Cambridge, Mass. Moves To Nix Security Cameras 366
An anonymous reader writes "Citing privacy concerns, the Cambridge, Mass. City Council has voted 9-0 to remove security cameras scattered throughout the city. 'Because of the slow erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11, it is important to raise questions regarding these cameras,' said Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge city councilor. Rather than citing privacy, WCBVTV is running the story under the headline 'City's Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands.'"
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
there it is
Re: (Score:2)
It was nixed too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This comment was unfairly labeled "troll" and given a score of -1. I don't mind disagreement. In fact, I embrace it. Strength comes from diversity. However I DO object to censorship. Moderating someone into invisibility simply because you disagree is NOT why you were given moderator points Mister.
>>>>> Commonsense
I gotta disagree. Replacing the policeman with a mechanical version is no different than replacing operators with self-dialing phones. It's called progress and improving efficie
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Informative)
Except cameras don't catch people "redhanded". If they catch people at all it's almost always after the crime has been committed and the criminal has fled. Beyond that statistics show that public surveillance cameras do not reduce crime. Many studies of surveillance cameras have shown this to be the case.
CCTV Cameras
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/cctv_cameras.html [schneier.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>f they catch people at all it's almost always after the crime has been committed and the criminal has fled.
And then the human police go-out and drag him back to jail, and the prosecutor uses the camera as evidence in court. Isn't that better than having a bunch of police standing-around going, "We dunna know who did it."???
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Switching over to "guilty until proven innocent" would make their job easier. So would eliminating trial altogether and simply throwing them to jail if accused. Not to mention all those search warrants and such.
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm personally OK with having cameras EVERYWHERE as long as:
0) They are maintained by a separate independent organization from the police, and council.
1) Everyone can watch each other, whenever they want.
2) You know who is looking at what (you have to sign up for an account).
3) An secure archive is kept (so if people fake footage, you can countercheck).
Currently the problem with "public" cameras is the public don't get to use them, only people claiming to work for the public get to use them.
There are too many cases where the police/authorities make a mistake, and for some reason the _all_ the cameras covering the incident weren't working at that time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
think of the 2005 London transport bombers and the 9/11 terrorists -- police are often able to identify suspects without the cameras.
...and shoot them multiple times in the head as they board the subway!
Wait...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Four on the platform and one in the carriage...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand that CCTV camera theft is much higher wherever surveillance cameras are installed. In that sense, they must be enticing criminal activity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Efficiency in law enforcement is great, but I'm not sure the efficiency of our policy makers in writing reasonable laws has quite caught up with our new technological abilities to enforce the law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>every single person who exceeds the speed limit by 1 mph even for a few seconds get a ticket? Should every jaywalker get ticketed
IMHO - yes. Then I'd know I can only do 65, instead of wondering if 70 is "probably" okay, but maybe not, but maybe it is, but who knows? I prefer certainty. If it turns-out that arresting people are 66 is too stringent, then solution is to rewrite the laws to make them effective, not to just ignore them or apply them randomly.
BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy G
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO - yes. Then I'd know I can only do 65, instead of wondering if 70 is "probably" okay, but maybe not, but maybe it is, but who knows? I prefer certainty. If it turns-out that arresting people are 66 is too stringent, then solution is to rewrite the laws to make them effective, not to just ignore them or apply them randomly.
Um, no. You'd likely get a ticket just for not letting off the gas enough going downhill. Clearly stupid. Laws which are ignored to be stricken; it's obvious people don't want them, and that they fail to reconize human behavior.
BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy Giuliani cleaned-up downtown New York. It may seem anal, but in the process of arresting jaywalkers and subway barrier jumpers, he also caught a lot of thieves and murderers.
Well, I'm sure we could catch thieves and murders if we just allowed police to randomly search houses too. That doesn't justify making petty criminals out of almost everyone else.
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why laws like speeding, anti-drugs, and other issues exist is not to benefit society, but as an alternative revenue sources for states and cities. It saves taxes so locals like the laws and don't want them repealed.
In most states, a speeding ticket will cost about $200, but states like Texas and Arizona also will force out of state drivers to pay $100-$300 a year for three years if someone from out of state gets more than two tickets. This is easy cash from people who are are unwilling or unable to stay around for a trial.
