How about 3000 security cameras for Manhattan? There, feel safer?

[Pure]

New York Plans Surveillance Veil for Downtown



By CARA BUCKLEY, NY TIMES

Published: July 9, 2007

By the end of this year, police officials say, more than 100 cameras will have begun monitoring cars moving through Lower Manhattan, the beginning phase of a London-style surveillance system that would be the first in the United States.

The Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, as the plan is called, will resemble London’s so-called Ring of Steel, an extensive web of cameras and roadblocks designed to detect, track and deter terrorists. British officials said images captured by the cameras helped track suspects after the London subway bombings in 2005 and the car bomb plots last month.

If the program is fully financed, it will include not only license plate readers but also 3,000 public and private security cameras below Canal Street, as well as a center staffed by the police and private security officers, and movable roadblocks.

“This area is very critical to the economic lifeblood of this nation,” New York City’s police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, said in an interview last week. “We want to make it less vulnerable.”

But critics question the plan’s efficacy and cost, as well as the implications of having such heavy surveillance over such a broad swath of the city.

For a while, it appeared that New York could not even afford such a system. Last summer, Mr. Kelly said that the program was in peril after the city’s share of Homeland Security urban grant money was cut by nearly 40 percent.

But Mr. Kelly said last week that the department had since obtained $25 million toward the estimated $90 million cost of the plan. Fifteen million dollars came from Homeland Security grants, he said, while another $10 million came from the city, more than enough to install 116 license plate readers in fixed and mobile locations, including cars and helicopters, in the coming months.

The readers have been ordered, and Mr. Kelly said he hoped the rest of the money would come from additional federal grants.

The license plate readers would check the plates’ numbers and send out alerts if suspect vehicles were detected. The city is already seeking state approval to charge drivers a fee to enter Manhattan below 86th Street, which would require the use of license plate readers. If the plan is approved, the police will most likely collect information from those readers too, Mr. Kelly said.

But the downtown security plan involves much more than keeping track of license plates. Three thousand surveillance cameras would be installed below Canal Street by the end of 2008, about two-thirds of them owned by downtown companies. Some of those are already in place. Pivoting gates would be installed at critical intersections; they would swing out to block traffic or a suspect car at the push of a button.

Unlike the 250 or so cameras the police have already placed in high-crime areas throughout the city, which capture moving images that have to be downloaded, the security initiative cameras would transmit live information instantly.

The operation will cost an estimated $8 million to run the first year, Mr. Kelly said. Its headquarters will be in Lower Manhattan, he said, though the police were still negotiating where exactly it will be. The police and corporate security agents will work together in the center, said Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the police. The plan does not need City Council approval, he said.

The Police Department is still considering whether to use face-recognition technology, an inexact science that matches images against those in an electronic database, or biohazard detectors in its Lower Manhattan network, Mr. Browne said.

The entire operation is forecast to be in place and running by 2010, in time for the projected completion of several new buildings in the financial district, including the new Goldman Sachs world headquarters.

Civil liberties advocates said they were worried about misuse of technology that tracks the movement of thousands of cars and people,

Would this mean that every Wall Street broker, every tourist munching a hot dog near the United States Court House and every sightseer at ground zero would constantly be under surveillance?

 

[Vermilion]

Would this mean that every Wall Street broker, every tourist munching a hot dog near the United States Court House and every sightseer at ground zero would constantly be under surveillance?

Simply? Yes.

 

[kbate]

I can feel the safety already. I love the idea of being charged to drive on city streets - next we can just have a smart tag that charges by the block and operates with your on-dash display:

09:02:47 - You have passed 47th street - $0.40 debited.
09:02:58 - You have passed 48th street - $0.40 debited.
09:03:21 - You have passed 49th street - Debit Account overdrawn.
09:03:21 - $25.00 fine for overdraft
09:03:21 - $0.40 charged to VISA # xxxx xxxx xxxx 2138
09:03:40 - You have passed 50th street - Visa xxxx xxxx xxxx 2138 charged $.040
09:03:52 - You have passed 51st street - Visa xxxx xxxx xxxx 2138 charged $0.40
09:03:52 - Speed violation - your speed 42 mph
09:03:52 - $93.00 Fine charged to VISA xxxx xxxx xxxx 2138.
09:03:52 - Visa xxxx xxxx xxxx 2138 overlimit - Shutting down motor.
09:03:52 - Notified Impound Service


Yes. I love technology.

