When Cory Booker became Mayor of Newark, New Jersey in 2006 he made it a priority to fight crime in the city. Gang members took his pledge so seriously that they planned to assassinate him just before taking office.
To show his dedication, Booker lived in some of Newark’s most dangerous neighborhoods, well before becoming mayor. He continues to live in a blighted neighborhood today.
In 2007 three young adults were killed execution style in a Newark schoolyard (a fourth person survived being shot and knifed in the face). Security cameras at the school weren’t working.
Booker used the incident to launch Community Eye, a project that uses high quality security cameras and a gunshot detection system to monitor an eight square mile crime-heavy area of Newark. The cameras have night vision, record in high definition video and stream wirelessly to a nearby police station, where officers can control the cameras, zoom in on areas, etc. The gunshot detection system can triangulate on gunfire immediately after firing, and can automatically move cameras to monitor the area. Police are able to respond immediately.Community Eye now has over 100 cameras in place, and the gunshot detection system is going online soon.
We spoke to Mayor Booker about the system via telephone earlier this week and asked him about the effect on crime rates, privacy issues and how he plans to expand the system. Listen to the discussion below or at TalkCrunch. The full transcript follows.
Standard Podcast [20:28m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Transcript:
Michael Arrington: Hello this is Mike Arrington, I have Mayor Corey Booker of Newark, New Jersey on the phone with me today. Mayor Booker has made improving the lives of Newark citizens a priority in his administration and he continues to live in some of the most challenged neighborhoods in the city. He’s also expanded greatly a surveillance program, called Community Eye which is going to be the subject of our talk to today. Mayor Booker, welcome to TechCrunch.
Cory Booker: Thank you so much, it’s great to be on.
MA: You became mayor in July of 2006, you’re a couple of years in to your 4 year term. It sounds like right away when you became Mayor you started thinking about how surveillance could help some of the crime problems in your city. Can you talk about the Community Eye initiative, what it was when you started as Mayor, and what it’s become since then.
CB: Sure, there was not really any kind of coordinated camera program what so ever. There may have been a few cameras out, but there was no monitoring, there was no substantive, strategic approach to using them. We realized right away that, one, from looking at other cities, and trying to learn from successes internationally to here in America, there was a lot of security leaders that talked about cameras as a positive thing. I knew we had to get more police on the streets. But we also had to find things that were force multipliers, ways of spreading out our police for in a way that gave us dramatically more coverage in preventing crime, reacting to crime, and adequately responding with emergency resources. So we began to explore the use of cameras, the first thing we did was use a local UEZ program, Urban Enterprise Zone to fund some cameras. Again, they were expensive, and I inherited a city that had a tremendous budget deficit. So I was trying to figure out ways to fund more cameras, we had already started a police foundation which was critical for helping with key technology advancements, from just getting computers into police cars, to other cutting edge things, they also funded our anonymous hotlines and tip lines for people who call in, and let the police know someone’s carrying an illegal gun and I know some information about a crime and get up to $2000 as a result of that. So we had a void, to try to meet my dream of having a huge wireless for cameras, and something else called gunshot detectors. Which means if a gun goes off in a zone, we’d be able to identify in seconds where the gun went off.
MA: And those are separate devices right, you have surveillance cameras and the gunshot detection systems as a separate device?
CB: Exactly, so this was a dream for us, what we thought we be a dramatic game changer, or force multiplier, but we had no way of funding it. And we were able to turn a terrible tragedy into a real community collation to get this funding that we needed. So when the 3 college children were murdered here in Newark almost exactly a year ago, we really called out to the community at a time that many people were looking for answers, and said that this isn’t THE answer but it is defiantly a set of tools that can help us make a significant difference in our fight against crime.
MA: So at the time of the murders, there were actually video cameras in the area but they were broken right?
CB: It wasn’t city property, it was the school districts buildings’, and they had some cameras but they weren’t being monitored and they were broken indeed.
MA: They were standard security cameras, and maybe you can go into more detail about the cameras you’re installing; I understand that they’re wireless, they stream the video, which is high quality to a central police station and it’s being monitored in real time, is that right?
CB: Absolutely, These are not your standard security cameras; these are high resolution, night vision capability, the ability to go over great distances, many miles in fact. Some of the cameras we have in the downtown district can read the tail numbers off of airplanes miles away at the airport. These are some of the highest, state of the art cameras, that have revolution capabilities, they can move around. They can focus in and read the name off an ID badge, pretty impressive technology.
