Sayitaintso Member Username: Sayitaintso
Post Number: 6 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 9:35 am: | |
Not sure if this is will be redundant. But does Detroit have any anti crime survelliance systems in place? Any opinions on whether it could work in Detroit? Reference article about system being used in Chicago: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/24/ MNACSA80Q.DTL |
Sirrealone Member Username: Sirrealone
Post Number: 114 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 9:40 am: | |
I think they did but they were stolen |
Diehard Member Username: Diehard
Post Number: 409 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 12:38 pm: | |
Interesting... but I doubt Detroit has the cops available to sit and watch the cameras like they do in Chicago. Even if they took the San Francisco approach, there's way too much territory to monitor here. Criminals could easily figure out how to move their business into abandoned buildings and dark alleys. |
Chitaku Member Username: Chitaku
Post Number: 1897 Registered: 03-2006
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 1:06 pm: | |
lame- lets all give up our liberties so we can be safe. Many Americans have been dumbed down to submissive pansies. I'm sick of the "I'd rather be safe" argument when it comes to privacy. Chicago is a police state now when a guy can't even swig on a 4-0 near his house. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2052 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 1:19 pm: | |
Actually, evidence suggests that "crime prevention" surveillance systems primarily MOVE crime. They tend to encourage criminals to move from, say, a surveilled business district to a place without surveillance, say, a neighboring poorer residential district. To quote from a web site (www.cajundetective.com/surveil lance.htm), "The argument for surveillance as a crime prevention tool is less strong. It is argued that the use of video cameras in public places will deter crime and enable speedy intervention if a crime is observed. However, as Chapter 4 discusses, the effectiveness of such systems is a matter for debate, especially as much depends on the level of resources backing up the visual surveillance and the possible response time. There is also an argument that such surveillance merely moves crime from one place to another, rather than prevents it." Also, lots of the arrests made are victimless crimes that unduly affect poor and low-income people, not much different from 'rousting' in the old days. As for the privacy angle, I think there's a double-standard for the people (us) and the elite (them). Yeah, I'll accept "crime surveillance cameras" without qualm -- just as soon as they're installed in boardrooms and in the oval office. In other words, when pigs fly. |
Mozeewink Member Username: Mozeewink
Post Number: 32 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 1:20 pm: | |
The idea of the "smart cameras" which could recognize faces and compare them to mug shots of wanted offenders, is interesting. |
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 462 Registered: 12-2007
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 1:43 pm: | |
Interesting if you like George Orwell books interesting? |
Mozeewink Member Username: Mozeewink
Post Number: 33 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 1:50 pm: | |
yes, there is the big brother, slippery slope fear, which is valid. What London is becoming is not desirable, for example. But, is there an argument to be made that this could help an understaffed, underfunded police force? Particularly if there is the ability to spot wanted offenders...? Its something to think about... I'm on the fence at the moment... |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2055 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 1:53 pm: | |
That's the thing: Evidence suggests that the cameras do little to help an understaffed, underfunded police force. What good is videorecording the crime if nobody can be dispatched to deal with it? |
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 463 Registered: 12-2007
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 1:53 pm: | |
I think more feet on the street...I don't like the ideas of cameras...not one bit |
Diehard Member Username: Diehard
Post Number: 411 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 1:54 pm: | |
The right to privacy only applies to private property. So as long as these are pointed at a public sidewalk and not into someone's bedroom window (or boardroom, or the Oval Office - wouldn't that be a riot?) - the "privacy" question is moot. I'm not necessarily advocating the Big Brother approach - just saying you'd never be able to use the privacy defense against this particular thing. |
Jams Member Username: Jams
Post Number: 7948 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 2:03 pm: | |
Look up...and smile. |
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 562 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 2:04 pm: | |
This sounds reasonable to me from a privacy standpoint:quote:In San Francisco, no one watches the action as the cameras record it. Police track down the footage later if they find out that a camera may have recorded a serious crime such as a homicide. No one shifts San Francisco's 70 cameras into better position in an emergency. This does not:quote:Earl Gardner lounged on the street near his home just west of downtown Chicago, a 24-ounce can of Crazy Stallion beer in his hand. A mile away, police Officer Al Garbauski slid a computer mouse to maneuver a camera that was perched a block from Gardner. Zooming in tight, Garbauski saw malt liquor meet mouth and sent an officer to arrest Gardner for drinking in public. Neither does this:quote:Objects a block away from a camera were hard to make out, but zooming in revealed the digits of a license plate or the contours of a face, in this case that of a McDonald's employee serving patrons at the drive-through. "Let's see what they're getting," said Garbauski's fellow officer, Russell Schultz. "Looks like a McChicken." Either way, it strikes me as an awfully large investment for a relatively unproven method. I think the money would be better spent hiring more officers to walk the streets. A camera can't make an arrest, either--I doubt it would do anything to improve the horrendously slow police response in this city. I vote "no." |
Revolutionary Member Username: Revolutionary
Post Number: 147 Registered: 09-2004
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 2:30 pm: | |
A cop watching you get assaulted on a camera can really only watch the crime happen. Cameras don't prevent crime, they merely document it. I'd rather have those resources on the street where they might actually act as a deterrent. If they put cameras in, they're going to have to hire some security guards to watch them. Wouldn't that be something? |
