Focused on Downtown
DOWNTOWN -- The owner of a wireless Internet company serving Downtown and St. Augustine businesses has proposed a plan to equip Downtown with up to 94 cameras for police to monitor the area for crime at no cost to Jacksonville.
Mark Marques, president and CEO of Joytel Wireless Communications Inc., who lives and works Downtown, developed the idea in consultation with neighboring business owners who worry that people are deterred from going there by safety concerns.
"I walk to The [Jacksonville] Landing at night to see clients, and I often get harassed," Marques said.
The wireless camera system he has proposed offers advantages compared with a hardwired system, he said. The cameras are more readily deployable and aren't subject to having their wires cut. Also, such a network is more scalable; extra cameras can be added or removed as needed.[/quote]
full article: http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2008/04/14/story2.html?b=1208145600^1617809
Cameras may help but they certainly don't prevent crime. Just look at how many idiots we see every day robbing a convenience store knowing they're being filmed.
Also someone harassing for money probably doesn't care that they are on film either.
Cameras are great but they need to be backed up by an increased police presence. St. Augustine has put cops back on the beat why can't Jax?
I think the offer is something we should take advantage of. Camera's aren't going the be a cure all but I think it could help. Kudos to Joytel for this offer.
What privacy are you giving up? If you're in the middle of downtown you can't get much more public than that.
If the cameras are in public areas, I don't know that privacy concerns come in to play.
I think its a waste of resources, and I think its a sad commentary that people view being panhandled as some great threat. But aside from that, meh, whatever. I go downtown without them, I would go with them too.
I always thought Jax was a few years behind. This funny. The same thing discussed today was going on in Tampa when I was working down there a few years ago.
QuoteYbor cameras won't seek what they never found
After two years of fruitless monitoring, Tampa is dropping facial-recognition software that looked for crooks. It never led to a single arrest.
By BRADY DENNIS, Times Staff Writer
St. Petersburg Times
published August 20, 2003
TAMPA - In the end, everyone the secret cameras scanned turned out to be just another face in the crowd.
Two years after Tampa became the nation's first city to use facial-recognition software to search for wanted criminals, officials are dropping the program.
It led to zero arrests.
"I wouldn't consider it a failure," said police spokesman Joe Durkin. "You are always looking for new and efficient ways to provide the best service to the community. There's going to be ups and downs."
Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio did not return calls Tuesday seeking comment about the practice.
The city first toyed with the technology during the 2001 Super Bowl, when surveillance cameras monitored people entering Raymond James Stadium.
That led critics to dub the game, "Snooper Bowl." And although cameras picked up 19 "hits," or possible matches with wanted criminals, none were arrested.
That June, New Jersey-based Visionics Corp. offered the city a free trial use of a similar program called Face-It, and the software was installed on 36 cameras in the Ybor City entertainment district.
A Tampa police officer in a room three blocks away monitored a wall of televisions and, with a click, could pick out faces from the crowd to scan and run through a criminal database to search for matches.
Even as the software proved unsuccessful in nabbing wanted offenders, it did a superb job of attracting outrage from critics.
Republican Dick Armey, the House Majority Leader at the time, called for congressional hearings on the controversial surveillance technology.
Leaders from the American Civil Liberties Union denounced the practice, likening it to something out of George Orwell's novel 1984.
Scores of protesters donned bandanas, masks and Groucho Marx glasses and took to the streets of Ybor City on a busy Saturday night to show their contempt for the face-scanning system.
The software also created false alarms, faces that seemed to match but didn't. In at least one instance, both police and a Tampa man ended up embarrassed.
Rob Milliron, then 32, wound up on a surveillance camera one day while at lunch in Ybor City. Tampa police used his photo to demonstrate the system to local news media.
A woman in Tulsa, Okla., saw his picture and fingered him as her ex-husband who was wanted on felony child neglect charges. Three police officers showed up at Milliron's construction job site, asking if he was a wanted man.
Turns out he had never married, never had kids, never even been to Oklahoma.
"They made me feel like a criminal," Milliron said at the time.
Critics of Face-It celebrated on Tuesday, saying that the Millirons of the world can finally walk down the street without fear of humiliation.
"It's a relief," said Darlene Williams, chairwoman of the Greater Tampa Chapter of the ACLU. "Any time you have this sort of technology on public streets, you are subjecting people who come to Ybor to an electronic police lineup, without any kind of probable cause. The whole episode was very troubling."
Scanning companies such as Visionics and Identix (which since have merged and are known as Identix) saw their stocks soar in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
But the technology's success in actually catching wanted criminals or terrorists has apparently been marginal. Critics claim it is unreliable and ineffective, and potential customers such as the Palm Beach International Airport have passed on the equipment after test runs, saying it gave too many false positives and wasn't cost-effective.
The company could not be reached for comment.
Durkin emphasized Tuesday that the trial run with Face-It didn't cost the city any money. But even so, he said, its use likely benefited the city.
"Something that's intangible is how many wanted persons avoided (Ybor City) because the cameras were there," he said. "That's something we may never calculate."