MA: Does that mean they can be controlled remotely as well as from police officers at the station.
CB: Exactly, our monitor station has numerous police officers and well as trained civilians, who sit and monitor the cameras, and have full control over them as well. We’ve been seeing remarkable successes coming out of the cameras.
MA: It sounds like you’ve actually come a long way toward getting to the funding you needed. You need a total of 3.2 million for the 2nd phase of this?
CB: A total of 3.2 million for the wireless network, the cameras, as well as the gun shot detection devices.
MA: And how many cameras are we talking about?
CB: Well we’re hoping that this will be rolling cameras out for a while. We’ve got the first 109 cameras up, in about a 7-8 square mile area. And we don’t want to stop there. We realize they’re such powerful tools; the more we can get up, the more we can undermine crime in communities and ultimately begin to make criminals realize if the do something they’re going to get caught, either through traditional policing methods, through cameras, or some of the other things we’re deploying. Once there’s that knowledge, you begin to have people not as confident carrying a gun, or doing something illegal out in broad daylight. And what happened in New York, we talked to a lot of the criminologists involved in that effort, was it got to a point where the brazenness of criminals, gang members, drug dealers, out in the streets was so undermined, that they eventually drove a lot of the efforts to deal these drugs completely away or indoors. Driving things underground takes away a lot of the violence that’s associated with drug dealings and narcotics. And we’ve realized the majority of our shootings are narcotics related. So if you drive the narcotics trade underground, and we still have narcotics divisions that deal with major investigations, but just by getting people off street corners, and stopping narcotics folks from carrying guns because they realize there’s a high cost in doing so. Eventually we’re going to hit a tipping point in Newark where we’re not just going to see the dramatic reductions that we’re having now, but just spectacular reductions that will give residents the sense of security that they deserve.
MA: You said you have 109 cameras now. We’re those installed by May?
CB: They were rolled out almost immediately after the summer, after the August where we had that terrible problem. So they’ve been slowly rolled out since then. Now, as of the end of May or early June, we’ve had the full 109 up.
MA: In the 7-8 square miles that those cameras cover, what kinds of results have you seen in the crime rate?
CB: Well, we’ve experienced a dramatic overall decrease in violent crime. We’re pretty much the number one city in America right now for violent crime in 2008, a 40% reduction in murder, and a double digit reduction in shootings. That is unassailable results that we’ve had, through a collection of are tools and strategies. To measure precisely what one strategy does is very difficult, but the anecdotal evidence of the cameras, story after story, week after week of times that we’re able to prevent crime, where you see someone on a street corner present a gun to a friend, for example, flash it to them, put it back in their belt, under they’re jacket. We’ve had cases like that or where you see people case out a joint, or seeing people engage in narcotics trade. All of these things are helping us not only to prevent crime and respond to crime, but it’s also helping us in prosecution. We have shown some dramatic video the media about apprehending people who have been involved with crime or preventing people who are carrying illegal weapons. So, I am very confident. The other thing I notice, which is a good thing, but some people just think you’re displacing crime, is a lot of the high crime areas, we’ve put up cameras. The drug dealers have just gone away. Even today I had some residents come up to me and say they were so appreciative that their neighborhood that used to be plagued by drug dealing is now a lot clearer and cleaner. The cameras really help with that. That combined with law enforcement presence and enforcement can actually eradicate the problem or drive it very underneath where it doesn’t cause the public hazards the narcotics trade often does.
MA: In San Francisco they places some cameras, I don’t think they were the same kinds of cameras, near UC Berkeley, and reportedly there was a big decrease in homicides where the cameras were, but there was a big spike right outside of the range. Have you seen anything like that where you’ve seen crime move or just sort of moving it somewhere else (which would be a bad thing)?
