Security Cameras in NY Streets to Deter Crime... (Amsterdam, Walton: university, allergies)

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by Coolhand68

I'm sure Ben Franklin is also rolling in his grave at how today's politicians have made a mockery of our constitution. Illegal immigrants get a free pass, career criminals and terrorists roam the streets thanks to legal loopholes and ACLU types, standards of education have dropped dramatically over the last several decades, and our police and military have had their hands tied while trying to maintain some degree of peace and civility. So where are these higher standards you speak of? What rights are being taken away from you because the city places a camera on a high risk street corner? Afraid someone will catch you picking your nose? Honestly, I don't think there's anything to be concerned about. There are cameras at airports, convenience stores, shopping malls, ballparks, and many public places already, have you ever felt as though your constitutional rights have been infringed at any of these places because of the cameras?

Look at the news and those caught on video shows, do you see how many criminals have been brought to justice because of cameras in stores and elsewhere? Recently there was a severe beating that took place in California and an entire gang of thugs were caught and arrested thanks to video cameras at the location. If people are going to act like animals, then I say we have the right to film them as though they are on the discovery channel.

Excellent Post!

[A_Better_Bronx_2morrow]

Originally Posted by Bookery

I think cameras on public streets are okay as long as there are strict laws in place to govern where the cameras are placed, how the footage is used, and who’s allowed to see it. But it is a risk. And it does sound like 1984.

I agree that there has to be some kind of enforcement to make sure that cameras are used for criminal prevention purposes, not on spying on a lady undressing in front of her window. Also we must make sure that no employees that have access to video footage is able to burn a copy onto a cd or dvd for personal use and then puts it on youtube. That I totally agree.

But it is NOT an invasion of privacy to have cameras in the street and I love to see it happen very soon. The streets would be much safer by locking up the indivduals who DARE to commit a crime in public.

[justfarr1030]

Originally Posted by Bookery

I’d just like to comment about the whole public/private debate.

I’m a librarian. I work for a public library. That means it’s a public space, funded by tax dollars, and we have to know the privacy laws. While the Constitution’s Bill of Rights doesn’t say anything about a right to privacy, most Americans feel that they have a natural right to privacy, and US court decisions have upheld that right. Ten state constitutions guarantee a right of privacy or bar unreasonable intrusions into citizens’ privacy. In fact, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (created by the UN) states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.” (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

So back to the library, which is a public place. “Forty-eight states protect the confidentiality of library users’ records by law, and the attorneys general in the remaining two states have issued opinions recognizing the privacy of users’ library records” (ALA | Privacy). Library privacy is maintained because it maintains freedom of thought: if you knew someone was monitoring your library use, you might be more reluctant to research controversial issues, effects of drugs, communism, etc.—even if you are completely innocent or “party-line.” Police in most states have to have a warrant to gain access to library records, and even then they’re activities are limited.

So Point #1: You do have some right to privacy, even in a public space.

Here’s the interesting thing: certain provisions of the Patriot Act give the FBI the right to look at your library records and track your internet use without probable cause (i.e., without a real warrant—just a National Security Letter). Then, they could serve the library with a gag order, preventing the librarians from discussing the incident at all or telling the patron that they’re being investigated (the gag order part was overturned by a federal appeals court in December-- ALA | American Libraries - Overturn of Patriot Act's Gag Order Upheld, in Part). You may say this is just a precaution, but it’s happened several times (here’s one example: Librarians Denounce Gag Order in Patriot Act Case : NPR). It’s absolutely a violation of privacy. The federal government has a history of using letters like this to gain access to library records.

So Point #2: The government tends to take advantage of situations in which they can monitor their citizens. The US also has a history of trying to silence or discredit people who publicly disagree with major policies. It’s not out of line to imagine cameras on public streets being used for purposes they weren't originally intended for.

I think cameras on public streets are okay as long as there are strict laws in place to govern where the cameras are placed, how the footage is used, and who’s allowed to see it. But it is a risk. And it does sound like 1984.

Exactly like I said earlier, WHERE WILL IT STOP?

As you so eloquently pointed out, the government (or certain individuals in it) tend to take advantage of it's power ALL THE TIME. That's what I'm concerned about as a citizen. The way the Bush administration tried to use fear of Terroism to force you to give up your rights and we let them.

[bmwguydc]

Certain records are private, and should be reasonably expected to be so, even in a public space. There is a difference, however, when a person leaves their own private space in the physical universe and enters the public sphere. Walking down the street, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy, yet entering an establishment to transact business such as at the library, the record of transaction has a right to privacy, yet I may be viewed by security camera. There is a difference, and monitoring the physical presence in the interest of the public good would not trample one's rights.

However, I agree that safeguards need to be in place such that inappropriate use is brought to justice and prosecuted fully, with strict punishments for transgresssions. Unauthorized use of a camera or footage should result in immediate termination, forfeiture of pension, and jail time. In such cases, the abuse factor would be minimized, and it wouldn't be a situation where a $1k bribe would have many circumventing the rules.

Cameras have been used to record events when certain things are triggered such as a gunshot, and in such instances perhaps a live camera might bring the perpetrator to justice sooner. Personally, I would rather an increased police presence as opposed to a camera (live feed or tape), since the police have an effect in a given neighborhood that can deter crime from occurring. Knowing that there's a camera that could possibly be used to record and perhaps radio in a police team does not have the same effect as a neighborhood that is known to have a large police presence interacting with the community on a daily basis. If one were a criminal, given the two choices, they'd most likely take their chances with a camera as offering better odds for escape.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by justfarr1030

Exactly like I said earlier, WHERE WILL IT STOP?

Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to stop with cameras. There are already proposals involving microchip implantation which, I understand, people have volunteered for. If cameras in the streets are a bad idea, then implantation is an order of magnitude worse. It may yet turn out that George Orwell only nicked the tip of the iceberg when he wrote 1984.

[A_Better_Bronx_2morrow]

Originally Posted by Coolhand68

I'm sure Ben Franklin is also rolling in his grave at how today's politicians have made a mockery of our constitution. Illegal immigrants get a free pass, career criminals and terrorists roam the streets thanks to legal loopholes and ACLU types, standards of education have dropped dramatically over the last several decades, and our police and military have had their hands tied while trying to maintain some degree of peace and civility. So where are these higher standards you speak of? What rights are being taken away from you because the city places a camera on a high risk street corner? Afraid someone will catch you picking your nose? Honestly, I don't think there's anything to be concerned about. There are cameras at airports, convenience stores, shopping malls, ballparks, and many public places already, have you ever felt as though your constitutional rights have been infringed at any of these places because of the cameras?

Look at the news and those caught on video shows, do you see how many criminals have been brought to justice because of cameras in stores and elsewhere? Recently there was a severe beating that took place in California and an entire gang of thugs were caught and arrested thanks to video cameras at the location. If people are going to act like animals, then I say we have the right to film them as though they are on the discovery channel.

Well said. I couldn't of said it better myself.

[A_Better_Bronx_2morrow]

Originally Posted by Coolhand68

If people are going to act like animals, then I say we have the right to film them as though they are on the discovery channel.

LMAO!!!!! I almost fell out my chair when I read that. This is soooooo TRUE!

[justfarr1030]

Originally Posted by A_Better_Bronx_2morrow

Please don't give me that civil LIBERTY speech. LOL.

Cameras DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT make a person feel like we're all criminals unless you have a GUILTY conscience and did dirt in the past or currently still do it. Thats the bottom line...

...So when I walk anywhere that has cameras, I DON'T FEEL LIKE A CRIMINAL OR FEEL LIKE MY "RIGHTS" HAVE BEEN VIOLATED because I have NOTHING to hide. If anything, I feel SAFER because I know that if something was to go down, its ALL ON VIDEO. A video/picture is worth a thousand words.

Originally Posted by Miles

Too much of Orwell can create paranoia and schizophrenia. Let's be real and put things in measured perspective.

And hey, we're not talking temporary safety...it's permanent one, my friend!

NOONE STILL HAS GIVEN A REASON THAT WOULD ADVOCATE FOR CAMERAS TO BE EVERYWHERE WATCHING YOU 24/7 and how that is so beneficial to society as opposed to the negative effects except for their own PERSONAL feelings.. (In all honesty, I'm waiting because I'm open minded on anything)

Here is an interesting FACT: In 2007, the DoD (Department of Defense) received 168 Billion dollars to fight the "War" on terroism. According to the Counter Terroism Center, in 2004 roughly 2000 people (I believe the exact number was 1907) were killed by significant international terroism. Out of that number of people, 68 were Americans.

Using that number as an average, 70 Americans die each year as a result of terroism (which by the way I'm being EXTREMELY generous). Did you know that TWICE as many people die each year from peanut allergies? Another interesting FACT, the leading cause of death in Americans is Coronary Heart Disease which kills roughly 450,000 Americans each year. In 2007, the governmental allocation of funds on this issue was 3 billion. Therefore, this means that in just 2007 the government spent 54 TIMES the amount on preventing terroism than it did on preventing a disease that kills 6,600 times more people annualy than terroism does.

C'mon people, lets wake up.

[thomas_72]

I think we need more security cameras. Here's an example of some that went up in the Norwood section of The Bronx and I hope this is a continuing effort:

"Also through partnership with the NYPD, the BID has installed a string of security cameras along Jerome Avenue and is extending this project to Gun Hill Road. The BID’s high-tech security camera system monitors and records business rooftops/storefronts and is connected to the BID main office and the local 52nd precinct."

(BID = Business Improvement District, part of the Mosholu Preservation Corporation)

Mosholu Preservation Corporation: Economic Developement - Jerome-Gun Hill BID

[SuperMario]

Police have been putting cameras up in the worst hoods for years. In fact, on 183rd street, the drug dealing got so blatant and in your face that the 46th precinct put cameras up on 4 consecutive blocks! They have cameras on 183rd and Jerome, a block up on Walton, a block up Morris and finally a block up on Creston. The cameras changed the landscape tremendously. The drug dealing on those 4 blocks were more controlled, but the drug dealers moved to the west side of Jerome (elevated train) and infected the 183rd area and Davidson, Grand, and Aqueduct. Nowadays, the west side has more drug dealing than the areas originally intended. But the original areas of Jerome all the way to Creston, still have drug dealers parked on their corners 24/7. They just go into stores or down a few blocks to sell. So really IMO, cameras have made matters worse. Instead of the drug dealing being concentrated, it is now more spread out. Although the original areas are no longer the drug factories that they once were in 1990. Still among the worst however.

I have also seen cameras on 162nd and Amsterdam avenue in Washington Heights. This was said to be one of the worst blocks in the city back during the crack days. I havent really been around this area at night, but during the day I still see people on the corners. So I dont really know how much, or if it has actually improved.

Again in the Bronx, I seen cameras on Southern BLVD and Freeman street. I didn't really see drug dealers here but I saw plenty of junkies and bums.

IMO, cameras work in buildings or in projects. My building recieved cameras on every floor and in the lobby. All the drug dealers apparently have moved on elsewhere.

But in the streets, the dealers are just going to move on to another block. I think this applies less to robberies and other crimes. If a criminal sees a camera, they wont rob someone on that block or building. The ones who get caught on camera, dont see the camera. But if not there, then somewhere else.

Cameras really do nothing.