Durkin said even without the face-recognition software, the cameras in Ybor will remain.
Meanwhile, facial-recognition technology has been in use at the airport, jail and jail visitation center in Pinellas County for more than a year, and at the courthouse since late April. And Pinellas sheriff's officials have no plans to discard it, although they have not attributed any arrests to the technology.
Pinellas sheriff's Lt. James Main, who heads the program for Sheriff Everett Rice, said Rice's office is confident the technology works well and is a useful security tool, despite the lack of arrests.
"We don't have any plans to change anything here," Main said. "The fact that we aren't making arrests doesn't mean the technology isn't working."
He said Tampa's use of the technology is far different than in Pinellas. In Tampa, the technology isn't used in a controlled environment like the inside of a well-lighted courthouse, where people can be asked to take off hats and glasses.
Rather, he said city officials across the bay gambled on the ability to pick faces out of a crowd:
"To Tampa's credit, they were trying something new."
- Times researcher John Martin and staff writers William Levesque and David Karp contributed to this report, which used information from Times archives.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/20/Hillsborough/Ybor_cameras_won_t_se.shtml
^ There's no right to privacy on a public street in a single one of your examples. Period.
All of that could just as easily be seen by any one of the thousands of downtown patrons. Does that keep people from doing the things you've listed? Nope. Should the sight seeing binoculars be removed from the riverwalk as well, because you might actually see your wife making out and smoking pot and drinking beer in a car with your best friend outside of LaCena?
I just don't see the point of requesting privacy in public places. If the cameras are mounted in private locations such as the restrooms in the Main Library then I have a problem with it. But onthe streets its a given that somebody could be watching you at any given moment. If your not doing anything you shouldn't be doing then you should have nothing to worry about.
The biggest issue I could see with the cameras is mistaken identity, such as in Rob Milliron's case in Ybor City a few years ago.
The article says that cameras are to be monitored by the police. Are we not to trust them anymore?
Quote from: stephendare on April 11, 2008, 11:27:48 AM
Joe, there is always a right to privacy. How far have we bought into this fascist state dogma that anyone believes that you have no rights to privacy?
Shouting "fascism" doesn't change the fact that you still have no right to privacy on a public street in any of the situations you outlined. Your indignation doesn't change the reality of the valid distiction between being in the public vs private realm. I'm not sure what else to say without being overly rude.
I don't see how its any different than if a cop happened to drive by while doing something illegal. Should they put on blinders in the off chance they see crime as it happens, rather than waiting for a call to come in?
The only place the "police state" argument comes in to play is if the use of these recordings are used to arrest, detain, or otherwise harass people, otherwise, you can make out on the sidewalk all day long without fear of arrest or harassment, aside from perhaps the irritated glances of passers-by who think that type of thing should be done in the privacy of ones own home/car/ect.
Quote from: downtownparks on April 11, 2008, 12:04:04 PM
The only place the "police state" argument comes in to play is if the use of these recordings are used to arrest, detain, or otherwise harass people, .....
That's exactly the point. Getting the technology infrastructure in place is the hard part. Using it for those purposes that you deem unacceptable as above is just one small easy step.
If you want to police the streets, then hire more police. Having cameras all over the place just gives the city administration an excuse to cut police that are out on patrol, claiming that the cameras do a better job. So they will be able to watch you being murdered, instead of preventing it in the first place.
But on the bright side, that video of you being murdered will be a big hit on youtube, and you will have your 15 minutes of fame posthumously.
And BTW, anyone with more than the intelligence of a flea cannot watch these monitors for more than an hour, so the people that wind up watching them usually are at or below the flea level, So, it will be those people who will be your first line of defense.
QuoteFocused on Downtown
Company proposes privately funded camera network
DOWNTOWN -- The owner of a wireless Internet company serving Downtown and St. Augustine businesses has proposed a plan to equip Downtown with up to 94 cameras for police to monitor the area for crime at no cost to Jacksonville.
Mark Marques, president and CEO of Joytel Wireless Communications Inc., who lives and works Downtown, developed the idea in consultation with neighboring business owners who worry that people are deterred from going there by safety concerns.
"I walk to The [Jacksonville] Landing at night to see clients, and I often get harassed," Marques said.
The wireless camera system he has proposed offers advantages compared with a hardwired system, he said. The cameras are more readily deployable and aren't subject to having their wires cut. Also, such a network is more scalable; extra cameras can be added or removed as needed.
The cameras can swivel and zoom in from hundreds of feet away with sharp resolution. Their images could be called up on police car computers or even on handheld devices given to officers.
Marques would install monitoring equipment for the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office's exclusive use.
The system proposed could also include a gunshot locator system. If a gun is fired, nearby cameras would turn to the sound and pinpoint the location on a map.
Marques declined to say how much the system will cost, but he has pitched it to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office on the premise that it will be funded privately and turned over to the JSO to operate.
The proposed funding mechanism involves soliciting sponsorships from businesses for one or more cameras. Signs could be affixed to each camera stating which company is supporting its installation and maintenance.
