Paranoia or common sense?

[BuddyLee]

An aside: I want the church controlling me even less than I want the government controlling me. At least the government has a Constitution and checks and balances to give me a fair shot - the church just pretty much does what they want. Salem witch trials, anyone?

Anyway, if our HOA wanted to put up surveillance cameras all over our neighborhood, I'd offer to foot the bill. And make it widely known that if you commit a crime in our neighborhood, we will take your picture and use it to convince your parents that you are truly a bad child.

People act better in front of the camera than they would if they thought no one was looking. If nothing else, it would serve as a deterrent to petty crime and general poor behavior. Louella might scream profanities at the driver in front of her because he was too slow coming off the light, but I'll bet she'd think twice if she knew video of her actions would make the evening news.

They've already had this technology on the school buses for years.

If only they had it in Dallas, Texas November 22, 1963.

 

[Toxick]

I don't have a problem with cameras in public places. When I'm in public all my actions are public by definition.

When it becomes illegal to avoid these cameras, or there's some sort of law that requires I remain in view or somethign like that , then I'll have a problem. Or when there's cameras in my home that I'm not allowed to evade.

Also I would appreciate some sort of system in place that the ONLY thing this footage is used for is crime prevention or crime solving. When recordings of my doings are being sold to Google or V14GR4, so they can target-market me more surgically, I'd be pretty effing perturbed.

 

[Nickel]

If only they had it in Dallas, Texas November 22, 1963.

How different do you think our country would be had that been avoided? Sometimes I think about it, but not for too long, though.

 

[hvp05]

AMEN.. I don't think terrorism has increased the need for cameras, nor do I think it will help in deterring today's terrorists from attacking. The cameras can't stop an attack, only identify the attackers after the fact, and if you are going to die in the blast who cares if you get identified.

You have a point from one angle. As surveillance showed, the 9/11 hijackers were calm and collected prior to boarding their flights. And the London bombers acted similarly before they set off their bombs. Many experts say this is what makes spotting terrorists so difficult; they have a casual, inconspicuous presence. It's especially hard for regular citizens because we don't know what kind of subtle signs to detect.

But what if there was a trained profiler sitting at the camera control panel? Someone whose entire job was to notice those who seem a bit too fidgety, or who seems disconnected from the crowd, or who nonchalantly puts their backpack down and walks away? That guy would not only tune into those potential warnings but could immediately call for police to move in.

Now go another step further. (This is something someone mentioned briefly, but I want to dig deeper...) Imagine a day when we have facial recognition working on huge databases that can compare the faces of people on the street with photos of known or suspected terrorists. Such a database wouldn't be truly useful unless it could work through 100,000, or 500,000 or even 1,000,000 faces in a matter of seconds... but such software is already being developed.

Think about it: it would be automated, so there's not a person staring at you. And it would only hit on known persons of interest. If and when it did make a match the system could automatically alert authorities. Now that might just help prevent a crime or terrorist assault.

 

[Bruzilla]

Maybe I've missed something, but what did the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on those cameras yield besides some slightly fuzzy pictures of the bombers calmly going onto the trains with their backpack bombs? I think that the clearest picture of the terrorists that the cameras provided was that cameras do not have any effect on deterring terrorists.

Nothing like spending millions to buy a high tech method for closing the barn door after the horse has left.

 

[SmallTown]

Maybe I've missed something, but what did the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on those cameras yield besides some slightly fuzzy pictures of the bombers calmly going onto the trains with their backpack bombs? I think that the clearest picture of the terrorists that the cameras provided was that cameras do not have any effect on deterring terrorists.

Nothing like spending millions to buy a high tech method for closing the barn door after the horse has left.

Plenty.
1) We can be more positive the group was working together, and can be more accurate with the assumption they died in the bombing. (They found ID's at the bomb sites, but it would not be difficult to have their IDs with other people who actually performed the mission. With 9/11, there has been talks that some of hijackers did not know one another, and really didn't understand the full scope of their mission. Knowing if they worked together from the beginning, or separately can shed light on the complexity of the mission thus marrowing down possible suspects)
2) Had the bombings not been successful, they would have quickly had photos of the men and could be searching for them.
3) Can track their movements to look for patterns or other people involved. If the same person, or others in the group, were caught on tape going to a certain area or certain establishment, it could narrow the investigation.
4) Along with #3, people can see the pics from the day of the bombing and maybe they recall seeing one or all members earlier in the day, or the day before which can lead to more clues about the operation and their movements.