CB: We’re not in the sense in that we’re enjoying an overall, all over the city, precinct by precinct, reduction in murders and shootings at an astounding level. People told me when I first came into office, that if I saw a 10% reduction in murders, that’s dramatic. And not just in 1 year, but as mayor for 4 years to accomplish that. This year alone we’re having 40%, not to mention what we accomplished last year. Overall, everywhere we’re seeing a reduction in crime. In some areas we’re seeing it completely stop. We picked our worst area in the city for the most shootings, and we took our police academy class and deployed a high level of them in that area. But look, near where I live, there’s a street where guys used to deal drugs on the main street. They don’t hang out on that main street, but on some of the side streets I see evidence that guys are hanging out over here, I’ve heard reports of that. They know where the cameras are and they move a little bit, but then what the police officers are doing is responding to that by being able to more strategically deploy the resources. So if you move them off certain areas, then you can understand that you have that force multiplier. So that street’s now covered, let’s move are police officers to address another area. That seems to be very helpful to us.
MA: What has been the community reaction? I expect you’re going to say very positive, but has there been anyone that’s complained about privacy issues?
CB: Yeah, definitely. We were very proactive. The director of the ACLU and the ACLU director was actually a friend of mine, was very negative on cameras and seemed to try to come up with some evidence that they don’t work, which to us is sort of absurd. I’ve sat in the monitoring room and see us stop crime and get guns off the streets. What we did is invite her and the ACLU in to help us design standard operating procedures and privacy protection. They were part of the process. It was a good thing. The editorial that they wrote, claiming cameras don’t work, but they actually were complimentary. If it’s going to be done we set a good path of working with them to make sure it’s done the right way. Those are usually the only complaints I hear, are from people who have privacy concerns about cameras, and I respect that, but I think it’s always a balancing act whenever you talk about constitutional rights. For example, between the larger issues of safety and security, a balance in terms of rights to security or what have you. I think that there’s enough of a presumed understanding that when you step outside on a public street, you are surrendering some of the privacy rights you might have in your apartment or in church, or inside other buildings. Our standard operating procedures prevent our people from looking into buildings, looking into car windows. It’s something we do not do as a result of the agreement’s we held with the ACLU.
MA: The devices themselves, who makes them?
CB: I do not know the company’s name off hand and apologize, but we can get you that information later on. One of my staff members is maybe looking through it while I’m talking to you.
MA: Also, the gunshot detection system, I’d love to know.
CB: I know the team we’ve contracted for that is ShotSpotter. That’s the name of the organization and they have some dramatic testimony to the percentages of reductions that have happened before and after that technology has been put in place. And again, the power of the technology is not just to respond to an immediate gun shot going off, but it is also the deterrent. If people will begin to think – If I do shoot off a gun there will be people on me in seconds
MA: So this device can tell if a gunshot was fired, and where it was coming from within a mile or two ?
CB: No, down to less than a foot.
MA: I didn’t mean how accurate, but how far away can it detect a gunshot?
CB: Anywhere within about 7-8 miles. Within that zone, which is where 70-80 percent of the city’s shootings have taken place in the past, and we will know exactly where you are.
MA: So it is probably triangulating. Is that right?
CB: I imagine so. Yes.
MA: And it can tell the caliber of the gun as well? The type of gun?
CB: No. They can just distinguish between a car backfiring, a firecracker, and other sounds of the like.
MA: So a shot goes off within this 7-8 mile zone, shot spotter detects it, and the cameras zoom in on that area The police now know about it immediately. They don’t have to wait for phone calls to come in on 911, and they are subsequently able to get there much faster. So are you seeing arrests being made that wouldn’t be made otherwise?
CB: We are not going live with it until next month. So I can’t give you that kind of feedback yet.
MA: So the ShotSpotter hasn’t gone live yet.
CB: No it will go live next month.
MA: Great, well I would love to check back in with you and see how that worked out.
CB: Yes I would be happy to share with you our results.
MA: So have other cities contacted you just to see how this is going? Have you been attracting a lot of interest from other cities?
CB: Definitely. Right now people are starting to take notice. My police director especially is being reached out to by a lot of law enforcement personnel. As I travel around I have mayors hearing of our success and asking me about our tactics, and that’s really our whole para noir. It’s not just in law enforcement. There are a lot of different areas to incubate ideas and to innovate upon approaches, and to be able to create things that can be exported into other places. We are all in the same trench so to speak, we are all fighting the same battle. The uniqueness of drug wars or gang violence is not that different depending where you are going, and the strategies we cultivate could have to do with anything from prison re-entry to youth cultivation to gang reduction. We hope to be a source to the rest of the nation of a lot of successful ideas.
MA: The most current information I have is that you have raised 2 million of the 3.2 million you need to purchase everything you need for the network. Is that correct or are you above that now?