:emoticon:

 

[BlackShanglan]

I personally am terrified by the idea that I could be walking or driving in public, minding my own business, and people could be looking at me! What is this country coming to?

 

[hmmnmm]

As long as they keep it in Manhatten.

 

[rgraham666]

Next, targeting lasers to guide Hellfire missiles onto vehicles identified as 'suspect'.

Have to hit those terrorists early and often, don't ya know.

 

[rgraham666]

I personally am terrified by the idea that I could be walking or driving in public, minding my own business, and people could be looking at me! What is this country coming to?

Your country is scared shitless, Shang. And like all people in a panic they will do anything to alleviate that fear.

 

[hmmnmm]

My wife grew up under a communist regime in europe.
She says the usa is leaning heavily towards a communist-like society.
We were watching something last night about Cuba, and how they are taught (and many believe it) that the usa is planning to attack them, take them over, so they have to be ready. I turned to my wife and said, "wow, that sounds familiar."
She nodded.

 

[R. Richard]

Before they put my image in a camera, they can damn well talk to my agent! What, they think that they can just sell my image for free? That waht an agent is for!

 

[BlackShanglan]

Your country is scared shitless, Shang. And like all people in a panic they will do anything to alleviate that fear.

I'm sorry, but I really can't work up any outrage over this. If I'm in public, I expect that people can see me. It really makes no difference to me who sees me or whether I know; if it did, I wouldn't be doing whatever I was doing in public. As for monitoring license plates, that's what they are there for. They are a public display of which car you're driving and who it's meant to belong to. If we don't like the idea of police tracking which car is where and whether it's meant to be there, we'll need to take up arms against the license plates themselves.

That, in my opinion, would be extremely silly. I've lived in London, where these sorts of measures are much further advanced, and the only effect I've ever felt from them was a sense of pleasant security, as when I could stand deliberately in the view of a camera to avoid annoying approaches by drug dealers or ticket touts. They've been an immense aid to the average person on the street in helping to stop crimes and to solve them. As for these swing-out gates to block intersections, bravo. If you've got a densely populated area, it's a lovely thing to be able to stop a speeding vehicle of whatever intent without resorting to PIT maneuvers or dangerous high-speed chases.

Scared shitless? I don't see it. I see a quite helpful system that allows the vast majority of the population to live safer and more pleasant lives with zero infringement on their liberties. I'm all for it.

 

[Liar]

The license plate readers would check the plates’ numbers and send out alerts if suspect vehicles were detected. The city is already seeking state approval to charge drivers a fee to enter Manhattan below 86th Street, which would require the use of license plate readers. If the plan is approved, the police will most likely collect information from those readers too, Mr. Kelly said.

Don't they already do that from every speeding cam in the country?

 

[rgraham666]

I'm sorry, but I really can't work up any outrage over this. If I'm in public, I expect that people can see me. It really makes no difference to me who sees me or whether I know; if it did, I wouldn't be doing whatever I was doing in public. As for monitoring license plates, that's what they are there for. They are a public display of which car you're driving and who it's meant to belong to. If we don't like the idea of police tracking which car is where and whether it's meant to be there, we'll need to take up arms against the license plates themselves.

Beg pardon. Hadn't realized you were being sarcastic.

I'm of much the same mind. The problem, of course, is that this tool can too easily be turned to less benign purposes. And probably will.

I will stick to my hypothesis that the real impulse behind this is fear. The people in positions of responsibility in the U.S. know the world is changing and can't cope with it. They know their power is slipping away from them and they are doing what ever they feel they must to hold on to it.

