A few weeks ago it was the aid of over four million Closed Circuit Televisions (CCT) that lead Scotland Yard and the United Kingdom’s crack domestic intelligence group otherwise known as MI5 to track down the terrorist cell from the almost would be car bombs in London and at the airport in Glasgow, Scotland. The forces in Scotland even used these Closed Circuit Televisions to track down one of the Doctors and his accomplice on the highway as they tried to slip away. So why don’t we have four million of our own Closed Circuit televisions here in the United States? We have to learn lessons from not only our own brushes with terrorism but also those of other countries and municipalities.
As for here in the United States law enforcement is already using such CCT’s. There are four thousand in New York City along its streets and subways. Mayor Daley in Chicago has been an advocate on the forefront of using such televisions to both prevent and track down crimes in frequently traveled public spaces and crime-ridden neighborhoods. Baltimore and Washington DC have also successfully started using this technology.
Some citizens are apprehensive about a reality television show of our daily lives. I say the more cameras the better. We are already on camera at the ATM, in the movie theater, office building elevators and virtually anywhere we walk, in taxi’s and on buses, past building security cameras and the like. When you look at he trail we leave through or cell phone bills and credit card transactions – really how much would we really be giving up? And the good thing about these cameras is that they are monitored by retired police officers and other law enforcement agencies with strict regulations and guidelines. It’s not like camera number 334 at the corner of Oak and Michigan will have its own channel on YouTube.
These cameras are tried and tested and as long as they are used for good and not evil – I’m all for it. In the city of Melbourne, Australia. They have seen a decline of crime in areas where their cameras are present by 8%. They also have seen an increase in crime at areas without such cameras by 9%. Granted, nothing is full proof. Two years ago on 07/07/05 there was the bombing of three British subway trains and a bus killing 52 and injuring 700 people. There were cameras in the stations, in the rail cars and on the bus that certainly didn’t stop the suicide bombers. Of course suicide bombers aren’t going to worry about their mugs on a security monitor but at least in the case in the UK a few weeks ago we see what an indispensable tool these cameras have become for solving crimes and tracking down the remainder of a terrorist cell.
So what do you the Gather community think of the United States deploying more of these Closed Circuit Television cameras here in our major cities and areas with high threat levels?
Is it Creepy Uncle or Big Brother?
I’m looking forward to hearing what you think!
Thank you in advance for participating!
Laura
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 57
Thanks for bringing this up though - it's very interesting.
Funny, most of us practice preventative maintenance in the homes we live in, yet we expect our government to run smoothly without our having to actively participate in it. If these cameras were set up and those using them knew that we citizens were paying attention to how they were used they would be used correctly. If our interest in how these cameras are used ends the day they are put into service, they will end up be abused.
The ball is always in our court, whether we want it there or not.
The more cameras the better.
When my generation is gone you can have at it and install monitors on everyone for all times, all places and all purposes and it looks like it will come to that. But please, humor us old timers with a few more years of pseudo freedom so we can pretend it was like we remembered it!
Given a choice I'd rater live in a world where everyone wore a gun on their hip for protection rather than in a closely monitored society. I know, I don't have my choice.
James, I am also not doing anything in public that I want to keep private, That is why I have a house!
I also Agree with you James. I am going for my carry permit and it does make me feel more comfortable going on some of the jobs that I do.
Laura you're right about cameras not stopping suicide bombers but many of these bombers have accomplices that tag along to make sure that they don't chicken out at the last minute and camera's may help track them and lead to finding out more about who all is involved.
So, to SELL this system to the country, and make money for
the people, that is the barrier they have to market against.
So ... immediately I would suspect these statistics. When
I had a TV I remember hardly being able to switch the channel
away from the show "Cops" and also seeing in the news how
crime after crime was perpertrated right in front of the
cameras ... so these numbers I wonder about.
A show that I did watch "The Wire" was a very interesting look
at the Baltimore Police Dept, I believe by someone who was on
the inside for a w hile, and one thing they showed was how the
statistics are cooked to make it look like people are doing their
jobs so they can get their promotions and run for higher office.
The one thing I know is that we have lots of OUTSIDERS in our
society, and more across the world, and these OUTSIDERS are
not going to stop until they eventually are brought in and
invested in and treated like human beings.