 

[Bruzilla]

Plenty.
1) We can be more positive the group was working together, and can be more accurate with the assumption they died in the bombing. (They found ID's at the bomb sites, but it would not be difficult to have their IDs with other people who actually performed the mission. With 9/11, there has been talks that some of hijackers did not know one another, and really didn't understand the full scope of their mission. Knowing if they worked together from the beginning, or separately can shed light on the complexity of the mission thus marrowing down possible suspects)

Once again... at the point the police know what/who to look for, the damage has been done. Do we really need millions of dollars worth of cameras to confirm that multiple bombers blowing themselves up at nearly the same, or 19 hijackers going to work on the same day and on the same flights, we're in cahoots with one another??? Is a camera going to reveal that someone only knows half of the mission's details? Do you think that the camera is going to spot the terrorist leader drawing flow charts for the uninformed lacky?

2) Had the bombings not been successful, they would have quickly had photos of the men and could be searching for them.)

I loved this one the best! Had the bombings not been successful, why would the police have any need to review the tapes? The only way a suicide bombing could not be successful is if the bomber doesn't blow himself up, in which case nobody knows anything was going on. Now expanding on that idea, let's say the bomber is not suicidal, and leaves the bomb under a seat waiting to go off without him (or her.) A simple hat and sunglasses will allow the bomber to go past any camera without worry.

3) Can track their movements to look for patterns or other people involved. If the same person, or others in the group, were caught on tape going to a certain area or certain establishment, it could narrow the investigation.)

That's assuming that you have a camera focused on the entrances and exits to every establishment, which isn't realistic.

4) Along with #3, people can see the pics from the day of the bombing and maybe they recall seeing one or all members earlier in the day, or the day before which can lead to more clues about the operation and their movements.

This is one of the biggest headaches for law enforcement, and is also why real assassinations tend to happen in broad daylight in front of as many people as possible, rather than in the shadows. The more witnesses there are to an event, the more differences get provided to the police and they have to sift through them. A single witness might get some of the details right, but when you start asking hundreds of people for accounts, it becomes a mess. After 9/11, the FBI wasted thousands and thousands of man hours chasing their tails over bogus reports like Gus, the night manager of a McDonalds in Peoria is sure he once served a Big Mac to Mohammed Atta.

All these cameras do is help with the investigation of an event... they do nothing to prevent it from happening, which is what's really needed. Unless you're going to install cameras that will allow the detection and searching of every middle eastern male with a carry on bag... they are just a big waste of money.

 

[vraiblonde]

Bru, I disagree. Obviously the goal is not to "catch" suicide bombers - the only way you catch those guys is by matching their DNA that's been blown all over the place. Plus, they probably don't care if someone takes their picture while they explode.

To me, it's more of a deterrent/identifier to regular criminals - you know, the ones that we deal with every single minute of every single day rather than some one-shot wonder?

We focus so much on terrorists because they make a bigger statement, yet thousands of people are targets of random crime every single day and they don't get NEAR the media attention of some terrorist who takes out 5 people. We have stupid Americans running around, fretting about being the victim of a terrorist attack, when they're a zillion times more likely to be robbed, assaulted or molested by some normal, boring criminal. In fact, according to the news, you're more likely to be killed by your own mother than by some Islamic suicide bomber.

It's just stupid.

 

[vraiblonde]

But then, if they DO catch someone raping you on tape, they're not going to do anything about it anyway because the prisons are so over-crowded that there's no room for the guy who attacked YOU. Maybe release him on his own recognizance, then give him probation or something.

So it probably doesn't matter.

 

[hvp05]

Maybe I've missed something, but what did the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on those cameras yield besides some slightly fuzzy pictures of the bombers calmly going onto the trains with their backpack bombs? I think that the clearest picture of the terrorists that the cameras provided was that cameras do not have any effect on deterring terrorists.