In Arizona, it's common to have a road that has a speed limit of 65. Then a sign stating school zone that is valid at times of day (no flashing lights) and a speed limit of 25. Of course, there are 1-2 patrol cars nearby. This isn't for the children of Arizona's safety. This is to get a $1000 ticket from unwary tourists, plus bail money when the PD arrests the person for reckless driving.
Drug laws are also in place for ensuring revenue, especially forfeiture laws of assets. These laws make money for everyone but the stoner caught with the dime bag. From the attorneys, to the local city who gets a free car or house due to forfeiture laws, to the prison system (which is privatized), it is a whole economy that hinges on possession of controlled substances having very high penalties.
These laws are a proven income source, and no judge will ever rule against them if they want to remain on the bench. In fact these type of laws are multiplying. In 1-2 years, if someone even alleges piracy or IP infringement, computers can be seized and become city property via city means.
Accuse me of sounding Marxist, but laws also serve the purpose of keeping those who are at the top of the food chain in power. Just look at how our dear media industry gets laws and treaties passed (which bypass government checks and balances).
It would be nice to see a paring down of laws to pretty much mala in se laws, but this likely will never happen... too many people benefit from the current system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While we are discussing costs, let me get this straight - $264,000 spent thus far, and there are only (6) cameras installed. At an average cost of $44,000 per camera I would $hitcan this program too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the case of Cambridge's cameras, it's also worth asking about the fate of the city's private security cameras. For instance, how many does MIT have now? The Media Lab FoodCam [mit.edu] was probably one of the first culinary surveillance devices out there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like my last ticket. I opened the throttle on my bike to get through an intersection I'm always wary of, having seen MANY accidents there, in what I thought was a 35, and ended up hitting just under 40.
As it turns out, the day before they changed the speed limit to 25, and I got hit for a 15-over.
I fought it, since I had no opportunity in the under-24 hours since the change to even encounter a speed limit sign, since there were none between my street's intersection with that road and my destination t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy Giuliani cleaned-up downtown New York. It may seem anal, but in the process of arresting jaywalkers and subway barrier jumpers, he also caught a lot of thieves and murderers.
If you think he arrested every jaywalker and that such a broad act would have any positive affect on city life, I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. Not to mention that the penalty for both offenses is a fine and not arrest.
No, he just separated all of the really the bad neighborhoods from the good and fringe neighborhoods and then made the city too expensive for anybody making less than $60K a year to stay in. Oh wait, that last bit was Bloomberg's bright idea.
For fringe neighborhoods, Giuliani kept throwing
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy Giuliani cleaned-up downtown New York. It may seem anal, but in the process of arresting jaywalkers and subway barrier jumpers, he also caught a lot of thieves and murderers.
Check out Ch. 4 of Freakonomics. It claims (and backs it up pretty thoroughly) that Giuliani didn't do much to clean up New York--the crime wave dropped nationwide at that time. "That time" was roughly 16 years after Roe v. Wade.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would assume that you have not read Freakonomics. In the book, while Rudy was patting himself on the back along with his new Police Chief, subtler forces were at work that were actually causing the decline in crime. Namely it was legalized abortions.
The author backs his claim up with the fact that after everyone saw the great success in the declining crime rates after Rudy and his chief, many mayors across America tried to copy the same policies, and many didn't. He found that the crime rate drop was n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes the best way to effect change is to piss-off the people. That forces legislators to rewrite the law.
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
You have got to be shitting me. Guess you don't recall the days when a cop actually walked his beat and knew the neighborhood. Far more effective than these invasive cameras which in practice record the crime as it happens and don't actually prevent anything. Ask our Nanny State British cousins how much they like their cameras.
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask our Nanny State British cousins how much they like their cameras.
For the most part? We know they are inneffective and almost all are not even watched.
The main reason they irritate people is the cost of keeping them active, not for 'slashdot modpoint gaining outrage' at the erosion of our civil liberties.
Our civil liberties are doing just fine thanks, most of the problems we have no are the result of OMG TERRORISTS!!!111ONE pressure from the US, and that again is losing steam at a rapid rate.
Unlike you, our country once got the shit bombed out of it nightly for YEARS, and we survived, started up a national health service, and began a process of ensuring personal freedoms which we still enjoy today.
You guys seem to be reacting to one single bombing event by imprisoning your population behind survellance and suspicion for years and removing all pretense of freedom.
Go you...
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless there is a couple making out, or a fine looking woman in a short skirt bending over, then suddenly the person watching the camera gets REALLY attentive.
