would probably work if it linked to a photo database and it said your name and address while it did it. "john adams of 1425 F St SE, pick that up or a ticket will be mailed to your home for $50". I mean, if you're going Orwellian, go all the way...
I grew up in London, England during the IRA bombings of the 1980's and early 1990's. During that time London became (and still is) the most highly monitored city in the world with video cameras on practically every corner. I never once felt like Big Brother was watching nor did I care because frankly if you're not doing anything wrong then it doesn't matter. You want to watch me walking down the street? No worries. If having a video camera there deters people from committing crimes then I'm all for it. If the cameras speak, draw attention to someone littering or committing a crime GREAT. Perhaps even the shock value will stop someone from dropping something on the ground. I am for cameras all over the place. If there had been cameras on 13th and G perhaps that horrible crime might not have been committed yesterday? Everyone gets all upset about cameras for essentially no reason and yet they have proved to be incredibly useful in preventing crime and improving neighborhoods where they are in place. I should know because I lived in the city with the most police cameras in the world. So unless you've actually lived in a place where cameras work give them a chance before you start shooting them down.
Sooner or later most major US cities will follow the London model. We will accept video monitoring of public spaces as the norm.
Video monitoring will revolutionize American cities. We just don't want to admit it yet.
Yes, it'll be a bit creepy. And we'd have to set real parameters as to the use of the video, retention times, etc.
But it has the potential to dramatically decrease crime in DC. The real hard core crimes (aside from crimes of passion, spousal abuse, etc.) are actually done by a surprising small number of people. You get those folks off the street, major violent crime goes WAY down.
Video surveillance would work wonders. Of course, it would also just shift the crime to unmonitored areas.
But I'd be a LOT more willing to patronize H Street businesses if I knew video surveillance was in place all along the strip, especially after it became common knowledge in, for lack of a bettter term, the thug world.
Also interesting is the new technology that allows DC police to pinpoint and track gunshots in real time. Apparently they've installed this technology in several areas, and it's credited with several arrests already.
Remote monitors can detect a gunshot something like a mile away, and they can determine where it is within apparently a few feet.
Once the thugs figure out that their every gunshot will be tracked and their public antics videotaped and used against them I'm betting a good number of them start thinking that their shenanigans in DC may be on their way to being over.
I think cameras can be part of the solution, but it's all in how you use them (see Baltimore for example). Cameras, like the excellent Shotspotter technology that Hillman references, are only as good as the people using them. And while both of these technologies have some deterent effect, they are mostly after the fact reactive technology. You can't point a camera everywhere, and it isn't like a camera will solve all your problems. People can avoid cameras, break (very expensive when you talk about the ones DC uses) cameras, or just cover up. Read that MPD email regarding the rape one more time. She encoutered the attackers inside the Checker's. Do you think the Checker's probably has a video camera inside? I'll bet they do. But where the camera is trained, the quality of the tapes, and how much these guys may have avoided looking into the lens would all dictate what kind of evidence you might actually get from any camera. The best way to make the streets safer is more foot traffic and more living people watching out for each other. Tahat way maybe we actually stop the crime from happening instead of just seeing the perp's face after we rewind.
I absolutely agree that the best way to prevent crime is more foot traffic and more police on the beat. There is no question about that at all. I am simply saying that cameras are a huge help in sometimes deterring and in other cases prosecuting those who have committed crimes. I certainly wasn't suggesting that they are the be all end all of anti-crime measures. Ultimately, as neighbors we are the most responsible for looking out for each other, reporting those who are committing crimes and standing up to thugs as one united voice. Once people realize that their behavior will no longer be tolerated by those that live in an area affected by it they will move on. I for one would much rather have video cameras than not have them. In London there were/are very few reports of abuses of cameras as people have suggested there would be (not on this post, but people complaining about Big Brother in general). Even if they don't stop crime, which they do- look at stats from before and after video cameras in places they have been installed- I would sure as heck like to know that if someone mugged me on camera that the film could help convict them of their crime. What I was saying about 13th and G is that if there was a camera focused on the whole street it COULD have made a difference, not 100% would have. Rapist b*stards like that should be castrated and jailed for life. Period. No exceptions. (different topic I realize, but that crime makes me furious so I appologize for any offense caused). Bottom line: we all need to look out for each other as a first line of defense against these SOB's.