Nothing like spending millions to buy a high tech method for closing the barn door after the horse has left.

Maybe you missed my post from Sunday @ 9:38a:

Having a camera located at every corner (or other key points) may not prevent the punk from committing his act, but at least the technology can play a vital role in proving who the perp(s) was/were and how they did it. That will hopefully result in their expeditious apprehension and potentially educate us on how to defuse future plans.

So, they were obviously not deterred because they knew that as long as they acted like normal travelers no one would suspect anything. With continuing R&D, the technology should someday be at a level where a computer can operate the system and alert authorities when a person of interest is recognized. (See my post from yesterday @ 10:12p.)

If the surveillance in London was not particularly worthwhile why was it one of the first pieces of evidence consulted in the investigation? Where would the investigation be without it?

The devices aren't as good as they could be, but that's part of my point; only with persistence and support will they come along. If we don't try to advance them the program will stall at "mildly useful". And that, I think, would be a big loss for our communities and law enforcement. Someone mentioned [yesterday] the duty that our government has to protect us, and with crime statistics reaching new highs in many places (wassup, PG County?!) this would seem to be a path worth exploring.

Let's consider another type of criminal: sex offenders. Some of the lowest sh!t on earth, as evidenced by the recent Groene case. If a kid gets taken off a street, near a playground or wherever and there are no witnesses what do you think the chance of recovery is? If you were the parent, wouldn't you do anything for solid evidence? I'll bet you would not be complaining about the cost of installing surveillance then... you simply want a resolution. Again, 'after the fact' it would be, but you face that or no trace at all.

A lot of the opposition here seems pretty empty. Like 2A that feels, "'Big Brother' is far too invasive now." In other words, "I don't want someone watching me when I'm in public." So it's an iffy, subjective thing... as opposed to the tangible, definite positive result that could be gained by installing them.

 

[Bruzilla]

Maybe you missed my post from Sunday @ 9:38a:
So, they were obviously not deterred because they knew that as long as they acted like normal travelers no one would suspect anything. With continuing R&D, the technology should someday be at a level where a computer can operate the system and alert authorities when a person of interest is recognized.

I disagree. Based on what I've heard so far, the bomber on the bus was not acting normally. He was obviously troubled/nervous, and kept messing around with something in his knapsack. Why would the bombers be worried about acting normally infront of the cameras, or even guards for that matter? It's not like they're worried about surviving the encounter or being arrested. If they are confronted and can't advance, they just blow up then and take out whoever is within range. And with our highly-enlightened Western sense of care and understanding, a young middle eastern male can act nervously on a bus and fidget with a large backpack without anyone saying "GRAB THAT GUY!"

What would have served the Britons better than cameras would be several Bernie Goetz guys on the trains and busses... much cheaper and far more effective.

 

[Bruzilla]

Bru, I disagree. Obviously the goal is not to "catch" suicide bombers - the only way you catch those guys is by matching their DNA that's been blown all over the place. Plus, they probably don't care if someone takes their picture while they explode.

To me, it's more of a deterrent/identifier to regular criminals - you know, the ones that we deal with every single minute of every single day rather than some one-shot wonder?

We focus so much on terrorists because they make a bigger statement, yet thousands of people are targets of random crime every single day and they don't get NEAR the media attention of some terrorist who takes out 5 people. We have stupid Americans running around, fretting about being the victim of a terrorist attack, when they're a zillion times more likely to be robbed, assaulted or molested by some normal, boring criminal. In fact, according to the news, you're more likely to be killed by your own mother than by some Islamic suicide bomber.

It's just stupid.

I agree with you that common criminals pose more of a danger than any terrorist, but remember the name of this string... Paranoia or Common Sense... Paranoia tends to win out with the masses every time - refer to Men In Black comment.

I think that the first rule of common sense in this regard is that intelligence that is not acted upon is not good intelligence. You cannot have a surveillance camera everywhere... unless you're talking about Neverland Ranch. And any gap in coverage can be exploited. Criminals are very good at responding to defenses, just like terrorists. If area A is covered by cameras, which provide real-time data to a quick response force of M-4 toting Marines with shoot-to-kill orders, who will be on your ass within 10 seconds, that's deterrence. If area A is covered by cameras that are linked to VCRs for the postgame analysis of your bad deeds, and pose no direct threat to you as you can hide your identity from them, then there's no deterrence. A camera cannot discern intent or threat in a public place until it's too late to do anything about.