CB: I am not sure exactly we are in the fund raising, I know we have enough now to go live with the network. It may have already all been raised. But the challenge we have is that seeing the success of the cameras and the hopeful success of the gun shot detection makes us want to expand the network as well as fill in areas that can be filled in with cameras. This is a great thing to communicate to people. If you buy one camera, or ten cameras, you are literally saving lives, and we have a lot of evidence to support that case. It is the best way for an American, in my opinion, to protect their nation. So we are hoping we can find more philanthropists that are willing to make this strategic investment with us so we have an exciting story to tell, along with new work and evidence that combinations of such techniques and strategies really work and make a difference.
MA: We will link to the page where people can look at Community Eye and make a donation of any size via Mastercard or mail. Here is one last question, and this is a little off topic. With the cameras live streaming, I assume only the police department sees it, and I assume that you dump most of the data after 30 days or so to keep stuff that will be used as evidence. People are getting more and more used to the face that they may be on video camera when out in public, so do you ever see this data being streamed to the public live on the internet, or put onto Google maps. Do you ever see this being available to the public, or is that something you have strongly been advised against.
CB: I actually think that would be a positive thing. We have really only begun to explore our ability to give these live feeds of certain areas to make them available to the public. Or in a limited capacity I think would be very helpful or at least would be a good experiment to that by putting even more eyes on the street if people might be able to see things. It is something we really want to explore, but frankly we have to work with our partners. I want to explore a lot of things. Even just picking up traffic, people could see how busy it is in the downtown. We have a very strong curtain of transparency in the city right now. We are trying to move the city to be much more open, and this is something that I definitely want to explore.
MA: Great, well thanks very much for your time.
CB: Thank you. I really appreciate your interest in this.
MA: Who are you voting for this year?
CB: Voting for, campaigning for, and flying around the country for Obama.
MA: Think he is going to win?
CB: I do now. I am actually beyond the point of certainty.
MA: Yeah that’s who I am voting for, and I think most of Silicon Valley is also. So good luck with helping him on his campaign as well.
CB: California and New Jersey are not the swing states where you and I need to get access.
MA: That’s right. I think California is probably pretty locked up for him, but he is getting my vote. Thank you very much. I would love to check back in with you when this system is in place and you have some data to back all of this. I would love to check in and understand from you or someone in your staff how that is working out.
CB: Thanks.
Michael. I want to be blocked from TC! You guys are too much work to keep up with. How come you blocked the guy on the mobile wars panel and not me? Do i have to yell at you 2?
cops dont want to solve problems. no one wants to work themselves out of a job. solutions to worlds problems are black and white . its not like we are looking for a cure for cancer or something. gps and camera tech we have now can change the world.
example they say dont speed over 65 mph
yet no genius in law enforcement creates a law that manufacturers cannot exceed this limit on cars made.
highway patrol man rolls 12 times to his death, trying to catch up to a speeder. was it worth it?
when will common sense be the rule and not people trying to fill there own pockets.
This is a really timely article and I really hope this will be a trend with TC going forward. There are so many great things being done with muni wireless networks and highlighting how they are used is critical for raising awareness and promoting transparency in how public funds are utilized.
The other play for that wireless network is other telemetry applications and generalized Internet egress. 3.2M sounds like a nice round number for the area specified in the article and I hope this primarily went into the purchase and commissioning of infrastructure.
If they can segregate traffic properly, perhaps they can bring a heavily subsidized Internet solution to these areas with heavy preferential tagging for city, state, and federal information services that assist and promote learning.
This is where bonds for schools can be brought in and reach further than they could with laptops in a classroom alone.
Again, excellent coverage and I look forward to the follow up article with the Mayor.
I second that. This initiative really tackles a problem although according to this former FBI agent, cyber crime is the new threat to countries, and that we are unprepared to fight it.
Having recently lived in New Orleans I’m all for this program, but I do see a point with regard to the crime simply moving outside of the “eye”. Still, it is a positive step.
As to privacy, I believe that if you’re in public, then you’re just that - in public. Forging agreements with the ACLU/other concerned organizations is good policy, and really helps to validate the technology if/when it is challenged.
Thanks for doing this interview, Michael, and for pointing out that there are elected officials out there who truly are focused on making a difference.
