Security Cameras Multiply in Manhattan

[jamotto]

Link

quote:

---

NEW YORK - Six surveillance cameras could be seen peering out from a chain drug store on Broadway. One protruded awkwardly from the awning of a fast-food restaurant. A supersized, domed version hovered like a flying saucer outside Columbia University. To the dismay of civil libertarians and with the approval of law enforcement, they've been multiplying at a dizzying rate all over Manhattan.

"As many as we find, we miss so many more," Alex Stone-Tharp, 21, said on a recent afternoon while combing the streets, clipboard in hand, counting cameras in the scorching heat.

A student at Sarah Lawrence, Stone-Tharp is among a dozen college interns enlisted by the New York Civil Liberties Union to bolster their side of a simmering debate over whether surveillance cameras wrongly encroach on privacy, or effectively combat crime and even terrorism ÔÇö as in the London bombings investigation, when the cameras were used to identify the bombers.

The interns have spent the summer stalking Big Brother ÔÇö collecting data for an upcoming NYCLU report on the proliferation of cameras trained on streets, sidewalks and other public spaces.

New York City police detectives regularly rely on private security cameras in a bid to solve crimes.

After makeshift grenades exploded outside the British consulate in midtown Manhattan on May 5, they studied scores of videotape and concluded that a still-unidentified cyclist likely tossed the devices before fleeing.

In London, British police used videotape from some of their Underground system's 6,000 cameras to help identify the suicide bombers on July 7 and the suspects in a failed attack on July 21. But as the bombings showed, the cameras do not deter determined attackers.

At last count in 1998, the New York Civil Liberties Union found 2,397 cameras used by a wide variety of private businesses and government agencies throughout Manhattan. This time, after canvassing less than a quarter of the borough, the interns so far have spotted more than 4,000.

The preliminary total "only provides a glimpse of the magnitude of the problem," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman. "Nobody has a clue how many there really are."

But aside from sheer numbers, the NYCLU says it's concerned about the increasing use of newer, more powerful digital cameras that ÔÇö unlike boxy older models ÔÇö can be controlled remotely and store more images.

The group expects to eventually publicize its findings to convince the public that the cameras should be regulated to preserve privacy and guard against abuses like racial profiling and voyeurism. Privacy advocates have cited a case earlier this year in which a police videotape that captured a suicide at a Bronx housing development later turned up on a pornographic Web site.

The NYCLU plans to post an interactive map on its Web site pinpointing the location of each surveillance camera, and it may include a feature for the camera-shy that would highlight the least-surveilled route between two points.

But the map could be obsolete on arrival.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority plans to spend up to $250 million (euro200 million) to install new surveillance cameras in the city's vast subway system. The New York Police Department also has requested funding for about 400 digital video cameras to help combat robberies and burglaries in busy commercial districts.

Police officers already watch live feeds from hundreds of cameras in city housing projects throughout the five boroughs, where "they are a proven deterrent," said NYPD spokesman Paul Browne.

Elsewhere, Chicago recently spent roughly $5 million (euro4 million) on a 2,000-camera system, which has been credited for reducing crime to its lowest point in some 40 years. In Washington, D.C., Homeland Security officials have announced plans to spend $9.8 million (euro7.8 million) for surveillance cameras and sensors on a rail line near the Capitol. And in Philadelphia, where the city has increasingly relied on video surveillance, cameras caught a murder and ultimately led to the capture of a suspect.

The NYCLU's Lieberman concedes the cameras can help solve crimes. But she claims there's no proof that they deter terrorism or more mundane crime, and some critics say it just pushes crime to where the cameras aren't.

"No one's saying there should be no video cameras, but let's not look at them as a quick fix," she said.

Whether the cameras threaten or protect society, the interns have encountered hurdles in their counting.

At one point, uniformed officers outside the Federal Reserve Bank demanded identification and warned, "if the information we had fell into the hands of terrorists, it would be a problem," said Peter Pantelis, 20, a student at the University of Pennsylvania.

Susanna Groves, 19, of the University of Michigan, recalled finding herself staring up an ornate streetlight, convinced a hidden camera was snapping pictures of her.

"I know I'm getting paranoid," she said. "But I also know there are a lot of cameras out there."

---

The year "1984" is getting closer.

[Wolfheart]

I think it should have been learned by now that "quick fixes" tends to mess things up in the long term..

Yet we only do these quick fixes..What a shame..

[Soback]

What are you talking about.

"The NYCLU's Lieberman concedes the cameras can help solve crimes. But she claims there's no proof that they deter terrorism or more mundane crime, and some critics say it just pushes crime to where the cameras aren't."

Which means that NOW you will know where the crimes will be, WHERE THE CAMERAS AREN'T. LOL

"No one's saying there should be no video cameras, but let's not look at them as a quick fix," she said. "

So she is NOT saying that there should NOT be video cameras, YET the rest of the article is all about how ACLU is saying that there should NOT be video cameras. Oh man, what a mouthfull. I will take a straight talking guy that I disagree with anyday over scum like this.

AND

"The NYCLU plans to post an interactive map on its Web site pinpointing the location of each surveillance camera, and it may include a feature for the camera-shy that would highlight the least-surveilled route between two points."

I wonder who that information would be usefull to? A regular citizen or a criminal. "ACLU working for YOU" Definition of YOU, go ahead people, give it a shot and post WHO that YOU is.

[Guest $iLk]

If anything, the London bombings proved how effective security cameras were in identifying the culprits.

[jamotto]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

If anything, the London bombings proved how effective security cameras were in identifying the culprits.

---

True, but to what extent do you give up your right to privacy?

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jamotto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

If anything, the London bombings proved how effective security cameras were in identifying the culprits.

---

True, but to what extent do you give up your right to privacy?

---

To the extent that if you are walking in PUBLIC NAKED, DO NOT EXPECT PRIVACY.

Are the cameras in your home? NO, then what are you yelling about?

You do know that anyone can take pictures of anyone on public streets. RIGHT? What a concept, privacy in public, THATS AN OXYMORON. Public = for all, private = yours. Privacy in public, you know what the opposite of that would be? That's like designating your private house, public. How can you have either? Oh man....how some people think...unbelievable. They want one thing, but completly opposed to the other, not realizing that what they want is two things that don't match.

[jamotto]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soback:

To the extent that if you are walking in PUBLIC NAKED, DO NOT EXPECT PRIVACY.

---

If I was walking around in public naked, I think privacy would be the last thing on my mind.

anyways, as it stands this is not huge deal, but toss in those National ID cards that are coming our way and everything else the Gov't can think of between now and then and we could have a problem.

[Guest Capn Crunch]

prez bush wants you to bend over and smile for the camera...jesus loves you

[John Prezioso]

HAHAHA! You made my day, Crunch!

[Guest Capn Crunch]

that's what i'm here for sweety

[John Prezioso]

God, I hope you are female.

[Guest Capn Crunch]

Keep dreaming, honey...i've got the same plumbing as you, but I won't hold it against you unless you hold yours against me...lol

[Guest $iLk]

I believe the right to privacy is junk created by the Supreme Court. A reasonable right to privacy is what I do in my bedroom. Not what I do in public.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

I believe the right to privacy is junk created by the Supreme Court. A reasonable right to privacy is what I do in my bedroom. Not what I do in public.

---

Replace the word bedroom with "on my PRIVATE property, house, appartment, or in my private space" and,

We got a winner. ding ding ding...

[Guest $iLk]

I believe that internet traffic monitoring is not necessarily unconstitutional either. Depending on the method and reason.