How many thousands of hours of video tape of store surveillance cameras capturing crimes being committed have we seen? How many crimes have been solved because a camera took a picture of a guy wearing a hat or mask, or even those where the perp is easilly seen?

If you want to deter crime there's a far more effective and cheaper way to do it... kill the repeat offenders.

 

[SmallTown]

I loved this one the best! Had the bombings not been successful, why would the police have any need to review the tapes? The only way a suicide bombing could not be successful is if the bomber doesn't blow himself up, in which case nobody knows anything was going on. Now expanding on that idea, let's say the bomber is not suicidal, and leaves the bomb under a seat waiting to go off without him (or her.) A simple hat and sunglasses will allow the bomber to go past any camera without worry.

aww, thanks for

They would know, or at least have a suspect, if they review the tapes (which in this case they have) and see a couple of the bombers walking with someone else, they have at minimum a person of interest to track down. Without the camera, it is just as you say, they really wouldn't know they had anything to do with it. If anything, your example was a prime reason TO have the cameras.

I guess it boils down to this. You seem highly opposed to this type of thing. If your wife was attacked and it just so happen to be caught on tape, would you want that to be part of the investigation? I say you would.

 

[Bruzilla]

It's not a question of being opposed to something, it's a question of expending resources to actually accomplish something rather than just waste money on a knee-jerk reaction to something. Cameras are just the easiest thing in the World to get around, especially when you don't care if you get caught. If you do care, then even the most simplest disguise, turning your face away from the camera, will defeat it. The bombings in London show conclusively that all of those cameras neither prevented or deterred the bombers. So all they're good for is the postgame analysis of what happened, which doesn't do anyone any real good. It doesn't help predict future behaviors, and since there's been all manner of publicity and stills shown from the cameras, anyone who might have gotten caught by them now has a great lesson in remembering to avoid them.

In this case, I would much rather see those millions of dollars spent doing direct surveillance of known threats, rather than being wasted on generating thousands of hours of video tape of a subway just so that some FBI guy can point to the monitor and say "see... I told you guys that fellow's been up to something for months, and here we have him on tape blowing up a bus full of kids. Am I vindicated or what - high fives all around!"

 

[ylexot]

Hi-tech eyes in tunnels

The MTA's first wave of major anti-terrorism projects will include installing high-tech surveillance systems to protect its underwater tunnels, the Daily News has learned.

The systems will be able to detect intruders entering the 14 subway and commuter rail tunnels leading into Manhattan - sending alarms and images to Metropolitan Transportation Authority police and anti-terror staff in command centers, sources said.

Of course, this just watches areas that are restricted.

 

[hvp05]

It's not a question of being opposed to something, it's a question of expending resources to actually accomplish something rather than just waste money on a knee-jerk reaction to something. Cameras are just the easiest thing in the World to get around, especially when you don't care if you get caught. If you do care, then even the most simplest disguise, turning your face away from the camera, will defeat it. The bombings in London show conclusively that all of those cameras neither prevented or deterred the bombers. So all they're good for is the postgame analysis of what happened, which doesn't do anyone any real good. It doesn't help predict future behaviors, and since there's been all manner of publicity and stills shown from the cameras, anyone who might have gotten caught by them now has a great lesson in remembering to avoid them.

In this case, I would much rather see those millions of dollars spent doing direct surveillance of known threats, rather than being wasted on generating thousands of hours of video tape of a subway just so that some FBI guy can point to the monitor and say "see... I told you guys that fellow's been up to something for months, and here we have him on tape blowing up a bus full of kids. Am I vindicated or what - high fives all around!"

It's not a "knee-jerk reaction" for me; I have thought for many years that surveillance could be valuable.

