Will Everything Stay in New Orleans If Cameras Capture It All?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
1. Make all the camera feeds accessible to the public. Afterall, shouldn't more eyes help a place be safe?
2. Install cameras around Police HQs. Don't they want to be safe too?
Of course those who advocate surveillance in the same of safety are also the first ones to ensure they are never on camera themselves...
This is one of the things that makes me laugh with annoyance at the signs at, say, Customs and Immigration when entering the U.S., or at the entrances to courthouses, or (formerly) around airport screening areas. "No pictures or video are permitted. Cell phone use prohibited."
What, precisely, is going on that shouldn't be photographed? If one camera in the ceiling is good, aren't 931 cameras all that much better?
As always, the safety of the enterprise is paramount.
I think the logic is that the bad guys would use the pictures to identify the weaknesses and evade the screenings.
Now, whether the point of Airline security really is to catch the bad guys is a whole different story...
If that is true, surely thousands of pictures could be used to find an fix the weaknesses.
I suspect that photos are disallowed is because the TSA et al are afraid of embarrassment, and they should be.
Send someone not important: “You know what? I’m glad I forgot how to light my liquid-based shoe bombs that need exactly 101ml of fluid to blow a fatal hole in a plane. The inflight meal was much better than I thought it would be. I mean it wasn’t great but it was not horrible either. When I got off the plane, There were infidels and uhhh there was security and umm stuff. I didn’t take any pictures because there was a sign that said I shouldn’t. It was easy to find which suitcase was mine because of the rainbow colored strap my niece chose for me to put on it. What do you think of the mouse ears I got you from Disneyland? ...boss?”
This isn't about deterring crime, it's about catching criminals. Which is not the same thing. I wish departments would be more upfront about this.
There's no statistical link between cameras and crime prevention [1].
[1]https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/study-question...
Not saying you're wrong, but if you're right there are an awful lot of pointless security signs outside my neighbor's houses.
Here in Australia that isn't a thing, not for residential security systems anyway. The system contacts a security company who sends one of their patrol cars with a security guard.
The obvious reason for this is: the police have better things to do than respond to false alarms all day.
Why would it be a false alarm?
> By looking at crime rates within the two complexes and in Manhattan’s 13th Precinct, which encircles them, two researchers said that their statistical calculations showed no persuasive evidence that the installation of cameras reduced the crime rate in Peter Cooper Village from 2002 to 2006. However, there was stronger evidence for a drop in minor crime at Stuyvesant Town.
They're look at whether or not the crime rate within two complexes in Manhattan have gone down after cameras were installed. In on they didn't seem to, and in the other it seems that they might have. This doesn't seem that surprising; it seems it would be far more likely that a criminal would commit a crime in the same city than it is that they would commit a crime in the same building.
That already happened to San Francisco. Coming next, the San Francisco Homeless Tracking System.[1]
[1] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-s-ambitious-ho...
The current title makes no sense.
Once it's there, I'm pretty sure law enforcement will use various machine learning approaches to process and scan vast amounts of uploaded visual and audio imagery in cloud storage (I believe this already happens on a smaller scale). As for New Orleans? In my opinion, this very likely to happen with or without the cameras.
If they have them facing private areas and use them to record those privately owned areas, then that's another issue.
It's like the availability of mugshots. Decades ago, they were also public documents, so in that sense nothing has changed. But now that they are so much more accessible, vile businesses now retrieve mugshots in bulk and publish them online in order to shake down people who have been arrested.
Sure, these are public places, but does that justify the intrusiveness of a police force, or other government organization, tracking your every public movement? This is the definition of a surveillance state. What happens when you piss off the wrong person with access to this data? What happens when your business interest conflicts with those of someone with access to this data? What if you want to run for office, and you've been caught doing something legal, but socially unacceptable?
It's already happening in China[1]. No thank you. This is means of population subversion and control. I'd much rather risk being the victim of an illegal crime.
1.https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-all-seeing-surveillance-sta...
Bad stuff happens here like everywhere but I very very rarely fear for my safety.
This is a definite case of 'control/corruption in the name of safety'.
How do we stop it?
Poor black people tend to ask the question, "Why do they keep us at the end of our rope?"
And never the twain shall meet.