Hamtramike Member Username: Hamtramike
Post Number: 492 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 4:06 pm: | |
Anyone ever been on the riverwalk??? Lots of cameras there.. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2058 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 4:07 pm: | |
Any newly designed building, public space, park, stadium, etc., is going to have lots of surveillance. It's the new architectural standard for class-A environments. |
Sayitaintso Member Username: Sayitaintso
Post Number: 7 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 8:36 am: | |
Any chance this might refer to surveillance systems? Excerpt from Kilpatrick State of the City speech: One of our most pernicious crime problems is burglaries. This type of crime is personally invasive and impacts a person’s sense of security. I have directed the Chief to come up with a reduction strategy to take those criminals who are invading our homes and businesses off the streets. The Chief has implemented a plan that uses traditional policing and science and technology to arrest and assist in the successful conviction of those who are breaking into our homes, our churches, our schools, and our businesses. I don’t want to give you too much information, because I don’t want the bad guys to know the details of our strategy. But I want you to know that this is one of our most important priorities this year. The plan is already in motion and you will see the results. |
Jams Member Username: Jams
Post Number: 7952 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 8:39 am: | |
See 911 thread, regarding that promise. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2060 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 9:40 am: | |
"I don’t want to give you too much information, because I don’t want the bad guys to know the details of our strategy. But I want you to know that this is one of our most important priorities this year. The plan is already in motion and you will see the results." I believe the plan is to fight crime by arming selected members of the Kilpatrick administration with special crime-fighting briefcases, loaded with hard-packed cash. In the event of a crime emergency, officials can batter and crush any crime wave by swinging said attaches. |
Mozeewink Member Username: Mozeewink
Post Number: 36 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 11:24 am: | |
"200 surveillance cameras at Van Dyke houses fail to stop rape suspect" - http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_ local/brooklyn/2008/03/21/2008 -03-21_200_surveillance_camera s_at_van_dyke_hou-1.html Not so effective in this case... |
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou
Post Number: 2027 Registered: 09-2006
| Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 5:15 pm: | |
Well if the cameras are shown to move the crime to certain places then it could still be helpful. Put the cameras in key places and then watch as the crime moves to places you want them to move to. Then all you have to do is patrol the hell out of those places to which the crime has moved and then where will they run to? |
Ravine Member Username: Ravine
Post Number: 2085 Registered: 01-2006
| Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 9:09 pm: | |
To Dearborn, I hope. That army of smug cops needs something worthwhile to do. |
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 829 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 10:46 pm: | |
Joburg South Africa has set up a large number of cameras in their CBD. And the success is just amazing. People use to not be able to walk outside without being mugged. Since the cameras went in, you can now walk outside again, and crime has gone down something like 60 or 70%. Toronto has cameras that are moved around by the police as needed. Right now they have them in the downtown Entertainment District, where as many as 50,000-100,000 young people pack into each Friday and Saturday night. There has been some crime issues with fighting and stuff from drunk partygoers. The following info is from the Toronto Police on the camera system. ---- The CCTV cameras are marked with the word POLICE and the Toronto Police Service crest. These overt cameras are clearly visible to all members of the public and are programmed to view public spaces only. Public notice signs are posted where CCTV cameras are deployed, identifying that cameras are in that area and provide the public with contact points for further information. Recorded images will be viewed by police only in the event of a reported incident. Images recorded by the camera will be retained for a period of up to 31 days, and then recorded over unless viewed in relation to an incident. ----- (Message edited by miketoronto on March 22, 2008) |
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway
Post Number: 1629 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 11:11 pm: | |
Every time I think of surveillance cameras I think of that scene on the wire where it shows the point of view of the camera as a couple of hoods break it with a thrown rock. It's about one minute into this clip. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zbh H0JmMFzo |
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine
Post Number: 438 Registered: 04-2004
| Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 1:23 am: | |
I could care less if it moves crime. If the cameras pop up in my neighborhood and the crime moves elsewhere, I'm happy. The whole preserve our liberties argument is b.s. You're in public, people see you. What are you worried someone is going to catch you picking your nose and post it on youtube? |
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 27 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 3:14 am: | |
The arguments in the movie "Enemy of the State" come to mind. It's a very good movie on this issue. I'm sure a spoiler can be found on Wikipedia. Basically, it deals heavily with the issues that arise not when the system is used properly, but when and how this type of technology can be utilized by corrupt individuals/politicians/police officers (not that corruption/scandals would ever be a problem in Michigan or Detroit). The other issue is that, if it's allowed, we'd lose a buffer zone that protects the more important liberties. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but knowing how hard it can be to regain those liberties, makes it a move that really needs to be continuously debated. |
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 3337 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 1:40 pm: | |
I wouldn't get my hopes up too soon, it seems that the "smart cameras" aren't really as smart as they first thought. Article 1. Article 2. |