One very strange limitation on DC cameras vs. London cameras is that the DC cameras cannot be actively monitored. They can only be used after the fact to try and help catch the perps.
By comparison, the London cameras are ALL continuously monitored, and can therefore be used in real time to assist in immediate apprehension of suspects.
I think there is a significant difference in the deterrent effect of these two very different approaches. Folks have no expectation of privacy when they are in public, so I don't personally have a problem with more & better & monitored cameras. Random, intermittent cameras only push crime to other areas.
Not doing anything wrong? Just one more person watching you walk down the street. Everyone else can see you pick your nose, what's one more person? (couldn't resist that one...)
Why is it that DC doesn't have the more active version? Is it a cost thing?
But there must be very clear rules on the use of these things. It wasn't too long ago that cops in major US cities used surveillance to blackmail and intimidate gays going to gay clubs.
I myself was monitored in that fashion, years ago in Virginia. It was more low tech (cops going to gay bar parking lots and writing down license plate numbers).
I was trying to remember if the no constant monitoring thing was DDOT, or MPD. Monitoring only during certain hours might make sense if, say all the crime on a particular corner seemed to occur at night. If it's random, I don't see that doing much, except that you would never know if someone was watching you (which is probably the point). But, as Hillman points out, you don't need technology to abuse your power.
13 comments:
``scold you when they see you do something bad like littering''
so that means in our neighborhood the camera would be talking nonstop. no thanks.
what the heck would it say?
"stop! or i'll say stop again!"
sounds like it might actually INVITE littering just for the novelty of the thing.
i think it would be better if the cameras tazered litterers. or maybe just pepper spray.
would probably work if it linked to a photo database and it said your name and address while it did it. "john adams of 1425 F St SE, pick that up or a ticket will be mailed to your home for $50". I mean, if you're going Orwellian, go all the way...
It is pretty 1984. I just thought it was sort of a bizarre concept.
I grew up in London, England during the IRA bombings of the 1980's and early 1990's. During that time London became (and still is) the most highly monitored city in the world with video cameras on practically every corner. I never once felt like Big Brother was watching nor did I care because frankly if you're not doing anything wrong then it doesn't matter. You want to watch me walking down the street? No worries. If having a video camera there deters people from committing crimes then I'm all for it. If the cameras speak, draw attention to someone littering or committing a crime GREAT. Perhaps even the shock value will stop someone from dropping something on the ground. I am for cameras all over the place. If there had been cameras on 13th and G perhaps that horrible crime might not have been committed yesterday? Everyone gets all upset about cameras for essentially no reason and yet they have proved to be incredibly useful in preventing crime and improving neighborhoods where they are in place. I should know because I lived in the city with the most police cameras in the world. So unless you've actually lived in a place where cameras work give them a chance before you start shooting them down.
I'm not sure about their effectiveness in preventing crime, but cameras seem to work in identifying crooks after a crime has been committed.
Most of us, at least in the federal work force are used to cameras everywhere, so more of them wouldn't matter.
Sooner or later most major US cities will follow the London model. We will accept video monitoring of public spaces as the norm.
Video monitoring will revolutionize American cities. We just don't want to admit it yet.
Yes, it'll be a bit creepy. And we'd have to set real parameters as to the use of the video, retention times, etc.
But it has the potential to dramatically decrease crime in DC. The real hard core crimes (aside from crimes of passion, spousal abuse, etc.) are actually done by a surprising small number of people. You get those folks off the street, major violent crime goes WAY down.
Video surveillance would work wonders. Of course, it would also just shift the crime to unmonitored areas.
But I'd be a LOT more willing to patronize H Street businesses if I knew video surveillance was in place all along the strip, especially after it became common knowledge in, for lack of a bettter term, the thug world.