"It's kind of like adopt-a-highway, only for cameras," Marques said.
In addition, the proposal suggests the possibility of being able to embed a watermark of a sponsoring company's logo on the output from each camera. So if a camera detects activity that is aired on television news or reproduced in print, the watermark would be included.
Marques, with help from La Cena Ristorante owner Jerry Moran, is looking for a company to underwrite a pilot project involving eight cameras. If that is successful, he envisions adding 86 cameras.
Such a network would have more than twice as many cameras as the hardwired system the city has around the sports complex. Those cameras are used mainly to monitor traffic during sporting events and events at Metropolitan Park.
A system geared for public safety would require different training for officers assigned to monitor it, said JSO Chief Mark Richardson, chief of community affairs and special events.
Street-level view
Moran, who is chairman of the Sheriff's Advisory Council for the sector that includes Downtown, has high hopes that such a system will deter activities such as panhandling, indecency, criminal vagrancy, drug dealing and vehicle vandalism.
"I'm at street level," Moran said. "I see this all the time."
But he's seen such activity reduced since he began turning his restaurant's cameras toward the street.
"It seemed to be effective," he said. "I thought a video surveillance system for Downtown would be a good idea."
Others agree.
"I think cameras would provide an extra level of security, absolutely," said Terry Lorince, executive director of Downtown Vision Inc. "I see it as part of a long-term strategy."
Although statistics show Downtown is among the city's safest areas with respect to violent crime, it has an issue with "nuisance activities" that, for many, create a feeling of being unsafe, Lorince said.
So far, Sheriff John Rutherford "finds the concept very interesting and promising," said Lauri-Ellen Smith, special assistant to the sheriff.
Rutherford is encouraged by the idea of a public-private partnership to fund the cameras, Smith said. "He greatly appreciates this group coming forward with a proposal."
At the same time, the proposal will require a lot of due diligence to sort through issues such as integrating the technology, allocating resources, monitoring and system maintenance.
"The devil is in the details. If you're going to do it, you have to do it well," Smith said. "It's definitely going to be explored and carefully researched."
One issue the sheriff's office will likely have to vet is concern about privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union has expressed concerns about the increasing prevalence of video surveillance on city streets and other public places. The organization breaks its case against video surveillance into four categories: questionable effectiveness, susceptibility to abuse, lack of limits or controls on use and a chilling effect on public life.
A 2002 review by the British Home Office of 22 prior studies in the U.S. and the U.K. regarding video surveillance concluded it had little or no effect on crime in downtown or public transportation settings. Nor did it seem to deter violent crime. It did, however, show some correlation to a reduction of vehicle-related crimes in parking lots.
'Surveillance monster'
The ACLU worries video surveillance systems will be abused -- for personal, voyeuristic or illegal purposes or for discriminatory targeting -- as a result of flawed policies or oversight. Likewise, it worries the use of video surveillance will expand unchecked: "Because there's no clear consensus on where we draw the line on surveillance to protect American values, [it] is in danger of evolving into a surveillance monster."
Lastly, the ACLU worries people will stop being themselves in public for fear of attracting attention.
Moran said such concerns are not an issue when the system is viewed as a means for police to cover more public space, noting that long ago police departments would station officers in towers with views of several blocks.
"Civil libertarians have nothing to fear," Moran said. "One cop will do the work of 10. We'll have a cop on every street corner. That's when Downtown will flourish."
Flea brains, I'm lol for the rest of the day from that one, Midway.
Can't we just go back to the days where everybody was a bunch of snitches.
Cameras, downtown.
Now we will all have proof that the downtown is over, we can just look at the video.
I propose we put cameras up around First Baptist so we can figure out who the weirdos are.
They won't mind because their perfect.
These dumbasses in the city goverment can't even find enough money to pay for basics and now find money so they can watch the homeless crap, piss and talk to trees.
This is just dumb, like freedumb.
But you never know, maybe we'll catch us some of them terrorists or a street pooper.
Flea brains! lol
Or, we can all be as angry as hell and insulting about everything. That seems to work well.
Quote"One cop will do the work of 10"
My point exactly.
The next logical step is to fire 9 cops.
You'll see. that's what will happen.
It's called the law of unintended consequences.
Time and time again it has been proven that there is no substitute for cops on the street.
You make good arguments Stephen but security versus privacy is a balancing act and people will feel diffrently where to draw the line. IMO the cameras are good idea. Some negatives to be sure but I think the good out weighs the bad here.
The best deterent to crime is 1) plenty of by-standers and 2) a cop WALKING or Bicycling a beat. A cop in a car driving the speed limit +_ 10mph doesn't deter much, except speeding and running red lights.
As for cameras...
A public street is just that. It is not private, and no one should expect privacy. Stephen, obviously the whole aspect is troubling to you, and to a degree, I can undsrstand that. There is the potential for abuse, but their is plenty of potential for abuse with law enforcement in general. Our court system is the protectoin we have to rely on. [That said, I have a REAL problem with the gov't tapping my phone line or opening my mail, etc. Such things ARE private.]
