New York City to get London-style “surveillance veil” – Engadget — And does this actually surprise anyone?
The New York Times reports that the city is set to get a London-style “surveillance veil” that would eventually consist of thousands of cameras monitoring vehicles and individuals alike. Dubbed the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, the system will initially include more than 100 cameras that are expected to be in place by the end of this year, each of which will be able to read license plates and send out alerts is suspect vehicles are detected. That appears to just be the tip of the iceberg, however, with some 3,000 public and privately-owned cameras set to be put into service by the end of 2008, along with a series of pivoting gates thatll be installed at critical intersections, giving authorities the ability to block off traffic at the push of a button. From there itll apparently grow even further, with the entire operation expected to be up and running by 2010. No word on head-mounted cams as of yet though.
Doesn’t the London experience demonstrate this to be a valuable response to crime with minimal impact on individual rights?
I think so.
The optimist in me is surprised this happened so quickly here, I was expecting a few more years of surveillance freedom.
The pessimist in me is surprised this didn’t happen long ago, say, on 9/12/2001. The pessimist in me also finds it disheartening that even the optimist in me knew this was coming…
2–It would have occurred on 9/12 if camera’s were any defense to airplanes running into buildings. It has taken a few years for our leaders to come to grips with what the more pedestrian terror threats will be in the future==a la London, Madrid and so forth.
Don’t let boogeymen obscure real threats with real solutions.
I dont mind it in the public areas. Esp down town and high risk areas..
I have no objection to all the original intentions. What bothers me is that these same systems can then be turned into political weapons that have nothing to do with crime or terrorism.Or do people not see the problem. The fact that people have already tolerated the “free speech zone” is a sign of things to come. As for the “London experience..” Take a look at these clowns caught by the cameras. Does anyone think — by looking at them — they wouldn’t have been caught anyway with normal police work?
Only one guy (guess) looks like he has an IQ over 80.
We should have put some of those fuckers in the White House for the past 7 years. That would have kept the DAs and the special prosecutors busy for a while!
A great way to make people feel safe and free. It works so well in London deterring train and car bombs, I’m surprised we haven’t done this sooner.
#5–What bothers me is that these same systems can then be turned into political weapons that have nothing to do with crime or terrorism.Or do people not see the problem. //// Give an example of such misuse? (ie–hypothetically?) I don’t see it now. What is a “political weapon?”====I have seen that term used only by people who hate the truth on some subject coming out.
The fact that people have already tolerated the “free speech zone” is a sign of things to come. //// Have you somehow said this backwards? Free speech zones–areas set aside for people to rant as they will is a good thing? Do you mean tolerated restrictions to such zones? If so, I agree but that has nothing to do with camera surviellence of public spaces.
As for the “London experience..” Take a look at these clowns caught by the cameras. Does anyone think — by looking at them — they wouldn;t have been caught anyway with normal police work? /// What normal police work would that have been? And in time to catch them before they left the country? Very luddite position to take. Wouldn’t normal police work catch people without the use of computers or fingerprints?
#5, John, “Does anyone think — by looking at them — they wouldn’t have been caught anyway with normal police work?>
Are you suggesting racial profiling?
And don’t forget, while the city will have full legal rights to take your picture, it will be illegal for you to take any pictures without obtaining permission from the city first.
“No word on head-mounted cams as of yet though.”
They call those “eyeballs.”
And there’s lots of them out there. And they’re watching… always watching. Some are even watching you. Even when you don’t want them to. Ditto webcams, phonecams, Google Earth, spy store cams, home movie cameras, news cameras, hobby cams, it’s-my-right-to-video-whatever-I-want-in-public cams, and soon, movie & still cams that cost under $20 and, someday, ear ring cams & button cams. Man, you ain’t seen nut’n yet.
Isn’t it wonderful how unassailable technology can make doo-doo out of enshrined rights? Or would we prefer to reserve that just for intellectual property rights?
RBG
>>Free speech zones–areas set aside for people
>>to rant as they will is a good thing?
Well, that’s not exactly what free-speech zones are. They’re chain-link enclosures, set up the the Secret Service, to cage people who have the audacity to not worship at the altar of George Dumbya Bush. Heaven forbid he should be confronted with anything other than an ocean of boot-licking acolytes. The guy can’t even read a teleprompter correctly. Imagine what would happen if somebody actually asked him a difficult question?? His head would explode.
