Will Everything Stay in New Orleans If Cameras Capture It All?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Will Everything Stay in New Orleans If Cameras Capture It All?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/us/new-orleans-security-cameras.html
46 comments
> 2. Install cameras around Police HQs. Don't they want to be safe too?
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.
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.
Everyone who works in XX-Sec will tell you that every system has weaknesses, in this case I think that it is those weaknesses which shouldn't be photographed.
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...
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...
Let's continue the ridiculous premise and explore the following assumption; "pictures... identify the weaknesses".
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.
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.
If pictures can identify weaknesses, can't "The Bad Guys" just go there themselves, or send their lackies.
Send someone important: “You got here for your stay in ADX Florence... and we didn’t even have to extradite, torture, or rendition you to get you here! What a guy!”
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?”
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?”
I saw policeman detain a man at the airport in Barcelona for taking a pictures with his cellphone at the baggage claim, which confused me a lot.
The article actually mentions that the video surveillance center monitoring these cameras will, itself, be under video surveillance. Though it doesn't say from where, or by whom.
> Kelby Reed, who lives in the city’s Ninth Ward, said he favored expanding the presence of security cameras in New Orleans to deter crime.
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...
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...
Robberies at British banks have fallen by over 90% in last 2 decades and one of the reasons quoted are CCTVs. Of course, cameras by themselves are not enough, they can only be a part of the solution, together with the police and community efforts.
Meanwhile, credit/debit card use has soared and cash reserves have declined. But that can't have anything to do with it, think of the children!
Crime has been dropping for the last few thousand years. Saying this or that small change is responsible for a recent drop is unlikely to be true.
I'm not sure you can say that definitively based on that article. From the article:
> 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.
> 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.
> There's no statistical link between cameras and crime prevention
Not saying you're wrong, but if you're right there are an awful lot of pointless security signs outside my neighbor's houses.
Not saying you're wrong, but if you're right there are an awful lot of pointless security signs outside my neighbor's houses.
Do a lot of them warn would-be robbers about cameras? Or about security systems that sound an alarm and automatically dial the police?
Automatically dial the police?
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.
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.
In the US they can tell if it’s a fire or a break in and the security company will call the proper authorities. Some even have panic buttons and yes the police will come. I’ve seen it happen my self.
Why would it be a false alarm?
Why would it be a false alarm?
My old workplace had an alarm we would set at closing time when we left. I was a contact on the list of people to be called when it went off. It went off maybe 10 times while I was there, every time was a false alarm. Sometimes kids bouncing a ball against the window, sometimes strong winds, sometimes a poster falling off the wall...
A workplace, sure... but if a kid was bouncing a ball against my home's windows when I wasn't there, I'd sure want someone to come by and tell them to stop.
Is the police the right service for this?
Depends on your local PD. In my town I'd say yes but I understand that in other areas that would be a bad idea.
"The broad public safety plan announced last year, which included an early version of the camera plan, discussed taking steps to “reduce the culture of permissiveness” in New Orleans."
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...
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...
Mostly OT: Isn't the phrase "What happens in X stays in X" more closely associated with Las Vegas, which must be one of the most heavily surveilled cities in America? https://lasvegassun.com/youre-being-watched/
I always interpreted the tag line to be more about the social acceptance of what would be considered deviant behavior elsewhere.
Yes. The implication is come to Vegas and do wild stuff with no one at home the wiser. The contra is a favorite t-shirt I’ve seen at the airport: What happens in Vegas stays on Facebook and YouTube forever :-)
In addition to large amounts of surveillance, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) has regularly been featured on Cops and Vegas Strip [0]. So pretty much the exact opposite of the Las Vegas slogan.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegas_Strip_(TV_series)
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegas_Strip_(TV_series)
[deleted]
Can we fix the title? It should be "Will 1,500 Street Cameras Be a Wet Blanket in New Orleans?"
The current title makes no sense.
The current title makes no sense.
The NYT changed the title since I posted it, I suspect they agree with your assessment.
I read accounts of people responding with hostility to google glass (there was a time when it was considered bad etiquette to take someone's picture without asking, and plenty of people feel this way now. I honestly don't really like being recorded). But the technology to embed this in a way that is undetectable will almost certainly be developed before long, and could all be uploaded to the cloud.
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.
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 it’s done with respect to people’s privacy and able to reduce/deter crime, why not?
How can you be sure they will respect privacy? That's the $10,000 question here.
No one can be sure, but if they only place these cameras in public locations and have them facing public areas, then there should be no expectation of privacy to begin with.
If they have them facing private areas and use them to record those privately owned areas, then that's another issue.
If they have them facing private areas and use them to record those privately owned areas, then that's another issue.
There's a vast difference between permanent blanket surveillance of a public location and incidental witnessing of events in a public location.
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.
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.
What happens when you combine these cameras with facial recognition technology?
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...
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...
I live and work in New Orleans. I don't live in the best part of town.
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?
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?
There are community groups organizing to oppose the expansion of the security state in New Orleans, including but not limited to MaCCNO: https://maccno.com/join-the-opposition-to-new-orleans-40-mil...
Thank you!
Rich white people tend to ask the question, "How can we stop the crime?"
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.
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.
Don't worry, only some of the cameras are maintained and operational, if we can trust a 3rd season plot-line from the fictional show Treme.
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...