Security Cameras For Roosevelt Island's Streets - They'll Be Watching You!
You Tube Video of Police's I'll Be Watching You
Roosevelt Island Operating Corp. (RIOC) President Steve Shane's June 3 report included the following (Item 5d):
Security Cameras: The cables are in the process of being pulled to enable establishing a street security camera system. Expect it to be operational by mid summer.I inquired of Mr. Shane:
Your last RIOC column indicated that a street security camera system was to be in place for Roosevelt Island by mid-summer.Mr. Shane replied:
Can you provide any additional details as to why RIOC finds this necessary to do and what, if any precautions are being undertaken to insure that privacy rights of citizens are being respected.
For instance, who will be monitoring the cameras, what type of training do they have and how long will the security footage be stored. Are the same protocols and training as established by NYPD being followed
Also, if security cameras are being installed, why not post the live feed on the RIOC web site?
The subject of street cameras for security purposes was discussed at a RIOC Board meeting. The privacy rights of individuals on the public thoroughfares of RI should not be an issue. The necessity is one of public security in an era of increasing density, pressure on budget and the recommendations of those who are trained in these matters. The cameras will be monitored in Public Safety.Interesting article in NY Times on street security cameras that asks the question if the Big Apple has become the Big Eyeball.
I refer you to Chief Guerra for answers to training and storage. This is not an entertainment medium, so live feeds on the RIOC website do not seem to be appropriate. At a later stage, perhaps for a view of the tennis courts or basketball courts to see whether there is availability, for instance, maybe.
... Cities — New York in particular, and Times Square most of all — used to be places to lose yourself in the thrilling anonymity of a crowd, to find yourself reflected in the eyes of strangers. Of course, no one really disappears now; we all leave a trace. But as urban legends go it remains a powerful one. It’s hard to adjust to the idea that cities — New York in particular, and Times Square most of all — are now places where unseen watchers can monitor your every move...and WPIX reports that everyone coming into NYC will be photographed by some sort of surveillance video.
Not all video surveillance systems work properly. Gothamist reports on the MTA's problems with security cameras:
The MTA has admitted that only 46% of the city's 4,100 subway cameras are hooked up to working recording devices, and that installing 910 more will end up costing them over $21 million—exactly the amount they saved by firing all those station agents! The four-year project faced problems because of tech glitches and software failure from TAP Electrical, who were hired to build a network to store the information from all 910 new cameras. That combined with different types of cameras with different hookups installed under different branches of the MTA has lead to an expensive and possibly dangerous security failure...
As reported in earlier post, here's one use of the Roosevelt Island security cameras:
The Manhattan Tram Station booth attendant will be eliminated and replaced with Public Safety Officers at both stations during rush hours as well as 24 hour seven day security cameras.
23 comments :
I have 3 off-the-cuff comments to cameras replacing the attendants at the tram toll booths
1. Criminals and scofflaws (including turnstile jumpers) do not have rush hours.
2. The MTA placed security in the subway station is not there just during rushhours
3. Remote cameras do not replace "live intelligence"
and physical presence.
The cameras, the screens and the screen watchers all cost money
and there is nobody to assist the future wave of tourists ?
WHERE ARE THE SAVINGS ?
These things are for the safety and good of the community. If you are not doing anything wrong, you should have no worries. Criminals are caught every day by the NYPD with the use of over 1000 cameras throughout the city (i.e. the last bomber in Times Square).
Time square is the perfect place for security cameras to work, but they didn't, the car was still there; only luck and observers on the ground prevented something worse from happening, not CCTV. I would explain why this is but Bruce Schneier does a much better job in this article
Spy cameras won't make us safer
It is amazing how ideas like these still get implemented, just like a certain park somewhere and bridge "safety fencing".
I agree with Trevre. I had trouble reading the CNN opinion so I copy the writer's conclusion her for easy reading:
If universal surveillance were the answer, lots of us would have moved to the former East Germany. If surveillance cameras were the answer, camera-happy London, with something like 500,000 of them at a cost of $700 million, would be the safest city on the planet.
We didn't, and it isn't, because surveillance and surveillance cameras don't make us safer. The money spent on cameras in London, and in cities across America, could be much better spent on actual policing.
If you are not doing anything wrong, you should have no worries.
This is a very slippery slope you are going down with this argument.
What slippery slope? Cameras are a deterant to crime. They also can assist in the apprehension of criminals who commit crimes.