This idea of us and them, and who gets watched ... we could not
even see who Dick Cheney was meeting with in his Energy Task
Force, where they needed maps of Iraq? Transparency ... I'm
all for it - but then if the only people who get punished when they
do something wrong are the nobodies ... that doesn't make a lot
sense either.
We need to start having some intense enlightening and educational
talks about where we are going in this country, and we need to listen
to people and let them have a say.
What is the greater threat in my mind, hands down, it is to save our own country.
If the President, ie. executive, can home in on me and see what I am doing, and then pardon his own people for taking actions, what does that mean for American citizens when we know already that in far lesser technolgy driven times the IRS, FBI and other organs of government have been turned against the American people for trying to assert their power.
In Michael Moore's new movie "Sicko" the point is driven home time and again that Americans are uncared for, uninvested in, put upon, terrorized, nickeled and dimed to death over everything to make us demoralized, weak and obedient, and now the tool for taking care of the leftovers. In short this will continue, and continue to get worse until we can make our government fear and work for us instead of the other way around.
The problem is that this will happen, and so it ought to be talked about, and it ought to be available and public for anyone to see anyone else, and for anyone to know who is watching what and when and why. Given transparency and answerability this can be a good tool to show us what is happening in our country.
But not as a tool of the secret elite, the ones who say trust us, we have secret information that justifies this, and that, and the Constitution just gets in the way.
They don't STOP the crime just make it slightly easier for the police to get objective facts rather than differing witness statements. And what is the point of discouraging a crime in one street and moving it to another?
As for privacy, I think they are managed by a central police section so getting released on utube isn't such a threat - it is more if you are mistaken with a blurry image and end up held in detention for long periods that is the problem. How many young men look shifty and terrorist-like? Take the Brazillian guy shot by the British police because they thought he was a middle-eastern terrorist.
Otherwise I don't care. The banks all have them, as do a lot of big nightclubs or pubs (as we saw recently in Australia when some footballers having a boozeup punched a guy and a woman in the face and it was all over the news because they were famous).
I don't have a problem with it. I have no intention of breaking the law, whilst on the streets, so I have nothing to fear.
It has cut down on vandalism, too!
Thanks for the article!
Thanks so much for your comments – they are always so full of insight!
Preventative maintenance is such a good phrase for this. And it's shown preventative from graffiti writers to armed robberies. Business owners in some cities where they are currently being used overseas call up and ask for them on their corner. It takes the place of their own extra security – they are seeing the results in other neighborhoods and want it in theirs!
But as with new technology comes new responsibility. We have to account for the eyes and the ears from they day they start and throughout their use. As citizens we have to exercise responsible oversight on these new technologies that are put in place for a specific reason – just as the Congress needs to use oversight on the Executive Branch and shareholders on the head of a company. We must not be complacent after any of our decisions but hold those responsible and accountable through the implementation.
George thanks so much for your thoughts!
Thank you for commenting – you provide some really interesting insight from being in London through their terror plots. Which makes me think – with the IRA and their various factions they've had to fight over the years – they have faced terrorist plots and attacks in their country for longer than we have had to which has made them be this ahead in technology and in tools they have needed to use before Osama Bin Ladin and Al Queda was on everybody's minds.
We definitely can learn from the lessons of others and if we don't we are just putting ourselves at more of a detriment. So I am happy to see that leaders in America like Mayor Daley in Chicago want to take steps before something happens rather than just starting to think about it after something does again.
Thanks so much David,
Laura
Thanks for the comment.
Thanks for joining in - and yes there is a lot of technology on the forefront. There is a new system that the UK is testing and should be putting into place soon. It is called a "virtual tripwire." These are cameras that are monitored not by people but computers. They can be in mass public places like airports, rail stations, rail cars and the streets. They can detect without human monitoring when a bag is left without human contact for too long or when someone is rushing singling against the flow of traffic – sort of going against the stream. Also they can know when an authorized car appears on the tarmac of an airport. They then immediately dispatch emergency services and get the ball rolling. All by computer – it's instantaneous. I see it as more "eyes" on the street or "cops n the beat" which could actually be cost effective in the long run.
It's like watching a new Mission Impossible film – though the mission is quite possible. We just have to put it into place.