Also interesting is the new technology that allows DC police to pinpoint and track gunshots in real time. Apparently they've installed this technology in several areas, and it's credited with several arrests already.
Remote monitors can detect a gunshot something like a mile away, and they can determine where it is within apparently a few feet.
Once the thugs figure out that their every gunshot will be tracked and their public antics videotaped and used against them I'm betting a good number of them start thinking that their shenanigans in DC may be on their way to being over.
I think cameras can be part of the solution, but it's all in how you use them (see Baltimore for example). Cameras, like the excellent Shotspotter technology that Hillman references, are only as good as the people using them. And while both of these technologies have some deterent effect, they are mostly after the fact reactive technology. You can't point a camera everywhere, and it isn't like a camera will solve all your problems. People can avoid cameras, break (very expensive when you talk about the ones DC uses) cameras, or just cover up. Read that MPD email regarding the rape one more time. She encoutered the attackers inside the Checker's. Do you think the Checker's probably has a video camera inside? I'll bet they do. But where the camera is trained, the quality of the tapes, and how much these guys may have avoided looking into the lens would all dictate what kind of evidence you might actually get from any camera.
The best way to make the streets safer is more foot traffic and more living people watching out for each other. Tahat way maybe we actually stop the crime from happening instead of just seeing the perp's face after we rewind.
I absolutely agree that the best way to prevent crime is more foot traffic and more police on the beat. There is no question about that at all. I am simply saying that cameras are a huge help in sometimes deterring and in other cases prosecuting those who have committed crimes. I certainly wasn't suggesting that they are the be all end all of anti-crime measures. Ultimately, as neighbors we are the most responsible for looking out for each other, reporting those who are committing crimes and standing up to thugs as one united voice. Once people realize that their behavior will no longer be tolerated by those that live in an area affected by it they will move on. I for one would much rather have video cameras than not have them. In London there were/are very few reports of abuses of cameras as people have suggested there would be (not on this post, but people complaining about Big Brother in general). Even if they don't stop crime, which they do- look at stats from before and after video cameras in places they have been installed- I would sure as heck like to know that if someone mugged me on camera that the film could help convict them of their crime. What I was saying about 13th and G is that if there was a camera focused on the whole street it COULD have made a difference, not 100% would have. Rapist b*stards like that should be castrated and jailed for life. Period. No exceptions. (different topic I realize, but that crime makes me furious so I appologize for any offense caused). Bottom line: we all need to look out for each other as a first line of defense against these SOB's.
One very strange limitation on DC cameras vs. London cameras is that the DC cameras cannot be actively monitored. They can only be used after the fact to try and help catch the perps.
By comparison, the London cameras are ALL continuously monitored, and can therefore be used in real time to assist in immediate apprehension of suspects.
I think there is a significant difference in the deterrent effect of these two very different approaches. Folks have no expectation of privacy when they are in public, so I don't personally have a problem with more & better & monitored cameras. Random, intermittent cameras only push crime to other areas.
Not doing anything wrong? Just one more person watching you walk down the street. Everyone else can see you pick your nose, what's one more person? (couldn't resist that one...)
Best,
Alan Kimber
Commissioner, ANC 6C05
Alan raises a very valid distinction.
Why is it that DC doesn't have the more active version? Is it a cost thing?
But there must be very clear rules on the use of these things. It wasn't too long ago that cops in major US cities used surveillance to blackmail and intimidate gays going to gay clubs.
I myself was monitored in that fashion, years ago in Virginia. It was more low tech (cops going to gay bar parking lots and writing down license plate numbers).
But the effect was no less chilling.
Completely agree, Hillman. There has to be protections against abuses.
Best,
Alan Kimber
Commissioner, ANC 6C05
I was trying to remember if the no constant monitoring thing was DDOT, or MPD. Monitoring only
during certain hours might make sense if, say all the crime on a particular corner seemed to occur at night. If it's random, I don't see that doing much, except that you would never know if someone was watching you (which is probably the point).
But, as Hillman points out, you don't need technology to abuse your power.
Post a Comment