 

[angelicminx]

I'm sorry, but I really can't work up any outrage over this. If I'm in public, I expect that people can see me. It really makes no difference to me who sees me or whether I know; if it did, I wouldn't be doing whatever I was doing in public. As for monitoring license plates, that's what they are there for. They are a public display of which car you're driving and who it's meant to belong to. If we don't like the idea of police tracking which car is where and whether it's meant to be there, we'll need to take up arms against the license plates themselves.

That, in my opinion, would be extremely silly. I've lived in London, where these sorts of measures are much further advanced, and the only effect I've ever felt from them was a sense of pleasant security, as when I could stand deliberately in the view of a camera to avoid annoying approaches by drug dealers or ticket touts. They've been an immense aid to the average person on the street in helping to stop crimes and to solve them. As for these swing-out gates to block intersections, bravo. If you've got a densely populated area, it's a lovely thing to be able to stop a speeding vehicle of whatever intent without resorting to PIT maneuvers or dangerous high-speed chases.

Scared shitless? I don't see it. I see a quite helpful system that allows the vast majority of the population to live safer and more pleasant lives with zero infringement on their liberties. I'm all for it.

I'm scared, but that's because I'm paranoid.

The cameras and such in the article are part of the plot for the Sci-Fi story I began for NaNo. Considering what's in my mind for use in the story, I'm terrified of the consequences.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Beg pardon. Hadn't realized you were being sarcastic.

My apologies. One forgets, from time to time, that tone of voice is utterly absent here.

I'm of much the same mind. The problem, of course, is that this tool can too easily be turned to less benign purposes. And probably will.

I understand the concern. I just don't believe that that, on its own, is a reason to not implement a tool that can also be useful in good ways. Any power we give any person can be used badly, but the only way for any worthwhile goal to be accomplished is to give someone the power to accomplish it. I agree that people in positions of power need careful safeguards upon them, but if we decide not to give any member of the government or police forces any tool that could be abused, then what we're really saying is that we don't want a government or a police force. I do want those things. I want to keep a careful eye on them, but ultimately, I want them.

I will stick to my hypothesis that the real impulse behind this is fear. The people in positions of responsibility in the U.S. know the world is changing and can't cope with it. They know their power is slipping away from them and they are doing what ever they feel they must to hold on to it.

I honestly can't say I agree with that. What I see here is the opposite - something like the Red Cross's attempt to divert the post-9/11 wave of donations into funding for a nationwide bloodbank. It was a longterm project that they had wanted to do for ages, but that they hadn't been able to push hard because they didn't have the cash or a good rallying point. Many of the security measures detailed in the article Pure posted strike me as things that police have probably been wishing they could have for ages. Who wouldn't rather have a swing-out roadblock than chase people hither and yon, or have an automatic charging network instead of having to man traffic-slowing tollbooths at every key exchange point? This looks to me at least in part like people who have finally gotten a way to get funding using it to do some things that they've been wanting to for ages, just in order to make their jobs simpler and their work more effective.

But there's this, as well. Of all cities in the United States, New York has by far the most justification for taking stringent security measures. They have, after all, now twice been the prime target of terrorist attacks, and they are rebuilding on the site of the World Trade Center - a very obvious target for any new wave of attacks. I can't really see serious attempts to improve security as irrational fear or as attempts to cling to power. I see people charged with a duty to the public looking around them and saying, "I have millions of people crammed onto a tiny island with a limited number of ways to get off it, and they've got a big sign stuck to them that reads 'Third Time's the Charm.' I'd better get very serious about protecting their safety."

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm scared, but that's because I'm paranoid.

The cameras and such in the article are part of the plot for the Sci-Fi story I began for NaNo. Considering what's in my mind for use in the story, I'm terrified of the consequences.

Write a happy ending, okay? We need it!