Thanks so much Judith!
Laura
Yet again another insightful article. Personal thought, I'm being watch everyday now and one more camera is not going to hinder my life. Walking around the streets of Atlanta yesterday, I passed by at least three ATMs, more than a dozen security cameras from buildings, several traffic cameras and perhaps a dozen or so people on their cell phone cameras. If I needed an alibi for my whereabouts yesterday at 1:30pm to 3:20pm there would be a hundred plus images of me walking around lost.
If the cameras were in my home I'm going to have to read Fahrenheit all over again and wear tin foil on my head to prevent aliens from tapping into my brain waves. However, cameras in public? Walk around New York City today and look up like tourist and just count, they are already there in the private sector so I have no problems of public CCT.
I'm forced to wonder why anyone would oppose such monitoring of "public" areas, unless they have something to hide. To me, what's the difference between a camera seeing what I'm up to or the happenstance of a police officer seeing me, except that a police officer has a lot less chance of doing so. So again I must question the motives of those opposed to such a thing.
However, I do mind the willful "tapping" of our internet activities and telephone calls. Big Brother (or creepy uncle) is watching carefully everyday. And it's allowable by law now. I have a problem with that, no matter how many times people tell me it will "protect" me from the "terrorists" that are here in America conversing and planning. I don't buy it, not at all.
I worry about our country's safety - not from the "terrorists" but from ourselves. We've really allowed ourselves to become complaisant about our so-called rights as Americans. Bruce K knows what he's talking about above. The Constitution seems like an obstacle to those in power now. Obviously we, as a country, don't seem to mind it, either. By allowing our every move to be monitored, whether we're doing anything "wrong" or not, we are allowing someone else to keep tabs on us so we have to watch what we say or do as not to appear suspicious in any way. We don't have habeas corpus in our country anymore, so they don't need a real, concrete reason to hold us indefinitely without the "rights" of letting our families know or obtaining a lawyer - it's not just for foreigners, guys!
I can't agree more with your comments! You said what I was thinking and said it better!
Kate,
Well said! We need to repeal the so called Patriot Act and restore the right of habeas corpus and get the government out of the business of warrantless wire tapping.
cybergwen S.,
Freedom means being free and that alone precludes being watched at all times. You may feel pure as the driven snow but will a cop always see it that way? We have become so obsessed by "being safe" we've forgotten what freedom was! In fact, kids growing up today don't have the opportunity to experience freedom. Yes, constant monitoring keeps kids out of trouble. Yes, constant monitoring keeps parents feeling they are doing a great job. But it denies them the opportunity to really earn trust. To make mistakes and learn from them. To know the exhilaration of doing what is right with no one watching and seeing how it worked for the better. Of feeling truly good about your own decisions and actions.
I was not subjugated to this kind of upbringing and had I been I'm sure I'd have been a juvenile delinquent as I would have found it oppressive. I, and my contemporaries certainly did wrong things for which we were never caught and punished. But we learned from them and sometimes (usually) someone in our group prevented any serious wrongdoing without adult supervision.
The younger people in our country don't understand real freedom and for that reason we are doomed, as a nation, to relinquishing it to those in power. Even though those in power have demonstrated no innate ability to act responsibly and ethically for their own part.
Again, I'm reminded of Ben Franklin's words "those who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither!" Most on this post seem to prefer their safety to their freedom and that is their choice. The rest of us will be dragged, kicking and screaming, along with them!
the entire thing saddens me as it spells an end to the America which was once great and free. But it lasted over two hundred years so I guess that's not bad.
So what about the general privacy idea, which I'm guessing really means the concern about misuse and abuse of the photos and video captured by cameras. That seems like a legitimate concern. However, it implies that we will have law enforcement (or politicians) looking for blackmail opportunities, or some way to embarrass us. It would seem that we have plenty of laws protecting our privacy and right to sue for such misuse, not to mention the almost instantaneous ability for bloggers, YouTubers and others to spread news of such misdeeds around the planet. Perhaps we do need to have specific controls to keep law enforcement from overstepping their limits, but this doesn't diminish the value of cameras.
As for someone on YouTube watching me "adjust my package" as someone so eloquently put it…as long as they don't decide to start stalking me I couldn't give a hoot.