11—There is no enshrined right to privacy when out in public. If the cameras are misused, then attack the misuse.
Enshrined rights are damaged when they are mindlessly attached to and extended past their legitimate function.
12—Your corrections are always valuable. Yes, I recall the free speech areas outside the Dubya campaigns. Little Dachaus. I must admit I saw the police state in action there. Thanks.
Since 9/11 the well protected and surveyed London has had a number of attacks and the unprotected vulnerable New York has had none. I don’t see how these camera’s make us better protected. Maybe someone can explain.
13. You’d almost think there was some kind of human rights issue involved judging by the usual “police state” rhetoric associated with public cameras.
But what do you think about unstoppable and undetectable ubiquitous cameras that will be the size of your shirt button (and smaller), dutifully recording everything that can be seen both in public and the most private of venues, all to be posted on the internet with the ease Al Qaeda posts their latest braggadocio?
Someday the very idea of a privacy law that prevents video recording anywhere will be as quaint and amusing as the old law that says women in Tennessee are not allowed to drive a motor vehicle unless a man precedes the car by at least 100 feet with a warning flag. Ooops, bad example.
http://www.helium.com/tm/28829/women-tennessee-allowed-drive
RBG
15–Misuse of camera technology should be prosecuted or prevented as the context requires. Use of cameras by private people in “the most private of venues” is occurring today and does not raise any free speech rights. Invasion of privacy suits apply under the law today.
You captured the rub here though. Some kind of unthinking association of camera’s with violation of rights. Hollywood’s pernicious effect. As a “tool” they can invade as well as protect the public.
Time marches on.
13. If the city has the right to use cameras in public venue, the people should also, without the permit. As you said, no enshrined right to privacy in public, cuts both ways. Call it checks and balances.
18–No, rights are inherent in people, not governments. So I would say people have a right to film in public areas whether or not the government can. I do assume any licensing/insurance requirement will be struck down by “liberal” courts if it goes beyond a legitimate time and place limitation.
19. We ARE the government, are we not? The people of the United States.
Interesting how gun free liberal NY is willing to monitor all its citizens all the time instead of allowing its honest ones to carry guns for protection against the already armed criminals.
20. No Mark I am not your government and you are not mine. The people elect a government to serve them. Stop being silly.
21. How is that interesting? Anti gun laws and public surviellance is a reasonable performance of police functions to serve and protect the citizenry. You can disagree, but that makes no connection.
It’s now up to some smart people to come up with holographic projectors that can make one appear to be doing something (or nothing) whilst doing something else entirely. Or perhaps camera detectors with pinpoint lasers that can temporarily disable a lens.
Cameras aren’t the answer to our security problems and there will be ways to defeat them, leaving the casual citizen to the mercy of jackbooted thugs while those with darker agendas move about freely.
A change is as good as…arrest.
Hey—you know “worse” than cameras is those pesky mobile phones. Those nefarious black suits can “track you” even when the phones are turned off.
Why no hubbub about the police state with this more ubiquitous and invasive tool? == = = = ==== ==== Its cultural.
Always wanted to do this…
DEAR JOHN,
And what, we would have an UGLY patrol?
And only the PRETTY people can go out into public??
Yes there are some REAL ugly people out there, and I think that MOST of them have done well.
15,
BECAUSE, there are only 2-3 Jump off points to GET to the USA. NOT counting Canada, or mexico…And as has been shown those on the Canadian border are abit DIM.
#5
John, you might want to do a little research into the efficiencies of standard police departments. They aren’t that efficient. It is more likely that either A: they would not have been caught or B: the police would have so bungled the investigation that they would have been acquited.
I love how quick the sheeple are to bend over for this crap. Enjoy, suckers.
28—So your program for homeland security would not include use of cameras in high density high value targets? I wonder why so many businesses and other high security areas utilize cameras?
I love the way dismissive labels can be substituted for anything insightful to say. Sheeple indeed. Actually you display your own flock’s character, or lack thereof.
@25, bobbo, Those nefarious black suits can “track you” even when the phones are turned off.
Yeah, right. Show me the money. And they can track the dimes in the glovebox, too.