For those interested, during his first run for Mayor of Newark a camera crew tracked Booker and his primary/election campaign and the result was an excellent documentary called Street Fight:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457496/
highly recommended
I’m not sure if Mayor Booker or his staff will be following up and reading the comments but I think congratuations are definitely in order. So often, cities are left and forgotten, with no one who can make a change doing anything to help right the wrongs or if they are there isn’t that much support to help get to see what kind of results they have.
When I heard him on the radio talk about bringing the Federal Gov’t in to help prosecute criminals so they would be subject to sentences in both state and federal court, I knew Newark was well on it’s way. Sadly, I wanted to be a part of it and buy a home there, but the moment I was ready to buy prices jumped dramatically. It just goes to show what the prospect of change can do for a community.
The one thing I hope for in the middle of all this is that the growth that is to come is managed properly. When I think of other big cities that have gone through recent renewals (ex. DC, Baltimore) - there is a lot of growth that happens quickly and the city coffers get flush with cash. As a result projects get started that are expensive to construct and maintain. Problems arise when the growth start to diminish and a decision has to be made about the new gadgets and systems and how to maintain them or the everyday things citizens have come to enjoy (ex. daily garbage pickup).
With all the stories I’ve heard on NPR about cities that end up on the brink of bankruptcy, I just hope that Newark is not only an example of the changes that can be made with regards to crime, but also the management of expectations and funding to ensure the long lived success and livelihood for all the people that choose to call it home.
I don’t know Mayor Booker’s intentions after his term as Mayor ends, but I’d love to see him do things in a greater capacity for this country - we definitely need all the great help we can get.
I lived in in Irvington for thirteen years,from 1986 until I left for the south in1999. During that time I witnessed a steep decline in the different neighborhoods. Around 16th avenue,borderline of Newark and Irvington,off Grove street a very dangerous drug selling operation took hold of the neighborhood despite the multiple efforts by some honest police officers. Sometimes the drug dealers fired warning shots at patrol cars passing by to try to intimidate officers doing their jobs,although there was a mini police station one block down from where they usually stand to sell their poisons. I have not been in the area in years,but I am sure that the determination of the mayor will prevail. Crimes flourish because those who are the most affected by it keep silence and think that they only have to save their own skin and do not report any violence or intimidation to authorities. If the citizens of Newark,NJ want ,they can reclaim their city from the hands of those who are trying to get rich illegally and maliciously by infecting their neighborhood with illegal drugs. New developments and good jobs creation are as equally important as the security enforcement to give citizens an incentive to fight against what is destructive. May the mayor continue his fight against crime and at the same time prevent abuses against the citizens by some dishonest and disrespectful police officers,some of whom are part of the drug trafficking. I wish all the citizens of Newark,excluding the wrong doers,the best in their fight to make it a prosperous and beautiful place again.
Awesome! Nice to see the authorities using, rather than destroying technology.
But the fact remains. If these CCTV cameras were going up on your block, would you be writing so glowingly positively about them?
Interesting stuff - there’s ongoing debate about how effective surveillance like this actually is - definitely be good to see the stats moving forward. Overall I think it’s useful as long as it’s backed up by sensible policies and continues to include the community in the equation.
In the transcript, the two words ‘para noir’ (what the heck is THAT?) should probably be ‘Bureau in Newark’.
You guys know, of course, that a camera network and “shot spotter” style mics have been up and running in Chicago for quite some time now.
This article from 2005 makes mention of 80 such cameras up and running. I know, from traveling the streets of this city every day, that many more cameras have been installed over the past 2 and a half years.
I love it. Big Brother is watching, and everyone cheers.
Whoops stripped the link…. how do I add it in?
Great interview, and really glad to see surveillance cameras getting traction.
Yes, privacy should be a concern and impartially analyzed, but not an unrealistic impediment. Google did a good job in showing that a middle term is possible with Street View in UK; same principles can be applied to monitoring cams.
Just not sure I want to see a mashup of iPhone location based data + google maps + surveillance cams..
Reply from Toni: “I love it. Big Brother is watching, and everyone cheers.”
That’s my opinion! Everybody is adviced to say a word but nobody didi it!