I see it from a different perspective because I was the victim of a crime that was solved with the use of a video camera. Until something like that happens to Trevre or the other anonymous bloggers, they won't be able to appreciate it. But, if they could put themselves in the position of someone else, who had no other eveidence - but the camera surveillance, then they might see things a little differently.
"Boy, was I glad there was a camera there."
You do not see privacy issues in public surveillance? How about the pretty much non-existing privacy laws in this country which hardly protect the use of surveillance footage? Here is an excellent paper: http://www.bccla.org/positions/privacy/99videosurveillance.html.
Why stop at public surveillance using CCTV? How about tapping into everybody's phone conversation or internet connections? Why stop there? You see, the argument "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't worry about it" is a very slippery slope.
I know of a case years ago repeat years ago when an apartment on R.I. was robbed and it turned out that there was no film in the surveillance camera at the entrance to the building.
Mechanical devices are only as good as the humans who use them; and sitting in an office with sistractions of all kinds is not necessarily better than humans "on the beat"
Anyone who doesn't think that security cameras are a deterrent is completely clueless. If cameras solve one crime they are worth it. In addition, there is NO issue with public surveillance as it occurs it in the public. If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, our society has deteriorated to the point that every asset available is needed.
A deterrent? Maybe. Do the pros outweigh the cons? Debatable. Is the legal framework those cameras are operating in sound? Doubtful.
Again. I take issue with the argument that "If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
First it is nice to see all the discussion but what is with all the anonymous posts? How much weight can an anonymous post carry? Second "If a camera solves one crime..." what a horrible metric. If we implemented every idea that solved one crime we would all be partnered with a police officer. I am arguing that the cost/benifit of cameras is less than that of police officers or other crime deterrents. I am happy your crime was solved with a camera, most peoples aren't. Since the cameras are already being installed I dare who ever runs them to prove they are worth the money and shut them down if they aren't.
Trevre, how does it make a difference on a forum like this if my posts are under "James", "Tom", or "Anonymous"? It doesn't add anything to the discussion. There are reasons why some of us refuse to create an account especially on Google :) Just like we don't like to see surveillance cameras in public spaces.
Anyone can shout anything out in a crowd, but when you put a name to it then it counts for something. Fine if you are anti-account, just tag your name on your post, at least I will be able to differentiate between the comments. If I am constructively criticizing something I have enough respect for those I am criticizing to let them know who I am. Plus I want someone to take my dare and for that they will need a name. Cheers James, or Tom.
The blog is not intended as a "dare" but as a FREE exchange of
views. I hide behind "anonymous"
because I do not see anything gained by using another possibly
arbitrary identifyer
Readers who comment may choose to use their real identity, create an online identify or just be anonymous - whatever you want to do is fine.
However, Trevre has a good point. If you wish to have a good back and forth discussion among yourselves on an issue it would be easier to choose a consistent identity rather than having a variety of comments from several different readers each calling themselves "anonymous" which can lead to confusion.
It would also help me block out spam comments if more readers chose an identity when commenting.
But again, it is up to you guys.
The legality of security cameras falls into the simple fact you're not entitled to privacy in public.
PPM: How about the protection and the usage of such footage? Would it be okay to stream it live on the RIOC's website? Not that they will do it and Shane said that they don't and considering his arguments about why not it is not just a clear-cut "you don't have any privacy rights when you are in public spaces" argument.
Books have been written about this topic. It is not a straight forward issue.
How about a camera in front of Trellis to record the amount of jaywalking by PSD employees crossing Main Street and the extended "stops" by privileged cars
incl "Jusbecool" so the management can see what examples PSD sets
According to their website, RIOC's PSD is charged with protecting the Corporation's (or State's) Assets. If you remember, a $25,000 piece of equipment was stolen and taken right off the island. I would imagine that they can better protect the stealing of such assets with the use of cameras.
Let's see how this plays out before we kill the idea. I'm sure if this strategy doesn't work, the PSD Chief will do away with them. He's done pretty well thus far. I say we see what happens.
Anyhow, the Somanabolic Muscle Maximizer is unique from the feeling that
it's not a normal exercise application but a specific one particular which helps various folk attain their diverse health and fitness targets. Except this is exactly what does happen, frequently in badly considered build muscle strategies. In general, there is no doubt that the program Kyle Leon is a popular muscle building system for a good reason and this is definitely one of the most individual nutrients and online training programs today.
Here is my web blog: muscle maximizer results
Post a Comment