I don't see how receiving straight-forward evidence that will greatly aid in solving a crime (remember, it could be anything from a guy getting robbed on the street up to a terrorist assault) is not accomplishing something. In so many cases police beg witnesses for clues and no one will come forward either because they fear their own safety will be threatened or simply because no one else was there. If there were cameras around D.C., for example, police and citizens could feel better knowing that there is a witness on every street corner, 24 hours/day. The camera will not lie and will not fall to inconsistent or false memory.

You're right about the use of evasive measures such as a disguise. But I maintain that even a small amount of evidence is better than none at all. Why is the question, "What did he look like?" one of the first to be asked of a victim? The police may only gather, "He was about 6' 2", white, light beard in a green shirt." But the hope is that they could then tie that description to one of a guy in another location, and you create a chain. With enough links you may end up right on the guy's doorstep.

A deterrent... so what if it's not? Your typical gang member roaming SE D.C. is not worried about or deterred by the thought of being shot. Yet, I doubt you are about to start advocating that we stop "wasting" money on police firearms. The only way we can possibly prevent a crime [in the aforementioned range] would be to (a) establish a police presence on every block, or (b) start reading people's minds. Otherwise, crime will always happen... at least we can enhance our ability to fight it.

You mentioned "known threats" and, conveniently, subways. Terrorists love subways for the immense damage and danger that will remain in the aftermath. Subway systems have been hit various times in the past decade (think Japan, 1995) and that setting remains a hot target. I think that is a "known threat".

I'll recall a point I made a couple days ago: what if you had cameras in such "hot" areas with trained profilers behind the controls? That agent would notice subtle details like someone who seems nervous, distant, etc. Those characteristics would combine with the physical description but may also work independent of it. Joe Public doesn't know how to react to the headline "Terror Threat Level: High", but a trained agent would. It would no doubt take some refinement, but such a system may lead to some forewarning of an attack. And stopping one of those a-holes would be worth the millions spent to make it happen.

 

[Bruzilla]

So now you want to spend some megabucks to install high-res video surveillance cameras, that somehow are able to convey a high-res image of a subway rider with a nervous tick or who is sweating to a highly trained and attentive security officer; but that won't allow said officer to tell if a person is nervous because of a pending first date or because he's wearing a bomb. Then, you want another trained officer(s) to be available to go out and solve the date/bomb riddle, since the first officer can't leave his post.

Where are you going to find all of these attentive officers? And how many do you need to closely monitor every camera 24/7/365? That expense makes the cameras look cheap!

So... you're calling for the spending of what??? $5,000,000? $25,000,000? $100,000,000? to spot the criminals or terrorists who are a: stupid enough to not notice the cameras, or b: stupid enough to wait around after the crime for officer 2 to arrive on the scene? Meanwhile the terrorist with the bomb just snickers at your wasted money as he strides off to the bus stop, or hangs out at the school bus stop, or ponders the latest offerings at The Gap as he waits for enough customers to warrant setting off the bomb to show at the mall.

Why do so many people think that criminals are static in how they operate? You could bankrupt the United States and Europe trying to cover as many potential targets and crime areas as you could, and all it would mean is that a bad guy just needs to adjust his operations enough to get around your defenses and he/she wins. Yes, these solutions are knee-jerk reactions as they do nothing to deter/stop criminals or terrorists... they just make people "feel" safer and help police catch your killer AFTER your dead. What a bargain! I would rather all that money go for killing the bad guys. That way they get theirs before the get to harm me or my family.

 

[vraiblonde]

I would rather all that money go for killing the bad guys. That way they get theirs before the get to harm me or my family.

That sounds great, in theory - but you know as well as I do that they're not going to do that. They're going to tie up our court system and let these people out on their own recognizance. And even if you happen to nab a terrorist, liberals are going to scream bloody murder about civil rights and other crap so that the justice system is effectively neutralized.

I say to hell with it. Get rid of the judges, get rid of the cops. Let us have as many guns as we please and we can take care of ourselves. Because I have to say, I trust myself to dispense justice and keep my family safe a hell of a lot more than I trust some cop or some judge and jury. You'd save big money and I'll bet random criminals would think twice before mugging someone or breaking into their house.

