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.
29,
thats Right, HIGH value targets ALREADY have cameras setup…On private property…Its part of the Insurance.
This would be for Public locations.
Uh, yeah… bobbo? What BR said.
That was one of your tongue-in-cheek comments, I hope…
30 &32 —Gosh, hope I didn’t report falsely. Think I read that 3 weeks ago while following the case of a missing child. Maybe the definition of “on” was tweaked in the article for some reason? ((eg, I could see it meaning you don’t have to be on the phone making a call.)) If “off” means the phone cannot be tracked no matter what, then I take your correction.
Not the main point anyway. Just pointing out, if one wants to be paranoid, there are more insidious risks than cameras as cell phones could track you in non public areas where expectation of privacy does exist. —I’ll assume they can track you if you call the FBI directly and stay on the line?
NOTE—-just googled this site http://tinyurl.com/862r2 and I believe what I read garbled and mixed up the 911 tracking service with cell phone service? I remember this clearly because I thought at the time it was odd for something to work when “off” but I could see special phones that the kiddies could not turn off the tracking feature. So–who knows???
31–Dont be churlish. Many government buildings have camera security. Issue is extending their use to more general on the street surviellance in cities like New York. Cameras have a demonstrated security use we should welcome. ((Yes the camera overlords))
Again – -YES – -the London experiment is objective evidence they are useful for this purpose and NO ONE has offered an example of misuse outweighing their benefit. And if you do, simply prosecute the misuse of this technology. Rather silly to let vague free-floating paranoia prevent your own safety? Rather PC for a geeky crowd.
Imagine if George Orwell saw this.
“OH MY GOD! I was right! geez, I thought up the whole big brother thing after a couple of beers, I didn’t think it would REALLY happen!”
All joking aside, I think that the cameras will be a good thing, to an extent. If they arent abused.
#34 – If they arent abused.
Bwahahahahaha
Somewhere in my head, from years and years (decades) ago, there is an idea for a science fiction novel about a future place (or distant planet) where everyone was on camera all the time, except in the privacy of their own homes.
Everyone, almost without question, wore a disguise every time they left the house, and most would not speak in public unless absolutely necessary. Eventually, the entire economy, except for the manufacturer’s of cameras and disguises, started to falter.
I think I would call the main character Salem Jones.
35—Please tell us how a security camera set up in a public place can be misused? I can think of uses that would “embarass” people and the occasional looking into people’s bathrooms, but beyond that – – – -what?
If locals can’t learn not to embarass themselves in public or infront of camera’s they know are there, that really is their problem.
OUR collective problem is crime prevention. Cameras record what happened so that perps can be caught—preventing further crime. Face recognition programs will come on board and that is welcomed too.
Too many otherwise rational people have this knee jerk reaction to Big Brother scenarios that don’t withstand rational scrutiny. So what is your concern now?
A hypothetical. Say, you are going into an establishment, perfectly legal, possibly embarrasing (massage parlor, adult bookstore, strip club) just maybe, the record of that visit would come back to haunt you should you be running for office, securing employment etc. Its the potential for that abuse that is bothersome. Who knows who will get control of this technology in the future and what they can use it for.
38. Then maybe we should ban whatever technology was used here as well for the same reasons. (Pencil & paper among others):
“Uh, Oh… The D.C. Madam’s Phone Records Have Been Released Online!” http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=12485
RBG
38—You make my point. ALL that is is embarassing. So YOU want to put my safety at risk so you don’t have to admit to an uncomfortable truth?
Thread still open for a rational reason not to flood NYC with spy cams.
#40 – I’m a former inner city cab driver and I’m here to tell you that without cameras I am not in danger in the city and I am embarrassed that all you candy ass muther fuckers are too chicken shit to step foot in a city after dark.
Here is my concern bobbo… I no longer trust authority. I DO NOT trust the police, and I am from a police family. And further, you said that:
OUR collective problem is crime prevention. Cameras record what happened so that perps can be caught—preventing further crime.
Bullshit.
YOUR problem might be this myth of prevention… But my problem is that too many things that should not be illegal is illegal. And that my freedom of motion is being limited and these cameras will be used to further limit my freedom.
38—You make my point. ALL that is is embarassing.
He’s talking about blackmail. Last I checked, that was a crime.
You know… I never pegged you for one of these uptight law and order guys hellbent on crushing the heart and soul out of a culture with thuggery and intimidation.
#40 – Oh… and sorry for being so late to the thread…
40. Exactly, I want to put you at risk, life is full of risk, quit being such a pussy.
40. Allright that was uncalled for, and I apologize. My point is, I am not willing to give up any more freedom to make the weak and timid feel safer. The only terrorist act we should fear, is the threat of someone smuggling a nuke into this country, and that is a border issue. Until that is addressed, fuck the rest.
41—Someone with access to your computer is posting irrelevant inanities in your name. Loct that sucker down. Put a camera on it to see who is making you look silly. Hurry!!! We’ll wait.
OK, I accept your comfort level is met without cameras. But cameras are just a cheap and efficient way to get more eyes on the street and more sure convictions for those charged with crime. I support cameras, you do not. I am not rabid if cameras are not installed, you sound quite paranoid about what I don’t know if they are installed. Sounds like a perfect issue for the majority rule to control. I’m happy either way.
Still, you haven’t posted any reason not to do it except a general statement about the laws not being the way you want and a very nonspecif fear of losing your freedom. VERY WEAK. Try again.
44—Your post was much funnier at #43. Always go with your gut hunch.
45. Ok Pussy. (I coulnt resist). He he.