Company proposes privately funded camera network for downtown

[downtownparks]

Or, we can all be as angry as hell and insulting about everything. That seems to work well.

[Midway ®]

"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.

[JeffreyS]

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.

 

[vicupstate]

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.               

[teresangel]

Throwing in on the debate.

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. 

[Midway ®]

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.

[Midway ®]

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?

[Jason]

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?

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.

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.

[Jason]

^ Sounds fair.

[JeffreyS]

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.

[RiversideGator]

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".   

[Lunican]

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:

ISSUE: 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

[Eazy E]

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.

[Jason]

How does it erode our privacy?

[Steve]

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?