 

[ylexot]

I say to hell with it. Get rid of the judges, get rid of the cops. Let us have as many guns as we please and we can take care of ourselves. Because I have to say, I trust myself to dispense justice and keep my family safe a hell of a lot more than I trust some cop or some judge and jury. You'd save big money and I'll bet random criminals would think twice before mugging someone or breaking into their house.

Just call me Judge Dredd...I AM THE LAW!

 

[hvp05]

So now you want to spend some megabucks to install high-res video surveillance cameras, that somehow are able to convey a high-res image of a subway rider with a nervous tick or who is sweating to a highly trained and attentive security officer; but that won't allow said officer to tell if a person is nervous because of a pending first date or because he's wearing a bomb. Then, you want another trained officer(s) to be available to go out and solve the date/bomb riddle, since the first officer can't leave his post.

Where are you going to find all of these attentive officers? And how many do you need to closely monitor every camera 24/7/365? That expense makes the cameras look cheap!

So... you're calling for the spending of what??? $5,000,000? $25,000,000? $100,000,000? to spot the criminals or terrorists who are a: stupid enough to not notice the cameras, or b: stupid enough to wait around after the crime for officer 2 to arrive on the scene? Meanwhile the terrorist with the bomb just snickers at your wasted money as he strides off to the bus stop, or hangs out at the school bus stop, or ponders the latest offerings at The Gap as he waits for enough customers to warrant setting off the bomb to show at the mall.

Why do so many people think that criminals are static in how they operate? You could bankrupt the United States and Europe trying to cover as many potential targets and crime areas as you could, and all it would mean is that a bad guy just needs to adjust his operations enough to get around your defenses and he/she wins. Yes, these solutions are knee-jerk reactions as they do nothing to deter/stop criminals or terrorists... they just make people "feel" safer and help police catch your killer AFTER your dead. What a bargain! I would rather all that money go for killing the bad guys. That way they get theirs before the get to harm me or my family.

You seem somewhat... flustered.

I believe I did state that my hypothesis would require "some refinement". There would indubitably be misfires and errors in the process. But I think that, if anything, there should be an overage of security. It was a shortfall (or series thereof) that led to 9/11. If I have to wait a little longer in a que or spend a few dollars more in taxes then so be it. Whatever it takes to stop the b*stards.

Now you're prodding me about logistics. How in the hell am I supposed to know? You're not talking to Michael Chertoff. But I can tell you this: our government dumps truckloads of money into useless, frivolous plans every day. At least if a surveillance system did cost 100 million/year it would be worthwhile. (Assuming the Dems didn't want to add-on the cost of the "International Cabbage Appreciation Museum" or whatever.)

Have I indicated that I think that criminals/crime are static? I am soundly attuned to the fact that crime has an ebb-flow nature. Law enforcement continually tries to stay one step ahead of the criminal, but sometimes the criminal wins. (Actually, I touched on this in my last post also when I said that, forgiving extreme conditions, crime will always happen.)

You also raised the "deter/stop" issue again. And I thought I squelched that yesterday... I do not expect a simple lens with some attached circuitry to deter every criminal -- especially a jihadist. But that does not dilute their positive influence. Even if they aid in the arrest of my attacker AFTER I am dead he will still be incarcerated, so he will not be able to act out his petty, selfish urges on another person. (That, by the way, would be stopping him.)

I'm all for any and every law or method that will directly have an impact on terrorism and lesser crimes. That includes soldiers and intelligence, comprehensive homeland security... and perhaps even vrai sitting on her porch with a .22.

I think the bulk of our homeland security resources should go toward pro-actively derailing their efforts around the world. We should be freezing their bank accounts and hunting them down. Make the world a better place... blow a terrorist's f'ing head off. But we can not realistically expect our intelligence to net all of them. Some will slip through the cracks. Some may be here, in the States, in the final stages of planning today. For all I know, there is a group heading towards an NYC subway station right now. To combat those punks we need a solid, widespread front-line police force... and the remote eyes of said force could be realized by way of surveillance.

If a lead derived from advanced surveillance could result in protecting another 3,000 lives or just 3, I believe it would be worth the time and the (gasp) millions of dollars expended. Then we could all enjoy the camaraderie around the television as news comes down the wire: "Abu Muhsin Jahmel was executed at 12:01a..."