Washington DC might become London, England!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-15 07:08am

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20021213-96845895.htm

Cameras mulled for neighborhood watch

Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published December 13, 2002

The D.C. Council yesterday debated a bill to put District neighborhoods under video surveillance under a pilot program to test the effectiveness of cameras on street crime.

"It is almost out of necessity that I support them because we don't have meaningful police presence in our neighborhoods," said council member Jim Graham, Ward 1 Democrat.

Adrian Fenty, Ward 4 Democrat, and other council members said that they feared such a pilot program would lead to an unstoppable proliferation of the technology in the District.

"I am struggling to find support for these cameras, given the constitutional issues being raised," Mr. Fenty said.

He added that not counting the cameras installed downtown by the Metropolitan Police Department, federal agencies have cameras — "possibly hundreds" — that Congress and the council are not aware of.

The Judiciary Committee hearing was sponsored by Kathy Patterson, Ward 3 Democrat, who introduced the legislation last month.

Phil Mendelson, at-large Democrat, said the best police work comes from good investigative work and increased presence of officers, "not sitting in a chair staring at monitors."

The measure being considered would allow video surveillance for specified law-enforcement, security and traffic management. Tapes would have to be destroyed in 10 days, and a court order would be necessary to allow the cameras to zoom in on faces.

The bill would also prohibit the use of facial-recognition technology to match faces on videotape with photos of wanted people. If passed, the bill could also open the door for camera surveillance in neighborhoods that want it.

At least one neighborhood — Hillcrest in Southeast — has expressed interest in having the cameras watch over its streets.

"We propose that Hillcrest be part of that pilot project in preventing, deterring, or investigating crime," the Rev. Franklin Senger, president of the Hillcrest Community Civic Association, wrote in a letter to Mrs. Patterson.

Mr. Graham and Sharon Ambrose, Ward 6 Democrat, said that residents of their wards are "so fed up" with inadequate police protection that they, too, are looking at cameras as a viable option to deter crime.
The Washington Times reported last month that the council passed legislation to regulate the police department's use of surveillance cameras to monitor monuments, federal buildings and downtown public venues, but not without some heated debate and indecision.

The council members originally rejected the legislation 7-6, then passed it when Sandy Allen, Ward 8 Democrat, reversed her position. Several members then considered introducing legislation to eliminate the cameras altogether.

Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey told The Times earlier this week that the level of opposition was unexpected.

"I was surprised by their reaction last month," he said. "I understand the issues surrounding the cameras, but I don't think you need to throw out the baby with the bath water."

Chief Ramsey also said the cameras are handy because he cannot put an officer at every potential terrorist target in the District.

Privacy and security experts from across the country also are debating the issue with council members.

"The one proven effect these cameras have on crime is displacement, and if that is the only advantage then all you get is the illusion of security," said Barry Steinhardt, the American Civil Liberties Union's director for technology and liberty programs.

Grant Frederick, a forensic video expert, said most police departments are unqualified to thoroughly study the effect of such cameras on any society and lack skills to administer the technology effectively.

"Although I do believe state-monitored cameras infringe on privacy, closed-circuit cameras do bring some benefits," he said.

Mr. Frederick said studies show that cameras encourage witnesses to come forward out of fear that the camera caught them observing the crime.

Chief Ramsey said he hopes that's true because one of the main reasons detectives are closing fewer homicide cases is a lack of witness cooperation.

Mr. Frederick said, however, that adding cameras would require more officers, and staffing is a persistent problem with the D.C. police.

"The system fails without a steady stream of officers available to get to a crime scene picked up on camera," he said, "because the criminals will become aware that the surveillance doesn't necessarily mean they will be apprehended."

*********************

Now, someone said it all on one of my boards:

<Holds card up to forehead>
The cameras will be vandalized, and stolen.

<Puts card back up to forehead>
In the areas that the cameras are deployed, violent street
crime will decrease by exactly zero percent.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-15 10:52am

You should be so lucky.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2002-12-15 11:06am

A court order to zoom in on faces!!?

That's one of the funniest things I've read all week.

Come on, America. Stop being a sissy; let's get Orwellian!

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2002-12-15 12:10pm

London had a good reason to install those camera's. The PIRA.