For those who say that there is no expectation of privacy while in public, I say fine and dandy, that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. My opinion is that there is a huge difference between something being witnessed only by people on the scene and something that is recorded permanently on camera and can be shown to people who weren't there, even many years later.
The difference, for example, of being seen doing something embarrassing that becomes water-cooler gossip for a bunch of people you don't know, which is quickly forgotten, or of ending up on some reality-TV caught-on-tape type nonsense which your kids might see 10 years from now.
Sorry, went off on a tangent. Yeah, UK response to the bombings in WW2 was nothing short of heroic. I wish my own countrymen and women would show the same backbone over the much smaller threat of domestic terrorism. But that's kind of the point. Liberty comes with risks, and they only way to negate the risks is to give up liberty. That's what these cameras are doing, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Forcing your neighbors to pay YOUR health bills is not freedom. It's graft.
How very selfless of you. I won't bother debating the reality of the national health service to you, since you've obviously decided that being ripped off by profit led private health firms and forced to go without health care if you've not got the money to pay is a better system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>started up a national health service, and began a process of ensuring personal freedoms
Forcing your neighbors to pay YOUR health bills is not freedom. It's graft. It's no different than if I bought a Lexus, and then demanded everybody contribute $1 to pay my bill & extracted the money from their wallets.
If he said "house" instead of "lexus" would it have NOT been a troll? I get that some people may not like comparing health care to luxury cars, but replace "health care" with any "need" (food, water, clothing, shelter, and ... love ...) and the parent's point is pretty valid.
I still want to understand, since the Federal Reserve will be printing money for these bailouts and stimuli, why can't they just print money to pay off these debts in the first place?
--
libertarian: socially liberal (you can do w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Informative)
Christ. Ever heard of the IRA? They're a recognized terror group [homeoffice.gov.uk] residing within the UK.
Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Last I checked, CCTV receives overwhelming public support in the UK, regardless of its effectiveness.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/07/ukcrime [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
The police stay in their cars for one simple reason: revenue generation. There is no additional safety in having a police car cruising around with the cop inside staying on the lookout for an errant driver to slap with a $$$ ticket. See, he's too busy looking for that revenue than to be concerned about the area he's supposed to be patrolling.
PubliCamz 4 da future? (Score:3, Interesting)
Security cameras. (Score:2)
Security cameras are just for show - they aren't really useful for anything else than figuring out that somehting had happened and to provide some amusing clips on YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
They are useful for figuring out when something happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Disagree. Security cameras may not stop crime, but they can be used as evidence in a trial, rather than let the criminal get-away to kill somebody else.
We just had a case like that in Pennsylvania where some crooks broke-into a bank. Had the cameras Not been there, they would still be running free. But now they are sitting in jail. Cameras are just another method of collecting evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that most security cameras has a crappy video quality you won't really see much of use except to be able to tell when something happened - if someone has been smart enough to set the clock correctly.
If you are really lucky with your security camera you may get useful pictures, but most of them are just for show.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Security cameras. (Score:5, Interesting)
Speak for yourself.
My interior security cameras at the house trigger the alarm and page me when motion is detected in zones if the alarm is armed. They also were successfully used as evidence to put away the punk that robbed me. Thieves are brain dead and will look directly at cameras.
also the driveway camera triggers the doorbell if a car sized object enters the driveway.
Security cameras are very useful and work great.
PUBLIC security cameras are useless except for government violation of civil rights.
When will you get it right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When will you get it right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Once maybe. If you do it systematically, it becomes stalking and/or grounds for a restraining order.
Re:When will you get it right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. I can record you every day. and in fact I do to some people, without legal issues.
There is a bus stop in front of my home, one of my security cameras cover that area and I record every person that get's on and off the bus. (motion recording is passe' record 24-7 and have event markers)
so wah! and yes I have been asked for video from the cops. I require them to supeona me for my own legal defense.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
On what planet does one camera qualify as "systematically"?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why someone modded the parent Funny. It's not.
The problem with ubiquitous surveillance (video, credit card, GPS, cellphone, etc.) is that it can be used for things other than simply providing date/time/place evidence of a crime. Aggregating and cross-correlating this information creates a detailed picture of someone's life and habits.