Thanks. I'm trying to become more educated on the topic.
How many of you think John Lennon had something to hide, was a terrorist, or planning a crime? He was followed. His phone was tapped. His private life and behavior was looked into ... with direction from the very top, with political motivation to keep him from affecting the American election and maintain power for the administration. Face it, tools like this are always irresistable and always used, any of us would do the same thing.
Probably the only reason we heard of that abuse was because this infrastructure of surveilance was no in place then to the extent that is today, and the man in question was famous, and definitely not a criminal. Funny how we never hear the whole stories, or any stories of how things like these are used to save people or inform people. I'm still wondering what happened to all the film that was grabbed outside the Pentagon when the plane crashed into it? Any news on that? I expect it was a plane, but why is this not public record?
Most child molesters are family members Troy ... and the idea of being able to find a alibi to a crime on a bank ATM camera ... well has it ever been done before. Who is going to pay to have someone find the Banks, and ask them for their film. All this discussion proves is that the American public these days would be considered contemptible by the founding father who pretty much all to a man echoed the sentitment of Benjamin Franklin who said "those willing to relinquish liberty for a security will end up with neither.
Finally, where does public and private leave off. With a solar powered drone with a hi-res CCD camera you can look right into a window and see people living their lives, night or day. With a laser interferometer you can reconstruct the sound waves vibrating windows of surrounding materials and reconstruct conversations.
People who have this stuff use it. How many of you recall the beginning and the end of the ground war in Iraq. It was kicked off by missile attacks on residential neighborhoods where it was "believed" Sadddam and his sons were hiding. Now we know that we blew up a whole neighborhood and killed a lot of people and the info was wrong ... and this happened twice then, and then again a publicised account near the end of the ground war.
Again, if you use wavelengths other than light you can see right through walls like an X-Ray into house. What is public?
I cannot even post anonymously on the internet to assure that expressing my ideas will not draw attention from someone who does not like what I have to say, or wants to read into it any kind of threat or nonsense.
I have worked will all kinds of high-tech and believe me this is way past security cameras in public areas. Obviously there is good and bad, and then a wall comes up about what we know is out there and what the watchers want to remain silent so they can continue to watch.
How many of you know that most printers that are sold have little patterns embedded in their pixels somewhere so that a study of the printout can find the exact printer in the world that printed off a page somewhere?
The British government and most European governments listen to their people. They respond to their people. In this case Britain provides free health care to all of its citizens - as does France, as does every developed country in the Western world - except the US.
A big point was made in Britain about how the Brits have better health and a longer lifespan that we Yanks. We rank 37th in infant mortality in our compassionately conservative nation.
Do you suppose people might think about the attitude of their government towards them, and towards people in general when we consider something like this.
After all our government sees Americans pay the most in the world for health care, and ever year our infant mortality goes UP, the number of people with insurance and coverage goes down, the profits of the CEOs who provide this NON-service for us goes UP.
We are hidden from knowing that their are hormones in our milk, of that food may contain genetically modified organisms is it at the same time we cheer about how Capitalistic we are and how the marketplace can decide what areas of the economy people want to reward with their spending.
The main concerns of people for going on 20 years now, the environment has been near the top, and considering global warming, like smoking, a handful of industry paid scientists trump the world concensus about its negative effect, yet things are moving at a snail pace, if not backwards, in the greatest democracy the world has ever known.
Maybe Brits, Canadians, and the French have a little more relaxed attitudes about how their government is going to treat them when it comes to their wellbeing, security, and rights?
I had the freedom to move about most of the time without being watched! In public places like banks, traffic cams, etc., I don't have a problem with camera. But watch them spread.
Other freedoms we have given up are the freedom to write letters or email with the certain knowledge that no one was going to read it without a court order. Also, we had the total right to Habeas Corpus. Now all the have to do is say you are suspicioned of terrorism and that right is gone along with the right to a speedy trial. Thank the Patriot Act.
There are others, some more subtle but these rank high on my dark brown list. And I don't want to be watched at all times regardless. A totally supervised existence is not a free existence. We always looked out for our pigs and chickens and took the best care of them - right up to the day we slaughtered them!