Being shot on camera doesn’t help.
http://xrl.us/moretechnews
I’m all for reducing crime, but I think that this kind of surveillance is quite frightening. US citizens have a right to privacy, and this is just totally intrusive and unwarranted. Of course, it occurs first in an inner city plagued with crime. The mayor points out that the drug trade is not necessarily reduced, just driven underground or to non-surveilled areas. But couldn’t the crime also be reduced in other ways? Such as actually investing in our own cities instead of in foreign wars? Or how about, legalizing these drugs to take the black-market profit and guns out of the market, and make drug use a public health issue?
We all need to take a collective deep breath and ask if we’d like police cameras trained on our blocks, all the time? The police state is not the answer. In Britain there is a bi-partisan effort to ROLL BACK the surveillance state, I hope we can do so here.
One other note — thanks Mike Arrington and TC for covering this issue. Definitely not the usual fodder for a tech blog, and I think it’s great you are bringing this to light.
The problem is that in the UK, with over 4 million cameras (public and private), crime has not been reduced. Instead, the people with access to the cameras - the nanny state - have been peering in people’s windows, tracking “suspicious” behavior and harassing innocent people, reporting celebrity locations by tracking license plates with the cameras and selling the info the tabloids, and on and on.
The other problem is that the police state watching you is ok, but you can’t watch them back. Citizens can’t monitor the abuse to check the overzealous use/abuse. I don’t mind the cameras, but there have to be policies that ensure this isn’t a one-way lens taking us to that great Orwellian police state we all say we want to avoid while plunging directly toward it.
As a specialist CCTV Adviser based in the U.K., I thought I’d just quickly post an observation or two which is relevant to this discussion.
It would be accurate to surmise that CCTV has not significantly reduced crime levels in the U.K., if two specific points are considered. Firstly, we don’t know how much higher the crime levels would have been, had the cameras not been in place.
Secondly, and perhaps far more importantly given the Newark Community Eye projects objectives, it is vitally important that both technology and techniques are optimised in order to achieve the desired objectives; that being something which is unfortunately frequently overlooked in our neck of the woods.
It’s perhaps also worth mentioning that where cameras are intended to supplement a Homeland Security role, despite this being a vital function, that would not of course be reflected in any relevant crime statistics.
Some quite serious mistakes have been made here in the way in which CCTV has been deployed, and that has contributed to a relatively low level of efficiency from the vast majority of public space video surveillance cameras.
The assertion that a “state of the art” camera can pick out a postage stamp at 200 yards, may be factually correct, but that doesn’t automatically mean that it will spot a drug deal going down 20 yards behind the camera - it’s a problem which I’ve long described as “lottery surveillance”.
I should mention that many locations around the world are slavishly basing their projects on ‘the U.K. experience’, and that unfortunately is not really a satisfactory long term solution for many system operators.
In order for Newark to maximise the effectiveness of their planned systems, they will need to research best practice from those in the know, and not wishing to be at all pessimistic in this regard, it is quite normal for significant crime reductions to follow the installation of new CCTV systems, but it is much harder longterm to maintain a deterrent effect, once the criminals become habituated to the presence of the cameras.
A very interesting interview well done, and I wish the Mayor and the people of Newark continued success in their Community Eye experiment.
Jon
Michael, excellent interview. Thank you!
“One other note — thanks Mike Arrington and TC for covering this issue. Definitely not the usual fodder for a tech blog, and I think it’s great you are bringing this to light.”
Mike’s from the UK, where gas costs $16 a gallon and there are cameras staring at your @ss from up the toilet.
We are very familiar with that high profile case in Newark - one of our colleagues lives in the are where this happened.
But the question is - would a heavy police presence (including Auxiliary Foot patrols) have more of a preventive effect than cameras.
Some criminals do think of the consequences of their actions and act impulsively or out of rage - but might think twice if the area had a heavy foot or vehicle patrol.
Of course you want to make the streets as safe as possible by putting the violent criminals away from law abiding society - but are they using this technology as a way to cut back on the police force because of concerns about high taxes - or will this hi tech enhance the force.
You need to have strongly focused personnel to constantly monitor those cameras 24/7 - it is not the same as driving or walking and being forced to be alert
The cameras may help catch more quality of life offenses.
The company that provided the city the gunshot detection systems is ShotSpotter, based in Mountain View.
Thank you for confirming what the transcript already says.
Excellent interview Michael!! Great job! This is about the kind of technology I like to read about.
This is cool technology…but I’m not sure that privacy advocates will accept it.