Those who spout the simplistic 'if you haven't done anything wrong ...' not only miss the danger that ubiquitous, government-controlled surveillance represent
Re:When will you get it right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm assuming you're a private citizen, so you most likely don't have the power or the resources to abuse this system in quite the same capacity that the government has the ability to. Government and is priorities constantly change.
Re:When will you get it right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When will you get it right? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not really the issue, and you've missed the point.
There is a wide gulf between having no expectation of privacy and accepting a surveillance culture.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think I have the right to pick my nose on an empty street corner without the picture making it online.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think I have the right to pick my nose on an empty street corner without the picture making it online.
I'd like to think that you don't. However, I might be inclined to agree that you have the right to pick your nose on an empty street corner without the government taking a picture and it making it online.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is NO expectation of privacy when you are in public. Security cameras, when placed in common public areas are no problem. Heck, I can video tape you all I want on a street corner, as long as it is for my own private amusement.
Yeah, if walk through your camera shot in a public place, that's one thing. But setting up a network of camera's to track everything I do, everywhere I go from the moment I step out my front door until I make it back again... that's a whole other ballgame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I may not expect anything to be private if I do it in public, but I think I ought to be able to safely expect not to be carefully and actively monitored throughout public spaces. The kind of tech available now with facial recognition/tracking, tying into all kinds of other databases about seemingly every aspect of our lives means that a lot more information can be gotten by "public" means than ever before.
The change is in the ability to store, analyse and cross-reference so much more data... it's certainl
Great News (Score:3, Insightful)
It good to hear that at least one city council has worked up enough back-bone to stand up to law enforcement on this issue. I hope the Chicago City Council comes to a similar conclusion and convenience Mayor Daley that this is a waste of money and shut our surveillance system down in lieu of hiring more officers, if necessary. Unfortunately Mayor Daley pushes public surveillance pretty hard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is more than one sane city council. Somerville, the next town over from Cambridge, just recently passed a similar law. I believe that the Somerville version halted the camera instillation, killed plans to put up more, and put them under review as to if they want to keep few that are already up.
May cost thousands? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:May cost thousands? (Score:5, Funny)
Give WCBVTV some credit! (Score:5, Funny)
They could have said "City's Move To Nix Security Cams May KILL YOUR CHILDREN!"
I mean, remember poor Caylee?
"Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the price of our civil liberties these days?
I'll give you some magic beans for them.
title? (Score:5, Funny)
Cambridge, Mass. Moves To Nix Security Cameras
Did anyone else think this meant they were installing security cameras running BSD?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sadly...yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, I was wondering what flavor, yeah.
Why it could cost thousands (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't stated explicitly, but it appears that the city used part of the grant already to install the first few cameras.
It isn't that the physical removal will cost money, but that they may have to reimburse the feds for the grant money now that they have opted out of the program.
Also, this is not certain -- which is why it "may" cost thousands.
Now I know (Score:2)
Evacuation Cam (Score:2)
If you dig around long enough, they argue that the real purpose of the cameras is to "help in the case of a city evacuation". The images from the cams suck [wickedlocal.com] though. I'd expect better if they wanted to secretly spy on us. Perhaps the only things these will catch is the next group who tries to install LightBrite guerrilla advertising in the Porter Square.
Honestly, I'm not too worried if the Department of Homeland Security catches me biking to work in Cambridge. What I don't like is the traffic cameras th
Re: (Score:2)
You think Zombies give a fuck about your cameras?
Call me when DHS puts these [wikipedia.org] in your streets.
Motive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a thought, and maybe my tin-foil hat is too snug, but could the local govt find themselves removing these cams because the _police_ didn't like the notion that _they_ might be filmed in public doing things they shouldn't do, like, I dunno, beating protesters? I'm not saying that's happened, but where's the outrage from the police and the protestations that they need these cameras to "protect teh childrenz"?
All security cameras? (Score:2)
Now it might be interesting if by some government mandate that all security cameras (homes, businesses, ATMs, etc.) were banned in Cambridge. As any recordings made by any of these cameras can be subject to subpoena, does it really matter if the city itself is sprinkling a few more around?
So unless they want to mandate that all of these cameras have to be removed, it really doesn't mean all that much. In a busy downtown area you are likely to be visible in three or four cameras at the same time from diffe
Promoting uncivility? (Score:2)
Sure, the tapes should have a very short retention period (month, year max) to avoid muckraking and other character assasination. Accessing by individual rather than event,place&time is clearly stalking and ought to be punished as such. Unfortunately, oversight of police is generally deficient. But
Oh, hello, this is the UK. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh hello, this is the UK. I say, would you mind lending us some of your politicians? We'd be very much obliged.