And it's decreased crime in London by about 50%.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2002-12-15 12:15pm

I can't wait till organized crime starts shooting every camera they see every night.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-15 02:17pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I can't wait till organized crime starts shooting every camera they see every night.

Yeah, that won't attract attention.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-15 02:40pm

Actually, street cameras DO reduce crime, sorta. Criminals will be much less likely to comit crimes INFRONT of the cameras. They will just start commiting crimes outside of view of the cameras instead. Cameras don't drop the percentage of crime, they just force it to move somewhere else.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-12-15 02:55pm

Alyeska wrote:Actually, street cameras DO reduce crime, sorta. Criminals will be much less likely to comit crimes INFRONT of the cameras. They will just start commiting crimes outside of view of the cameras instead. Cameras don't drop the percentage of crime, they just force it to move somewhere else.

So, will London be desigtnating areas where people can commit crimes anytime soon?

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2002-12-15 03:04pm

If London put up camera's to combat the IRA how come they don't do the same in the place where they are from.

Labour MP :_ We need cctv in Belfast's flashpoint areas

Sinn Fein/IRA MP :- No you are invading our privacy

Labour MP :- If you have nothing to hide what are you worried about

Tony Blair :- He has a point

Labour MP :- Thank you PM

Tony Blair :- No, i was talking about the IRA terrorist in goverment.

THis conversation has actually happened although I altered the script a bit so you could undrstand past the bullshit

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-15 03:46pm

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I can't wait till organized crime starts shooting every camera they see every night.
Yeah, that won't attract attention.

Just get a good slingshot and some steel balls.....silent but deadly....

Or a Paintball gun....loaded with non-washable paintballs...

not-so-silent, but the camera is out for quite a while....

LadyBarbara · Post by **LadyBarbara** » 2002-12-15 05:04pm

In a climate of escalating crime and global terrorism, governments and law enforcement agencies increasingly feel that to protect their citizens, they must breach the barricades of privacy. The difficulty lies in balacing the government's responsibility to protect its citizens and an individual's right to privacy.

And even if surveillance decreases crime in one area, it might not reduce overall crime rates. Police have coined the term 'displacement' to refer to criminals knowing that they are being watched and simply moving to another area to commit a crime.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-12-15 05:16pm

They need to give more funding to the police, and make some intelligent ads, such as that one that said something like, "You commit a felony and you can spend up to fifty years in federal prison" or something like that painted big on buses and all.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-15 05:39pm

Shinova wrote:They need to give more funding to the police, and make some intelligent ads, such as that one that said something like, "You commit a felony and you can spend up to fifty years in federal prison" or something like that painted big on buses and all.

That and actually enforcing the damn laws so that the perps stay out of society for a good long time. If I had a penny for every time I hear about a perp being loose on the streets and commiting a crime when he's known to police and has a lengthy prior criminal record, not to mention being out of jail on a technicality, I'd be a fucking rich man.

Let's put it this way, a perp had several prior convictions for break & enters and home invasions. He has a court summons for yet another property crime, and he tried to rob our store and was caught red-handed. Wanna know what happened to this scumbag? NOTHING! You can have all the laws and surveillance you want, but when the criminals KNOW they can get away with murder it ain't gonna stop them from commiting crimes.

IMO surveillance can go fuck itself. Until our laws allow police and citizens to discourage criminals and put them away for a good long time, video surviellance is just another useless feel-good clusterfuck.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2002-12-15 06:21pm

aerius wrote: IMO surveillance can go fuck itself. Until our laws allow police and citizens to discourage criminals and put them away for a good long time, video surviellance is just another useless feel-good clusterfuck.

Like Gun Control

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2002-12-16 02:13am

Those cameras aren't gonna do jack,.... The perps will just move into ALLEYS that right, remember the alleys.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-16 05:37am

OK, more surveillance cameras would have saved me six months of extended PTSD, so I'm all for them. And people who whinge about their lack of privacy can just fuck themselves until they're no longer ashamed of whatever it is they get up to in the middle of the road...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-16 05:56am

innerbrat wrote:OK, more surveillance cameras would have saved me six months of extended PTSD

How? Are surveillance cameras going to magically mow down your
assailiants?

All a surveillance camera would have done is allowed the jury
to watch you being beat up or whatever the fuck happened to you
at 24 frames a second in surround sound during the trial of
the fucktards who attacked you....