Actually, if you want a controlled and supervised life you could have had that in the Soviet Union or in one of the closed Arab societies. As long as you do nothing to displease them they'll leave you alone. But do you know what will do that? No, "being watched" is not, in any stretch of the imagination, "being free!"
I appreciate your comments on this as you have about as good a handle on it as anyone I've read!
that show from the 60s that depicted all the inhabitants
of an island were under constant surveillance by closed
circuit TV cameras.
At least some of the inhabitants once worked for the
government. But when they tried to leave service,
they were relocated to The Island.
> places and neighborhoods with high crime rates. Access,
> however, to these films needs to be strictly regulated.
Well, gee George ... how do you know where the output
of those cameras goes, and what it is used for? That is
the problem, how do you regulate anything like this?
Hook them up to the internet and parents could watch their children all the way from home to school.
We should have a pilot program, start with a gated community. Then, if a homeowner went to the mail box in her robe and curlers, she could be cited for violating the community standards.
Flip off a motorist who cut you off in traffic, and the swat team could be on you in a matter of minutes.
It's a great idea, I really like the though of being watched from the time I walk out the door till I get into a "private" space. Of course I might do something wrong in that private space so those areas should be under surveillance too. Piff Tosh. People have rights.
I'm assuming that your tongue is about to burst through that cheek! If flipping off brought the swat team we'd have to add about 30 swat teams in Boise alone! And people do have rights, but they're getting slimmer all the time.
Why not have our elected officials produce a detailed analysis of crime by area, and use that data to position a concentration of those CCT's in areas where crime is highest?
I understand that has been done in NYC already, with spectacular results. I'm in Chicago, and was shocked to hear that we're one of the leading cities in the country for this type of technology. We need to have this technology where it is most needed - where the crime is.
It is not that I am against cameras in any given place, I am against the mentality that technology can make good citizens on the one hand, that unregulated technology or misplaced trust can do any good at all, and that an unthinking attitude that when someone tells you that it will save lives or increase security to agree with it. The expert testimony on anything these days is usually just hired marketing with some stamp of approval on it, bought and paid for.
Why not define what trust is, and where it is useful, and why people cannot be trusted anymore. When I was a kid, my parents would leave the doors of the house and car unlocked, and people would not think of cheating in school because they have honor and integrity - and we did not have to worry about security. So ... what happened.
I'm not sure if I'm older than you or not but I do recall much of what you describe. I think there were a few in those days who would cheat in school if they could get away with it. I never did for two reasons, one it was wrong and two, I didn't trust anyone to come up with better answers than I could! I was also a lousy liar, I was afraid God would strike me dead. I made up for it by my innate ability to look innocent!
Honor was taught as something very important, both at school and at home. My parents taught honor and practiced it. Charity, that is helping others was also practiced and taught. Schools today teach high level math and science but I'm not too sure they do the same job in teaching pure ethics.
I've known college students who would cheat (use others term papers or have others write papers for them) simply to get a better grade when there was no danger of them failing on their own. What has caused this deterioration in our moral and ethical structures? Some of this was going on when I was a college freshman in 1956. My contact with others has told me that it is much more prevalent today.
I agree with you, Bruce, it is the mind set that technology fixes all and the acceptance of "fixes" whether by cameras, DNA or whoever. Personal responsibility is still at the top of the heap. I'm pleased that my three sons, after a few turbulent teen years, have come to accept and believe in the same ethical standards they were taught.
I believe one problem is that our youth haven't seen real evidence yet of the true rewards of maintaining high ethical standards. With what we see from our "leaders" in Washington DC it is understandable that our youth are getting mixed signals.
I care not how many cameras you install, the end result is people achieving a higher level of skill at defeating or getting around those cameras! That's not the skills we'd like them to learn.
A total breakdown in justice, so that people think they have to cheat to
be treated fairly, and they have to succeed and any price at getting lots
of money or they are nothing. There are two really good books on this,
"The Cheating Culture" and another one talking about what is the
philosphy behind status called "Status Anxiety".
I think one reason that children do not learn socialization in real life
siutations is that our media is so pervasive now that it overrides what
kids learn in life. I rememeber growing up and feeling like the media
represented society, like "Big Brother" ... it was naive and innocent
back then, but today with all the neurogical studies and psychological
tools marketers have at their disposal people are being brainwashed and
are powerless to see it or stop it, even though we think we know it.