Re:Oh, hello, this is the UK. (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, take them all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a question: Why not sell them at auction with the caveat that the winning bidder has to also remove all of them from service, completing a specified removal procedure? Does that make too much common sense?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it's not like some bored MIT students would figure out how to hack into them and have their own little surveillance network...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't they just deactivate them and leave them in place? That shouldn't cost too much, I wouldn't think... Yeah, it's not like some bored MIT students would figure out how to hack into them and have their own little surveillance network...
While I don't care for that idea, either, somehow the idea of a bunch of nerds with no lives watching me isn't all that terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, often things like city wide security and red light cammeras are not monitored by actual government employees but companies sub-contracted out to do the job. Canceling the contract generally has a penalty involved.
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Funny)
Installing camera system: $264,000
Turning them off and leaving in place: $0
Big brother not watching you anymore: priceless
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell people we're turning them off: $0
Raise taxes to pay for the cost of operating them in secret: $0 (it ain't *their* money!)
Still using cameras to spy on law abiding americans: priceless
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Costing Thousands? (Score:5, Funny)
Massachusetts isn't going to let you in with an M4.
Or a Light Brite.
Re: (Score:2)
Craigslist.
Item: Free camera. Used.
Location: On various public utility poles in Cambridge. You uninstall it, it's yours.
Re: (Score:2)
They were purchased with a grant specifically for doing this. If they remove them, they may have to pay back the grant money.
"...May Cost Thousands" (Score:2)
When they installed them was the headline "will cost millions"? Didn't think so...
Re: (Score:2)
The cameras were at least in part funded by DHS. If they cancel the deployment, DHS may want the money back so they can fund Big Brother somewhere else (and try to make it too expensive to NOT join Big Brother). Since they could only recover part of what they spent by selling off used cameras, the rest is a cost.
Re:wankers (Score:5, Funny)
Cambridge MA is full of a bunch of nerds and malnourished artist types.
And apparently, 9 Al-Qaeda operatives on city council.
Re:could someone please explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it would be easy for the government to cherry pick a few shots of you at certain times and use them as evidence to convince a stupid jury that you broke a law.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - Cardinal Richelieu
you really believe this? (Score:3, Insightful)
and you are modded 5 insightful?
i must be some sort of alien, as i can't fathom this sort of paranoia. to me, what you just said strikes of insanity. i really hate to break this to you, but no one really cares about you that much. you're not worth the effort. and neither am i
anyone who IS worth the effort: "they", the government, were they that wrathful, can just fabricate anything they want. such that the existence or lack of the cameras provides no protection either way
the salient feature of your rational
Re:could someone please explain to me (Score:5, Interesting)
bceause the "gubmint" is in a conspiracy to frame you
Uh, after enough police scandals [google.com], prosecutors knowingly prosecuting innocent people [gossiprocks.com] (withholding exculpatory evidence showing that the person did not commit the crime [reason.com]) and D.A.s declaring that they only believe in DNA evidence when it claims a man is guilty but not when it shows that the accused was either of the two men who raped a woman [truthinjustice.org]... I think its fair to say that the people in government are more than happy to frame anyone they wish.
more recording devices (Score:3, Insightful)
is a double edged sword
it can be used as proof to exonerate you from frames and punitive blind prosecution in more ways than it can be manipulated to make you seem culpable
if it is the word of the government versus a citizen, the citizen needs witnesses on his side since the government is seen as more credible. i'll take street cameras supporting my version of the story over a scenario of just my word versus the government's word, any day
Re: (Score:2)
They nixed the dash a while back. It was bad for privacy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So who was the bright spark that thought up the idea of representing "east" with a "W"?
Now what can we use for "west" - dammit "W" is taken!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So who was the bright spark that thought up the idea of representing "east" with a "W"? Now what can we use for "west" - dammit "W" is taken!!
The International Telecommunication Union. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how this affects "my rights online".
That's because you fail to recognize the non-trivial connection between what happens online and offline. You make the assumption that the online interactions have a tenuous relationship to the real world, when in fact they are directly related. The erosion of our rights offline have direct connection to the erosion of our rights 'online' because there is no 'online'. Life is the same throughout, it just happens to be another channel for experiencing it.