 

[Pure]

BS//I personally am terrified by the idea that I could be walking or driving in public, minding my own business, and people could be looking at me! What is this country coming to?//

P: may i take it that you don't mind if(that) your email and internet journeys, and purchases, are also logged and scrutinized?


BS//I'm sorry, but I really can't work up any outrage over this. If I'm in public, I expect that people can see me. It really makes no difference to me who sees me or whether I know; if it did, I wouldn't be doing whatever I was doing in public.//

P: well, let's extend this a bit: if your comings and goings from your house/apt, and your guests, are photo'd and logged, is that a problem?
(i.e. photo'd from the public hallways, streets, sidewarks, lobbies).

when you visit someone, do you mind if your arrival at their building and apartment, and your departure, is logged.

do you mind if the authorities monitor your bank account?

i know you have that Vatican 'get out of jail free' card, but are you invariably sterling (silver)?

===
BS//Of all cities in the United States, New York has by far the most justification for taking stringent security measures. They have, after all, now twice been the prime target of terrorist attacks, and they are rebuilding on the site of the World Trade Center - a very obvious target for any new wave of attacks.//

P: I take it you think that the 3000 cameras might help prevent terrorist attacks? how so, exactly? sort of like London's elaborate system does?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm sorry, but I really can't work up any outrage over this. If I'm in public, I expect that people can see me. It really makes no difference to me who sees me or whether I know; if it did, I wouldn't be doing whatever I was doing in public. As for monitoring license plates, that's what they are there for. They are a public display of which car you're driving and who it's meant to belong to. If we don't like the idea of police tracking which car is where and whether it's meant to be there, we'll need to take up arms against the license plates themselves.

That, in my opinion, would be extremely silly. I've lived in London, where these sorts of measures are much further advanced, and the only effect I've ever felt from them was a sense of pleasant security, as when I could stand deliberately in the view of a camera to avoid annoying approaches by drug dealers or ticket touts. They've been an immense aid to the average person on the street in helping to stop crimes and to solve them. As for these swing-out gates to block intersections, bravo. If you've got a densely populated area, it's a lovely thing to be able to stop a speeding vehicle of whatever intent without resorting to PIT maneuvers or dangerous high-speed chases.

Scared shitless? I don't see it. I see a quite helpful system that allows the vast majority of the population to live safer and more pleasant lives with zero infringement on their liberties. I'm all for it.

I'm not exactly all for it, but my response to the cameras was, "It doesn't make me feel less safe."

 

[S-Des]

BSP: may i take it that you don't mind if(that) your email and internet journeys, and purchases, are also logged and scrutinized?

do you mind if the authorities monitor your bank account?

Funny that you seem to be worried about that, but not the pimply faced geek who already has access to that info because . . . well, because it's on the internet.

We have cameras for our tollbooths, which work great. Chicago has been installing intersection cameras to nail people who don't stop. They've also been used to catch a number of smaller crimes and, earlier this year, the first murder caught on tape (leading to a quick arrest). I'm not a big fan of too much surveillance, but it's inevitable. You're already on it countless times because of building surveillance, now they've just started including the streets.

 

[BlackShanglan]

BS//I personally am terrified by the idea that I could be walking or driving in public, minding my own business, and people could be looking at me! What is this country coming to?//

P: may i take it that you don't mind if(that) your email and internet journeys, and purchases, are also logged and scrutinized?

By the Borough of Manhattan? I didn't see anything in the story you posted that made reference to this.

But to address those points anyway:

- Intrusion into my email I would object to. Written correspondence has traditionally been private. If I'm at work and using an email account provided by my employer, I expect my employer to have access to it, as it's meant to be for work. My home email, however, I think I am justified in wishing to have private unless there's some reasonable cause to suspect that I'm using it for illegal or dangerous activities. I realize that our government doesn't always take the same position, of course, but I don't believe that that has any close connection to this story. I imagine that you're going to say "But they're both about the government spying on you!" but given that it's different governments (state vs. federal), different departments, different activities, and different reasons, I don't think that they have anything significant to do with each other.