I really don't think that JSO has so much time on their hands that they will call a mother up to tell her her daughter is dating that 'bad boy' again. 99% of the time, 99% of the recording will be erased within a week or so of the recording.
That said, cameras do not DETER crime, they RECORD crime. These cameras are posted in fairly discreet places and while you MIGHT notice them initially, they melt into the landsape over time. I'm sure most people are not cognizant of them 99% of the time. Thus, there is no little deterent in PREVENTING crimes, IMO.
But, when a crime is reported, those cameras will be checked to see if they captured anything. Occassionly such evidence might mean the difference between an arrest instead of an unsolved crime. Being able to arrest people that commit crimes, instead of them getting away with it, will lower crime over time, although it is by no means a panecea.
Many cities have done this for years, BTW. Greenville installed cameras DT about a year or two ago. I SEEM to remember something about the cameras being significant in solving a police case of some sort. My memory is fuzzy on that though.
Lastly, panhandling, public urination, the mental ill and homeless wandering about, is POISON to any effort to revive DT. Personally, I am use to it and it doesn't phase me, except in the extreme. However, that is not the norm in the general public. These issues can not be solved, but they can be adequately controlled. Many cities have done so.
Throwing in on the debate.
Quote
If you want to police the streets, then hire more police. Having cameras all over the place just gives the city administration an excuse to cut police that are out on patrol, claiming that the cameras do a better job. So they will be able to watch you being murdered, instead of preventing it in the first place.
But on the bright side, that video of you being murdered will be a big hit on youtube, and you will have your 15 minutes of fame posthumously.
And BTW, anyone with more than the intelligence of a flea cannot watch these monitors for more than an hour, so the people that wind up watching them usually are at or below the flea level, So, it will be those people who will be your first line of defense.
Excellent. Witty.
Personally, I work late nights downtown, wander around downtown while most folks are snug in their condos. I take photographs, I take the night air, and I take the occasional questioning from the rare officer who doesn't recognize me. I have to admit I'd feel ten times less safe if I knew there was a camera zooming in on me. Sounds like it will be easier to profile and subsequently harass the funny colored haired white girl who some bored and power hungry officers feel should be snug in her condo.
More cameras won't stop people from feeling uncomfortable about the homeless. Cameras won't stop pan handlers from affecting a British accent and bumming cigarettes -- happened tonight on our way home from the movie at Treaty Oak.
I agree about the
Right to Privacy.
And of course we all have the right to be on different sides of this argument.
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 11, 2008, 06:53:38 PM
You make good arguments Stephen but security versus privacy is a balancing act and people will feel diffrently where to draw the line. IMO the cameras are good idea. Some negatives to be sure but I think the good out weighs the bad here.
Please bear with me for a moment here, to consider my line of reasoning:
You can have a complete loss of privacy and the
appearance of security by using cameras, or, you can have privacy and
real security by putting more police officers out on the street. Oft times the appearance of security is more reassuring than real security to non-experts.
The answer to downtown's crime problem is not contained within some new whiz bang technology, it is rooted in very conventional and well proven theroies of community patrol and policing.
This is not a problem looking for, or that will be solved by a technological solution. Placing cameras just subverts the mission of the local police department and makes them less responsive to street crime.
Once the cameras are in place, COJ & JSO will apply for federal grants to install facial recognition software, connect the cameras to a national database system and make their primary mission looking for members of Al Queida, ACLU, and maybe even JAXHATER. Incidental street crime will be out of the scope of the federal grants, so that will become someone else's job, and you will be back to square one, except there will be no privacy and no security.
Look for a requirement for your picture and DNA to be in a national database, coming to a city near you, soon! (AKA "REAL ID") But not to worry, we're just keeping you safe.
If you just think about it for a few moments, you will realize that this is a step in the wrong direction.
A few more thoughts on this subject:
Joytel's iron in the fire is generating system traffic over their wireless infrastructure, profit from the installation, and foremost, follow on service contracts and rental of bandwidth for transmission of video from these camera devices.
A network of these devices requires constant maintenance, and thats where the monthly maintenance costs come in.
As for the bandwidth, Joytel charges $159.00/month for wireless internet access, per point. I don't know what their rate structure would be on these devices, but if they intend to supply usable video at a decent frame rate, each camera will require about 1 Mbps system bandwidth.
I think that you might be amazed at the real operating expense of such a system, unless Joytel intends to donate those services in perpetuity.
Just sounds like a citizen subsidized launch of a new business venture by Joytel under the guise of altruism.
I thought that you pay taxes in return for things like police protection. If the city government has broken down to the point that it can't even provide adequate police protection, maybe a root cause investigation should be started?
Quote from: Midway on April 12, 2008, 04:59:48 PM
A few more thoughts on this subject:
Joytel's iron in the fire is generating system traffic over their wireless infrastructure, profit from the installation, and foremost, follow on service contracts and rental of bandwidth for transmission of video from these camera devices.
A network of these devices requires constant maintenance, and thats where the monthly maintenance costs come in.