If this what passes for "crime control" in the minds of British subjects,
I'm glad again, for the 2,345th time that my anecestor got framed for
beating up a British Army officer and escaped on a boat to Canada
in the 1940s.....

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-12-16 07:20am

My Union is rather against Servalence Camera's for good reasons:

1. Illegal Copying (when something rather juicy is caught on tape, folks have been illegally reselling it, to news agencies or for personal enjoyment.

2. It doesn't reduce the crimes, or the opportunity, just the location.

3. Camera's are also being used for illegal/discriminatory practices. (Eg the boss who fired people for smoking and/or masturbating in the bathroom stalls.)

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-12-16 07:23am

Or more to the point on the Illegally copping thing.

Say the camera is at a typical street corner.

Say guy's whould you really want the camera taping your Significant other going down on you at a stoplight?

Would you like to see that on the next "Fox Caught on Tape"

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2002-12-16 11:24am

You shouldn't be doing that in the car anyhow, so you can take your chances.

I have no problem with CCTV. It has its uses and a large fraction of CCTV systems are in fact private, not government owned, and used in such areas as petrol stations and convenience stores; they serve a useful role in these situations, and they also serve useful roles in the surveying of traffic incidents.

Christ; it's not like anyone is tapping your phones or anything or putting cameras in your houses, so what's the problem? CCTV doesn't even cost much either, especially when private interests contribute to their installation, as is often the case outside of traffic CCTV systems.

Unless you have a habit of shunting other cars, beating people up in the street or vandalising phone booths when drunk, I don't see the problem.

'Invading privacy'? Yeah right. If you want privacy then get out of the public street and go indoors like everyone else.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-16 11:42am

victorhadin wrote:I have no problem with CCTV. It has its uses and a large fraction of CCTV systems are in fact private, not government owned, and used in such areas as petrol stations and convenience stores; they serve a useful role in these situations, and they also serve useful roles in the surveying of traffic incidents.

Right, and despite the widespread use of cameras in stores, banks, and gas stations, they still get robbed on a regular basis, and store clerks and bank tellers are still getting beaten and shot to death. Fat load of good those cameras are doing. All the cameras in the world ain't gonna do shit when the criminals KNOW that the most they'll get is a slap on the wrist if they get caught. Fix the legal system and law enforcement (key word, "enforcement") first, you'll keep a hell of a lot more criminals off the streets that way than any CCTV system. Keeping the perps off the streets will put a much bigger dent in crime than anything else, you can't rob a little old lady if your ass is locked up in jail.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2002-12-16 11:50am

Well you can whine about police methods as much as you want, but how does that apply to your berating of CCTV? Of course it won't stop such places being robbed, but it is a detterrant. Cashpoint machines in this local area were once not covered by CCTV. People would constantly be getting mugged and made to withdraw money for the muggers. Now that CCTV has been installed, it rarely happens. It has its uses.

Equally when a severe car crash happened some weeks ago, CCTV evidence was used to outline exactly what had happened. (Though admittedly in this case there were hordes of witnesses too.)

What is your problem with it though? How, exactly, does it 'violate your privacy'?

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-16 12:03pm

My point is that CCTV is next to worthless WITHOUT a proper law enforcement system backing it up. The problem isn't with the police, the problem is a fucked up legal system that doesn't allow the cops to go in, make the bust, and put the fucking perps away for a good long time. What we have is lots of criminals running around that are KNOWN to police, but the cops can't bust them or put them away because of some stupid legal technicalities.

Until the police can start putting those perps away, all CCTV does is let them see MORE criminals running around. For example about 2 blocks from where I live is an area of high crime subsidized housing. They have cameras everywhere, and yet drug deals, gang fights, and other activities happen right in front of the damn cameras. In fact a fatal stabbing happened there a few days ago. Cameras aren't going to deter anyone UNLESS there's something backing them up, which there isn't.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2002-12-16 12:14pm

Well fair enough. I agree that both are necessary to complement each other and CCTV is in no way a replacement, but equally it should not be thrown away out of hand. It is an excellent supplement to police actions.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-12-16 05:24pm

We aslo had a situation were some evil **** had installed a numberr of hidden survalence camera's into the employee Dorms female rest room. And a guy from our company's security got caught making wank videos.