- Internet journeys I would view similarly to email, with the difference that anything I do in public areas of the web I naturally expect to be linked to anything else I do in public areas of the web. If the FBI is mad enough to compile a vast dossier of everything I've posted to this site, they're not doing anything that the site itself doesn't automatically do anyway.

- Purchases are interesting things. We buy things in public, and yet we also instinctively resent strangers staring at or commenting upon our purchases. On the whole I'm not overjoyed about it, but if the government does track my purchases, they're ultimately not doing anything that they couldn't do by walking around looking at me anyway - or anything that any of the dozen stores that now ask me for a "loyalty card" do as well, or my credit card company. So long as the information is not released to inappropriate people or used in inappropriate ways, I shrug. If nothing else, the more people they have that sort of information from, they less they can do with it anyway; God knows what it would be like trying to process it all in any meaningful way.

But then, I suppose I think that that is the whole crux of the "public" issue. We accept that people can see what we do in public because we know that no one really has the time to scrutinize every action of every person they see. It doesn't really bother me.

BS//I'm sorry, but I really can't work up any outrage over this. If I'm in public, I expect that people can see me. It really makes no difference to me who sees me or whether I know; if it did, I wouldn't be doing whatever I was doing in public.//

P: well, let's extend this a bit: if your comings and goings from your house/apt, and your guests, are photo'd and logged, is that a problem?
(i.e. photo'd from the public hallways, streets, sidewarks, lobbies).

when you visit someone, do you mind if your arrival at their building and apartment, and your departure, is logged.

do you mind if the authorities monitor your bank account?

i know you have that Vatican 'get out of jail free' card, but are you invariably sterling (silver)?

It's tragic but true; I really don't care so long as it's not some demented stalker waiting to re-enact "Equus." I suppose it's a little blush-worthy to imagine someone pawing through the receipts for sex toys or porn, but eh. If they're going to take the time to wade through every single financial transaction of my remarkably mundane life, they deserve what little thrill that might give them. I frankly can't imagine anyone with the staying power to document my wholly uninteresting movements with that degree of detail, but so long as they're operating within the law for some reasonable legal purpose, they can observe me all they like.

I have nothing to hide. It really doesn't bother me.

===
BS//Of all cities in the United States, New York has by far the most justification for taking stringent security measures. They have, after all, now twice been the prime target of terrorist attacks, and they are rebuilding on the site of the World Trade Center - a very obvious target for any new wave of attacks.//

P: I take it you think that the 3000 cameras might help prevent terrorist attacks? how so, exactly? sort of like London's elaborate system does?

I don't think anything is capable of preventing every terrorist plan imaginable, if that's what you're asking. But I think that any system that makes it easier for police to do their jobs is likely to help, and if it's one that also does no harm to any innocent person going about his or her business, I don't see a problem. As I said to Rob, I'm not convinced that all of this is purely terrorist-oriented, and I don't have a problem with that. Cameras are very useful things for preventing, interrupting, and solving ordinary everyday crimes, and quite frankly I've missed them now that I'm in a place where they aren't used. I recall seeing the story of how London police launched the first successful rape prosecution in history in which the victim was never identified; it was thanks to CCTV that that happened, and I'd hate to give up a tool that useful without a very compelling reason.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

P: I take it you think that the 3000 cameras might help prevent terrorist attacks? how so, exactly? sort of like London's elaborate system does?

Shanglan I don't think anything is capable of preventing every terrorist plan imaginable, if that's what you're asking.

It's not what I asked, which was closer to, 'will it help prevent any appreciable number of terrorist attacks at all?" Any evidence of this?


But I think that any system that makes it easier for police to do their jobs is likely to help, and if it's one that also does no harm to any innocent person going about his or her business, I don't see a problem.

Well, you brought up terrorism as a reason for the NY measures. If you simply want to say the measures help police for certain ordinary crimes.
that's a different point.