As for the bandwidth, Joytel charges $159.00/month for wireless internet access, per point. I don't know what their rate structure would be on these devices, but if they intend to supply usable video at a decent frame rate, each camera will require about 1 Mbps system bandwidth.
I think that you might be amazed at the real operating expense of such a system, unless Joytel intends to donate those services in perpetuity.
Just sounds like a citizen subsidized launch of a new business venture by Joytel under the guise of altruism.
I thought that you pay taxes in return for things like police protection. If the city government has broken down to the point that it can't even provide adequate police protection, maybe a root cause investigation should be started?
There is no doubt in my mind Joytel stands to profit from this, but the article did state that there would be no cost to Jacksonville. Could the buisness owners be teaming up to front the bill? Or is it simply stating that the installation would cost nothing, but the maintenance would have to come out of someone else's pocket?
QuoteThe best deterent to crime is 1) plenty of by-standers and 2) a cop WALKING or Bicycling a beat. A cop in a car driving the speed limit +_ 10mph doesn't deter much, except speeding and running red lights.
As for cameras...
A public street is just that. It is not private, and no one should expect privacy. Stephen, obviously the whole aspect is troubling to you, and to a degree, I can undsrstand that. There is the potential for abuse, but their is plenty of potential for abuse with law enforcement in general. Our court system is the protectoin we have to rely on. [That said, I have a REAL problem with the gov't tapping my phone line or opening my mail, etc. Such things ARE private.]
I really don't think that JSO has so much time on their hands that they will call a mother up to tell her her daughter is dating that 'bad boy' again. 99% of the time, 99% of the recording will be erased within a week or so of the recording.
That said, cameras do not DETER crime, they RECORD crime. These cameras are posted in fairly discreet places and while you MIGHT notice them initially, they melt into the landsape over time. I'm sure most people are not cognizant of them 99% of the time. Thus, there is no little deterent in PREVENTING crimes, IMO.
But, when a crime is reported, those cameras will be checked to see if they captured anything. Occassionly such evidence might mean the difference between an arrest instead of an unsolved crime. Being able to arrest people that commit crimes, instead of them getting away with it, will lower crime over time, although it is by no means a panecea.
Many cities have done this for years, BTW. Greenville installed cameras DT about a year or two ago. I SEEM to remember something about the cameras being significant in solving a police case of some sort. My memory is fuzzy on that though.
Lastly, panhandling, public urination, the mental ill and homeless wandering about, is POISON to any effort to revive DT. Personally, I am use to it and it doesn't phase me, except in the extreme. However, that is not the norm in the general public. These issues can not be solved, but they can be adequately controlled. Many cities have done so.
I think Vic hit the nail on the head. These cameras aren't likely to be "manned" by some brainless nematoad. They will simply serve as and investigative tool after a crime has been commited. They will likely record up to a few days or weeks worth of feeds on DVRs and the police will have full access whenever necessary.
We have all seen the videos on TV and the internet of people blantantly commiting crimes in full view of a camera. Cameras do very little to prevent crime but are great tools in catching the person who commited the crime. Cops on the beat are the best way to instill a sence of security. The problem is, buisness owners can only do so much to try to get more police on the streets. However, teaming up and installing a camera system is something they can do and as long as they are paying for it then great.
Again, I don't see how being filmed by security cameras on public streets is any different than being filmed by security cameras in a jewelry store, grovery store, or convenience store. As long as you don't do anything wrong, the potential for seeing yourself on TV is almost nill. If you don't want someone to see you pick your nose or make out with your significant other then do it at home. Chances are if you are recorded doing anything short of a crime being investigate by the police, the recording will eventually be recycled and deleted.
^ Sounds fair.
Quote from: stephendare on April 14, 2008, 10:09:05 AM
I personally think that these ideas should be voted on.
I don't think that its ok for the security needs of one part of the population to be forced on the rest of the population without permission.
I am lean towards the idea of the cameras but it isn't without problems. Voting sounds like a good idea.
Quote from: stephendare on April 11, 2008, 12:06:38 PM
Joe. There isnt much more that you can say that isnt overly incorrect either.
You have a Right to Privacy.
The argument about what the limits to that right are is an ongoing argument whose parameters have not been settled by US law yet.
This ongoing argument does not however, cancel your rights. It would be absurd to claim otherwise.
The argument that I made however, is not based on the absolute Right of Privacy. But merely on good sense and the idea that there are all kinds of things that a person would probably like to do without being observed or taped doing.
Even though the arguments are different, I still feel its important not to let the unrelated argument that we dont have any "Right" to privacy even on an empty or abandoned public street--stand. It is factually incorrect.
Just as you do not have a 'right' to privacy or property if your house is burning down and you refuse to let your spouse and children out of it. There are instances of overwhelming need or importance that supercede these rights.
Catching the homeless panhandling or urinating in public, in my mind, doesnt exactly rise to that level.
