed to fail, it was designed to make money. Unfortunately it needed to be designed to work. Even more unfortunately unless you have already done a job that has taught you all the lessons you need to have learned before implementing a project like this, you can't really hope to do it without some studies (at least product testing.)

    • by cusco (717999)
      I'd bet 5 to 1 that it was not 'designed to fail', but was designed without the cooperation of the IT department. Those of us who do this type of work are used to having to work AROUND the people that we really need to be working WITH, since they don't want any more on their plate then they already have. I've had an admin quite literally tell me, "I don't know anything about that server, I don't want to know anything about that server, and you can't MAKE me learn anything about that server." (After I poi
      • by cusco (717999)
        I meant 'outsourcing' rather than 'consolidation'.
      • by swb (14022)

        To be somewhat fair to "IT"...

        I had a customer I was sole support for business IT. They had a processing facility with an old analog camera system dating from the early 1980s. They needed to replace it as components were failing and the video quality was pretty poor. It got done, but the vendor was a hack and the equipment super low budget whitebox PC stuff.

        Anyway, the lesson I've learned is that "video surveillance" may use IT technology, but a lot of the people doing it really aren't skilled at IT, the

        • by cusco (717999)
          That's true with a **LOT** of our competition (most?), but I've did ten years of server and network support before getting into the security industry, and two of the other three application engineers I work with are only slightly behind me. I've raised enough of a fuss with the estimating and sales guys that I'm generally called in pretty early in the process if there are going to be any questions at all, and we make a point of going out of our way to bring in the IT staff as early as possible, even when i
  • ""compared the situation to buying a used car without an extended warranty ""

    it seems that the Chief is an idiot, as 90% of the time the extended warranty is a waste of money and you come out ahead if you did not buy it and banked the cash. Consumer reports and tons of other places have this well documented...

    The chief must not read much.

    • it seems that the Chief is an idiot, as 90% of the time the extended warranty is a waste of money and you come out ahead if you did not buy it and banked the cash.

      The chief was just saying that he wished he could have funneled even more money to his friends in companies back then, since there is no money now and thus fewer opportunities for kickbacks.

      So it really is like an extended warranty since he wanted to spend even more money at time of purchase for no reason.

  • A bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oakgrove (845019) on Monday December 26, 2011 @11:51AM (#38494234)
    My deepest and sincerest sympathies to the family of the murdered man but are cameras really the answer? How about more cops that know their beats and actually engage people without being dicks? That may actually make a real difference.
    • are cameras really the answer?

      The answer to what? Are cameras the answer to muggings and murder? No, not at all -- muggers will just do their "business" faster and learn where the blind spots are.

      Are cameras the answer to convincing the public that the police are doing something, while simultaneously convincing them that something needs to be done? Absolutely.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      A single well trained cop could monitor a dozen of cameras simultanously, so yes, they are effective when used properly.

      • by cusco (717999)
        Why in the world would you spend $80,000 to put a cop to watching cameras when a $30,000 "security contractor" (recent high school grad video gamer) could do the job better? Seriously, you wouldn't want to waste a cop doing this, it's the wrong skill set. Really though, video cameras are only good for forensics, no one ever gets caught in the act because they were seen doing something on camera.
        • by Hentes (2461350)

          Because the guy needs to be trusted, needs to be able to determine when he sees a crime and when the police should intervene, and if it does with what force, needs to be able to communicate with policemen already there and act as a recon etc. It's not just sitting on your ass all day long.

          no one ever gets caught in the act because they were seen doing something on camera.

          Which is not the fault of the cameras, but how they are used. They are not a replacement of cops, just tools.

    • by houghi (78078)

      Look at the UK. There is no crime anymore in the UK thanks to all the cameras. Right?

      It amazes me how people think that they know what criminals would do. There are two kind of criminals. The ones that are in it because they are lazy. They think short term only. They rob you or a bank with a mask. They want the money now and then they will spend it till they need money again.

      These are the criminals we see and know and what we buy camera's for. The thing is, it won't work, because they believe they won't get

      • by Thing 1 (178996)

        There are two kind of criminals. The ones that are in it because they are lazy.

        I actually mis-read this, and want to point it out: "The ones that are in IT because they are lazy." I've worked with many of them. (Agreed that the bankers are the scourge; what best to do about it, though?)

    • The cameras did not deter the criminals who murdered the man because they either did not see the cameras or did not care that they were there. If the cameras do not deter criminals, than what are they really for? I doubt I'll like the answer to that question.
  • No surveillance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wowsers (1151731) on Monday December 26, 2011 @12:02PM (#38494308) Journal
    Look on the bright side, what with the police not liking themselves being filmed, what video evidence can there be of any police brutality with cameras not working?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Ah, well, think of it like this. If the cops beat random citizens for recording them on cell phones...do you really think they want a city wide camera system that actually works? Of course not. They would probably be caught doing more illegal stuff than normal people, like beating random citizens.

  • whacky parse (Score:4, Insightful)

    by minkie (814488) on Monday December 26, 2011 @12:46PM (#38494684)

    I had to read the headline a couple of times before I realized it wasn't "LDAP cameras".

  • False sense of security.... millions of dollars. Real security.... about $500 and a concealed carry permit.
    • by cusco (717999)
      Open carry is a lot more effective, the crook doesn't even have to guess whether you're armed or not. I've always wanted to just put my machete on my belt, but I know the police harassment would be worse than anything I'd get from the street gangs.
  • What is needed is more money, much more money. Only money can solve this problem. They need a new tax on all cell phones like the e911 tax. Once we have collected a few tens of billions of dollars will they be able to address this issue.
    Do not worry about the cost though as I am certain right around election time a graph will show up explaining how this system will have saved us money due to the reduction in crime.

    Money well spent!

    Of course they will never have enough money so maybe more taxes and people wi

  • Cameras not working.... this is a bad thing because....?
  • It isn't necessarily a waste of other people's money. I work for the Feds and see all sorts of waste that happens on 'good' ideas.
    Surveillance of a high crime area is a good idea. But collecting data and saving it is not a police skill, it is an IT skill.
    The issue is that many govt ideas (pushed by voters as much as contractors) entail new skill sets or new directions that a business might think twice about before pursuing but that any govt org gets no chance at all even for input once the voters/politici
  • Yep...your tax dollars at work. People of LA, you need to get on their ass's to fix the situation. You pay for services, here to find out you've been duped. Not to mention all the crime thats been going on right under your noses, when it could have been stopped.

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...