"does no harm to any innocent person" cannot be the criterion to justify such measures. indeed you yourself do not use it; you reject several government activities, such as monitoring email, tapping phones, which might 'do no harm to any innocent person.'

 

[BlackShanglan]

P: I take it you think that the 3000 cameras might help prevent terrorist attacks? how so, exactly? sort of like London's elaborate system does?

Shanglan I don't think anything is capable of preventing every terrorist plan imaginable, if that's what you're asking.

It's not what I asked, which was closer to, 'will it help prevent any appreciable number of terrorist attacks at all?" Any evidence of this?

Yes, I think it's likely to help police tasked with terrorist prevention. I can't see how making it easier to track suspects could fail to.

"does no harm to any innocent person" cannot be the criterion to justify such measures. indeed you yourself do not use it; you reject several government activities, such as monitoring email, tapping phones, which might 'do no harm to any innocent person.'

It's not a sole criterion, but it's a significant part of the equation. Any enforcement measure will have positives and negatives; it's important to weigh them. It's one of the elements to consider.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

Isn't this sorta like the CCTV stuff they have all over here in England?

 

[More_Than_Magic]

I like living in the country even more now.

I'm not quite sure how this is going to make anyone safer. Just who is going to view those thousands of hours of tape?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

...
I'm not quite sure how this is going to make anyone safer. Just who is going to view those thousands of hours of tape?

That's what the trolls do when they're not one bombing our stories on Lit.

 

[Pure]

Shang Yes, I think it's likely to help police tasked with terrorist prevention. I can't see how making it easier to track suspects could fail to.


Quote:
Pure "does no harm to any innocent person" cannot be the criterion to justify such measures. indeed you yourself do not use it; you reject several government activities, such as monitoring email, tapping phones, which might 'do no harm to any innocent person.'



Shang It's not a sole criterion, but it's a significant part of the equation. Any enforcement measure will have positives and negatives; it's important to weigh them. It's one of the elements to consider.

----
Pure: Fair enough, but what i see so far is that on the plus side, the cameras help the police. That, plus 'no harm to innocent persons' seems to be the route you take to justify. [The only 'negative' assessed.]

A 1984 style telescreen in every living room would help the police and not harm innocent persons. The approach is inadequate as so far detailed.

What I don't hear from you, or from any apostles of liberty (what a surprise!) is a concern for rights, e.g of privacy, or not being surveilled, tracked.

I maintain it's a right not to be surveilled or tracked, not have my doings, communications, my documents, my records of library books checked in and out [this has come up] watched and inspected.

What your approach amounts to, so far as I've heard, is a kind of reversal of onus, i.e. 'why don't you prove harm or quite bellyaching.'

In legal terms, until GWB, it's quite the opposite, for onus. The police/law-enforcement go before a judge to get a wiretap or surveillance authorization, the onus being on them to prove reasonable suspicion for the particular individuals under consideration.


I maintain in a broad range of cases, based on individual rights recognized in the Constitution and SC judgments, you must prove, in lack of emergency, some substantial, actual benefits* that far outweigh the negative 'score' of the planned intrusions. I'm, in a sense, not harmed** by being watched and tracked, by my rights are seriously infringed.

(*As opposed to, "I think it will cut crime.")
(**or, the harm is intangible, consisting simply is a basic rights infringement.)

Further, the onus is even greater and quite difficult to meet where third parties' privacy is infringed, as for instance in tapping a public payphone that the suspect sometimes uses. What you are doing is surveilling 99 people to catch #100 who's thought to be possibly a criminal.

----
Just as an aside, isn't it odd how the citizens of NYC will be tracked on every trip to the shit house, and yet crossers of the US southern border walk in by the hundreds unrecognized, unrecorded--- the problem of 'watching' in this area said to be impossible to solve. The thought occurs to me, what not build a nasty fence/wall, but with openings, each for a road, UNpoliced, every 10 miles or so. All a person has to do is walk the road, and have his picture taken by the surveillance equipment, on his way into the US.