I will call this treatise "Dare on Constitutional Law". ::)
Quote from: Midway on April 12, 2008, 02:47:38 PM
Once the cameras are in place, COJ & JSO will apply for federal grants to install facial recognition software, connect the cameras to a national database system and make their primary mission looking for members of Al Queida, ACLU, and maybe even JAXHATER. Incidental street crime will be out of the scope of the federal grants, so that will become someone else's job, and you will be back to square one, except there will be no privacy and no security.
Look for a requirement for your picture and DNA to be in a national database, coming to a city near you, soon! (AKA "REAL ID") But not to worry, we're just keeping you safe.
If you just think about it for a few moments, you will realize that this is a step in the wrong direction.
Apparently they are already on top of this.
Just passed unanimously by the Jacksonville City Council on tuesday:
QuoteISSUE: Illegal aliens and crime grant. What it means: Appropriates a $25,991 U.S. Justice Department grant to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office to help it identify illegal aliens and any involvement in crime. Bill No. 2008-212 ACTION: Passed, 14-0.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/042308/met_271204843.shtml
This is a horrible idea. Further erosion of our privacy and civil liberties, and people are actually glad for it?!? Are you people nuts?! This is total Big Brother nonsense, and anyone with a thinking brain should reject it outright.
How does it erode our privacy?
Quote from: Eazy E on April 23, 2008, 04:56:34 PM
This is a horrible idea. Further erosion of our privacy and civil liberties, and people are actually glad for it?!? Are you people nuts?! This is total Big Brother nonsense, and anyone with a thinking brain should reject it outright.
If this thing was using facial recognition software to pull criminal records or something like that, I could see your points, but how is this any different than a security camera at a mall?
Quote from: Steve on April 23, 2008, 05:02:26 PM
Quote from: Eazy E on April 23, 2008, 04:56:34 PM
This is a horrible idea. Further erosion of our privacy and civil liberties, and people are actually glad for it?!? Are you people nuts?! This is total Big Brother nonsense, and anyone with a thinking brain should reject it outright.
If this thing was using facial recognition software to pull criminal records or something like that, I could see your points, but how is this any different than a security camera at a mall?
1. Mall is private property.
2. Facial recognition software will be applied later.
The giant step is putting in the cameras. All the rest are just baby steps.
Quote from: RiversideGator on April 15, 2008, 12:07:27 PM
Quote from: stephendare on April 11, 2008, 12:06:38 PM
Joe. There isnt much more that you can say that isnt overly incorrect either.
You have a Right to Privacy.
The argument about what the limits to that right are is an ongoing argument whose parameters have not been settled by US law yet.
This ongoing argument does not however, cancel your rights. It would be absurd to claim otherwise.
The argument that I made however, is not based on the absolute Right of Privacy. But merely on good sense and the idea that there are all kinds of things that a person would probably like to do without being observed or taped doing.
Even though the arguments are different, I still feel its important not to let the unrelated argument that we dont have any "Right" to privacy even on an empty or abandoned public street--stand. It is factually incorrect.
Just as you do not have a 'right' to privacy or property if your house is burning down and you refuse to let your spouse and children out of it. There are instances of overwhelming need or importance that supercede these rights.
Catching the homeless panhandling or urinating in public, in my mind, doesnt exactly rise to that level.
I will call this treatise "Dare on Constitutional Law". ::)
Smarmy and sarcastic, with nothing useful to add, as usual.
He's just as smart as a constitutional lawyer, so, by your "logic", he's an expert. as a matter of fact let's just say he is a constitutional lawyer, OK? That's not a problem, is it? Because if it is, that would just be quibbling over minor details, wouldn't it? Mind you, I'm just asking the question here.
Quote from: Lunican on April 23, 2008, 04:49:59 PM
Quote from: Midway on April 12, 2008, 02:47:38 PM
Once the cameras are in place, COJ & JSO will apply for federal grants to install facial recognition software, connect the cameras to a national database system and make their primary mission looking for members of Al Queida, ACLU, and maybe even JAXHATER. Incidental street crime will be out of the scope of the federal grants, so that will become someone else's job, and you will be back to square one, except there will be no privacy and no security.
Look for a requirement for your picture and DNA to be in a national database, coming to a city near you, soon! (AKA "REAL ID") But not to worry, we're just keeping you safe.
If you just think about it for a few moments, you will realize that this is a step in the wrong direction.
Apparently they are already on top of this.
Just passed unanimously by the Jacksonville City Council on tuesday:
QuoteISSUE: Illegal aliens and crime grant. What it means: Appropriates a $25,991 U.S. Justice Department grant to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office to help it identify illegal aliens and any involvement in crime. Bill No. 2008-212 ACTION: Passed, 14-0.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/042308/met_271204843.shtml
They should have allocated $2.5 million for this.
Quote from: Midway on April 23, 2008, 07:24:14 PM
Smarmy and sarcastic, with nothing useful to add, as usual.
He's just as smart as a constitutional lawyer, so, by your "logic", he's an expert. as a matter of fact let's just say he is a constitutional lawyer, OK? That's not a problem, is it? Because if it is, that would just be quibbling over minor details, wouldn't it? Mind you, I'm just asking the question here.
