> 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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]
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/
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.
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.
[+] [-] athenot|8 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] techsupporter|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ItsDeathball|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mywittyname|8 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] ivanhoe|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Chathamization|8 years ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] paulddraper|8 years ago|reply
Not saying you're wrong, but if you're right there are an awful lot of pointless security signs outside my neighbor's houses.
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] danso|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slededit|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freditup|8 years ago|reply
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegas_Strip_(TV_series)
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] briandear|8 years ago|reply
The current title makes no sense.
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geebee|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] alant|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jandrese|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickthemagicman|8 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] mdarens|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterwwillis|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ozten|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjs382|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sixothree|8 years ago|reply