I agree, it is the leaders and the perception of the leaders that drives
most of this, and I think the media likes to display a chaotic culture because
it bugs adults and that makes children happy in a way, or validated.
I too, remember the benign press days, or at least they appear that way now. TV was the start of big changes. I blame parents for not controlling this sufficiently at the expense of their own children. How can the best of schools teach if the students use 40 hours a week watching TV and spend their time in class text messaging to their buddies? So we blame the educational system!
I'm sure you're right that people feel they need to cheat to get treated fairly and I totally understand that. How many times has an insurance company made an error in your favor? That'll be the long, cold day in the old den on retribution!
Appreciate your response!
Are there different challenges now then there were then - absolutely? But consider that every generation has lamented that the youth of their day have lost their way, the politicians weren't trustworthy, the government was inept (and corrupt), etc.
Having said that, we (all of us) today have the opportunity and obligation to pay attention to our youth, our morals, our politicians, our schools, etc. and work to make them the best that they can be. Time to stop whining and pony up.
First of all, I made it clear that I was paraphrasing Franklin's words not quoting them exactly. Second, so what if most child molesters are family members? Are you saying that you are in favor of putting cameras in private homes in order to beter apprehend them? I am simply trying to play devil's advocate on this issue in order to make sur the other side gets a fair hearing. The bandwagon mentality which seems to have caught on in our society really disturbs me. A significant number of people on the right and on the left seem to join in lock step with the latest trend on either side without thinking through the issues. It really bugged me that so many of the responses to Laura's post on this issue seemed not to take the other side or sides into account. I grudgingly accept that this may be part of the reality of a post 9/11 world but if we are going to go down this proverbial rabbitt hole we should at least know what it exactly entails. And, for the record, what the Nixon administration did to John Lennon was deplorable and unbecoming of the United States of America!
I was dropping my girlfriend off at the airport in San Jose CA about a year after 911. I stopped my car and we were getting her stuff out and a guard/officer came up to me and said get moving. My girlfriend was having some kind of a problem at the counter, and she came out to talk to me.
I was standing right by my car, there was no traffic to speak of at the time, and the guy, just doing his job, orders me to get my car moving. I asked him why and he said "911, man".
We just have a country full of people with no perspective on things. What caused this, I have no idea. Bad school, flouride in the water, too much TV, but it is scarey as hell. We are so trained to just kneejerk on things out of fear ... and not ask questions of think them through.
And we are going forth in the world and pushing this on everyone, and making no effect at self-examination, or self-criticism ... we do not even have much of a sense of humor anymore about anything.
What the hell have we become?
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to keep perspective...and personal responsibility...and ethics. These things do seem to have taken a back seat in our entitlement mindsets. That perspective should keep us focused on the facts, the ways to address those facts, and how best to discuss disagreements in the facts...oh, and options for path(s) forward. Keep it in perspective.
Of course cameras are useful, and they have and are being used, I see them all over the place. I would even bet they are being used to extents in say, Homeland Security, that is unadvertised, such as tracking cars moving about.
How can we talk about rights and rules when the government decides to whatever it wants whenever it sees or manufactures a need?
I'm not comfortable being more tightly supervised today at sixty nine than I was at ten. Lack of supervisory oversight was one of the benefits of living up to responsibility in those days. The freedom that comes from acquiring adult status. Now, as we are being "watched" more closely, it seems were are looking for unquestioning obedience in our citizenry. Isn't that what any good Fascist government would desire?
If it is not us being told what to do, it is someone or some group that deserves to be told what to do. Instead of doing what is necessary to do to fix or solve the problem, or even researching what is necessary to do to solve the problem, we vote the military/industrial/governmental overseer more power to handle the symptoms of the problem, which is often disenfranchised people themselves. Usually this means creating or assuring the creation of even more disenfranchised people, making more growth of power for the overseeing entity, more job opportunities for their growth and expansion and a real solution to problems less possible.
Can we just continue like this for all of history, or at some point don't we have to at least say we are going to try to make an effort to include all people, understand all people, tolerate all people, and especially - make it clear that we expect something from all people, that they will contribute to society and not tear it down?