What are you talking about? I wasnt speaking to his qualifications, just the substance. BTW, you are unqualified to judge either.
And, you wrote the book on smarm and sarcasm.
I'm guessing many that oppose this would be singing a different tune if they were vicitmized and then served justice due the criminal being caught on film and thereby captured.
I would feel much better knowing that if I get mugged or my car broken into there could be a good chance that it was caught on film and the crook captured. Again, the cameras aren't going to keep them from doing it but at least justice may be served.
Guys, these arent' x-ray cameras that zoom in on your purse or wallet and examine its contents. They are simple "eyes" that have the ability to be accessed by the police when needed to investigate a crime. A crime that they may have been an eye witness to. The only difference between accessing a camera as a witness versus a person as a witness is the ability to see what the camera saw. In court, doesn't a witness to a crime significantly increase the chance that the accuser is caught? Moreso, a camera as a witness would be much more subjective due to the ability to show the court first hand what it saw.
Quote from: RiversideGator on April 23, 2008, 11:17:52 PM
Quote from: Midway on April 23, 2008, 07:24:14 PM
Smarmy and sarcastic, with nothing useful to add, as usual.
He's just as smart as a constitutional lawyer, so, by your "logic", he's an expert. as a matter of fact let's just say he is a constitutional lawyer, OK? That's not a problem, is it? Because if it is, that would just be quibbling over minor details, wouldn't it? Mind you, I'm just asking the question here.
What are you talking about? I wasnt speaking to his qualifications, just the substance. BTW, you are unqualified to judge either.
And, you wrote the book on smarm and sarcasm.
Not talking about my qualifications. And you wrote the book on hyperbole and bravado.
And I would have misgivings having you represent my dog before the city council, no less any human activity.
And the reason that they did not allocate $2.5 million is because they spent all the rest in Iraq. So $25,000.00 is all you little hillbillys get. That is, unless you can prove that Jacksontucky has been infiltrated by Al Queida,
Can we please get back to topic. Save the flaming for personal messages and spare the rest of us all the bickering and name calling.
this would go good with my plan to run the homeless out and make the area safer
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/video/player.aspx?aid=126468&bw=//
QuoteThe Viido unit is beginning to establish a London-wide database of images of suspects that are cross-referenced by written descriptions. Interest in the technology has been enhanced by recent police work, in which officers back-tracked through video tapes to pick out terrorist suspects. In districts where the Viido scheme is working, CCTV is now helping police in 15-20% of street robberies.
The article starts by saying the system isn't working but then says parts of it are. Helping with 15-20% of robberies is pretty good.
QuoteBeijing Olympics visitors to come under widespread surveillance
(http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-08/41475003.jpg)
The government has installed about 300,000 cameras in Beijing and set up a network to spy on its citizens and foreigners.
BEIJING -- The blocking of human rights websites in China leading up to the Olympics is part of an information control and surveillance network awaiting visitors that will include monitoring devices in hotels and taxis and snoops almost everywhere.
Government agents or their proxies are suspected of stepping up cyber-attacks on overseas Tibetan, human rights and press freedom groups and the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement in recent weeks. And China is spending huge sums on sophisticated surveillance systems that incorporate face recognition technology, biometrics and massive databases to help control the population.
China has installed about 300,000 cameras in Beijing under an estimated $6.5-billion, seven-year program dubbed the Grand Beijing Safeguard Sphere. Although face recognition software still can't process rapidly moving images, China hopes that it can soon electronically identify faces out of a vast crowd.
Full Article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-snoop7-2008aug07,0,7333292.story?%3F
Quote from: Jason on April 11, 2008, 11:35:24 AM
The article says that cameras are to be monitored by the police. Are we not to trust them anymore?
In this day and age, that really is awfully naive...
Law enforcement is becoming more of a business vs. a public service with each passing day, and despite what we were taught in school, the police are generally not your friend. The handful (countable on less than 1 hand) of times I've called the police for anything in my lifetime have yielded an hourlong wait (or more) only to be greeted with hassles and service with a snarl.
Which I find somewhat funny, at a time when the roadways have turned into a virtual sea of flashing red and blue lights issuing fines. And they routinely go through Riverside at night issuing hundreds of tickets to cars parked a bit too far from the curb, or facing in the wrong direction. Before I switched to using a private process server, I repeatedly had service returned unexecuted by JSO for no reason. They cash your check, and their rule is that they make one visit and if the person isn't there whenever they happen to stop by, then too bad for you. I threw in the towel after service on a corporate defendant was returned unexecuted because JSO dropped by at lunchtime (when their office was closed) and refused to go back.
They do nothing about the gigantic homeless camp that exists blocks from their headquarters. And don't even get me started on the new library, which has been rendered virtually useless by its de-facto status as the City's daytime homeless shelter. Or on the mess of panhandling, drug use, and general weirdness that is Hemming Park. And both of these are also just blocks away from police headquarters, not to mention across the street from City Hall.
They take 45 minutes or longer to respond to a burglar alarm, if they respond at all. Though they certainly don't mind collecting alarm registration fees, lack of service notwithstanding. Hamsterdam is alive at 4am, crawling with prostitutes and drug dealers operating in plain view as the police drive by and wave, sometimes even saying hi to the 'girls' at the Shell station. Jacksonville's serious crimes rates are multiples higher than the national average, broken down per 100k people.
And when they do happen to get involved in stopping real crime, as opposed to speed traps and parking tickets, they have gone embarrassingly berserk. Just the other day, they shot a suspect 42 times, and fired multiple rounds across a crowded parking lot and into a vehicle with 2 children inside, managing to shoot a 2 year old boy in the process. JSO's defense is that they believed a bank robber was carjacking the car. So their dumbass solution is to immediately blast the child-occupied car with several dozen rounds? They'd have been better off with the bank robber. Literally! And forget that one incident, it's the pattern that's troubling. Some story or another of that nature is in the news weekly. Jacksonville's sheer number of police-involved shootings is stunning, and the fact patterns behind them are generally equally shocking.
Beginning almost as soon as Rutherford took over, JSO began having no problem using people who are already running away for target practice. Call me old fashioned, but unless the officer is facing imminent danger, I really don't see the need for deadly force. And certainly not as frequently as it's been occurring. Even scarier is that, unlike in other communities, JSO is not subject to outside oversight by an independent panel or citizen review board. So I suppose it's hardly shocking, given this fact, that every single shooting has been declared justified. Usually by Rutherford at a press conference, before the investigation is even begun let alone completed. Even worse, in several cases, when the investigation was finally completed, JSO ultimately declared that the fatal wounds were somehow "self-inflicted". Because, you know, apparently it's just perfectly normal that people are somehow able to fatally shoot themselves...multiple times. That's certainly quite a magic trick. ::)
Meanwhile, despite the constant barrage of police-involved killings, the number of serious crimes in Jacksonville per capita has remained the worst in the state, at a time when the national average has trended lower, and we have had the highest murder rate in the state for years. As a lowly public citizen, it's really not hard to see why. If you ever need to call them for some reason, you better hope you have a book to read while waiting. But if you go a little over the speed limit, or forget to park your car in the right direction, or anything else of that equally retarded nature, then voila! They'll pop up in no time. If my house gets robbed, I bet it will probably be faster to go park my car in the wrong direction to attract the police than to call 911.
In a trend that began in the 1990's and has only gotten worse, the majority of their resources is now plainly focused on hassling money out of those who can afford to pay it, vs. any real emphasis on public service. I won't go into my experience on jury duty last week, and the utterly preposterous case (or lack thereof) on which JSO and Angela Corey's office wasted god knows how much money charging and bringing to trial. A total waste of time, and of public resources. I was disgusted.
So now we're going to install a giant web of security cameras? Hmm. Well, pardon my cynicism, but given how the rest of law enforcement is operated around here, doesn't it strike anyone else as virtually inevitable that those resources will only wind up being used in the most irritating and ineffective (though no doubt "revenue-producing") way possible?
This is a slippery slope. I feel the same way about red-light cameras. It wouldn't be long before they can just sit in the police station watching us on TV and sending us tickets in the mail. The way things are going, you may as well just replace their badges with bank deposit stamps. We're getting to a real turning point with law enforcement in Florida, it's becoming difficult to determine whether they're police officers or tax collectors.
Also, I should say that this type of problem originates from the top down. I don't fault the individual officers, it's the top leadership that's the problem. And in this economic downturn, I suspect even Rutherford isn't entirely to blame, he's probably getting leaned on by his own bosses (COJ) to bring in more money.
As a street photographer and wannabe photojournalist I like the idea that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in public places. However I don't want "the state" looking over my shoulder every time I walk down the street.
I have been in plenty of situations where it is clear that the police are not acting in the interests of the public, instead shielding the interests of the powerful few. I am always suspicious of authority and give them zero credit when dealing with sensitive information.
(http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/wegetupearlyslogan_1.jpg)
And no, I was not at the Denver DNC but some friends from Democracy Now were and they were harassed, to say the least!
Just poking through some stats; Jacksonville had 113 murders and 143 reported homicides in 2008. By comparison, London, a metropolitan area with more than 8 times our population, and where the police do not even carry firearms, logged only 153.
This is also a good read, if you have a strong stomach anyway, to watch Rutherford trying to take credit for the historical statistical link between recessions and crime rates;
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-04-07/story/release-crime-stats-shows-good-and-bad-duval-down-crime-rate-highest
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
ChriswUfGator..............your correct (even if your a lawyer ::) and I do agree with your point regarding London! Something is wrong for sure and I can't quite put a finger on it other than the enviroment in London compared to Jacksonville?
It seems that people actually do expect a right to privacy in public.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ym7x7twSoqc?version=3&hl=en_US
The film maker sure made his point and certainly had guts! He is lucky he didn't get "clocked" in the process of filming but the result kind of says it all doesn't it?
^ when you bump articles like this, especially with an excerpt from 5+ Yrs ago it would really be helpful if you added at least a sentence to say WHY you did so ... Just my 2 cents.