Here’s an exclusive interview with MR. BIG BROTHER! http://www.newsbreaktimes.com
Mike G,
What do you mean, right to privacy? These cameras are not in people’s homes, they are out on the streets, they are public.
-Iso-
Iso, if you want to say that people outside of their own private property deserve no privacy, then you’re moving down a slippery slope. Can landlords videotape all the activity of their renters?
Also, why don’t we have surveillance cameras inside the White House, Congress, Oval Office, etc. taping all conversations, comings and goings, and meetings of top government officials? They aren’t private residences, those buildings and offices belong to the public. Govt. officals are public officials, supposedly serving the public. Are their activities on videotape? The White House could really use some surveillance, it seems they have such, ahem, difficulty, retaining even their email records. These gang members and drug dealers cause some problems, but those are nothing compared to bad choices or false information spewing from our top *public* officials. (Wars, torture programs, etc.) Let’s tape our public officials, too. I’ll hold my breath while the cameras get installed.
whether landoords can surveill their tenants is something to be agreed upon by landlord and tenant. And no tenant will agree to that, but I think will gladly agree to having the area around their home electronically patrolled.
And someday the software will be so good, it will be very difficult to commit a property crime or even cram a copy of the Watchtower under your front door.
And none of that technology needs to be put in place by government. People will do it themselves when the cost of installing a system dips below $100.
How long until the gangbangers start shooting the cameras?
1 camera: $2,000
1 bullet: $0.15
Asymmetrical force. That’s what you get for trouncing civil liberties.
Well….
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/n.....cams_x.htm
At best, you have a spy vs. spy escalation but the moment you fire you give away position — remember what these things key off right?
The next meme will be pulsed lasers on tripods by people dressed in all black with masks and such but… uhm… you kinda stand out in such garb.
The problem is not where this begins but where it will end. It is legal for the government to spy on its citizens. We have accepted this because we are no longer a nation of people who stand up for anything with emotion.
Soon their will be cameras in every street corner to go with the satellites that can see the face of a watch from space.
People on the web get mad when their actions are tracked, what do you imagine will happen when people know their movements are tracked.
It is like we are slowly moving towards some sad futuristic movie where the actions of every individual is tracked in a secret virtual world.
Is minority report too far off?
How liberal would you be if somebody stole your car, broke in your house, or was selling drugs outside your house. I’m pretty sure you would like for the criminals to be caught. I know the line between public and private is thin, but our inner cities are going to hell in a hand basket. This alone will not help but it is a start.
I am Canadian, we are a bland boring people. Liberal is as exciting as we get. That is problem with most things, there is no easy answers.
actually, many urban/inner city areas are experiencing rapid gentrification. Not all, to be sure, but the situation definitely requires a more positive (and accurate) comment than: “our inner cities are going to hell in a hand basket”.
to prevent crime, all you have to do is lighten up a city:
Literally, add lights.
Brighten it up, with nice paint colors and vegetation, architecture.
Add activites, professional and leisure.
Foster a real sense of community pride.
and leadership and accountability.
all in due time, that evilness will dissappear.
“all in due time, that evilness will disappear.”
——————————————–
The criminals still commit crimes. They just move away as property values rise.
Though you have to consider individual rights, it’s become clear that American cities like Newark are dying due to rampant crime and lack of opportunities - something must be done. This is a great start.
it’s OK but the key is that everyone should have access to what the police sees. Who watches the watchers?
I’d be worried about people sneaking peaks in windows with this system, regardless of “standard operating procedures.” If everyone could see what the police saw, that would rescue that.
Fact is.. you do not have privacy in a public space. That’s why it’s called a public space. I do not believe anyone should have privacy in a public space, either.
Is it just me or does Cory look eerily like the guy from Chronicles of Riddick (Vin Diesel).
there is some similarity.
We’ve backed ourselves into a corner because, as a society, we have been pushed and trained by Modern Liberals to “tolerate” bad behavior.
This “tolerance” screws up all sorts of things. No one can say anything so we have to put up cameras to try to catch criminals red handed.
The criminals know about this tolerance. They know it inhibits the police from doing what we think their jobs are. They even know that it affects juries. It’s harder to find juries who will convict because we all have been taught that most behaviors are “okay” and to not judge.
The cops can’t do preventative work because the enforcers of “tolerance”, outfits like the ACLU, swoop and attack the police.
Do you remember when Dan Quayle pointed out how that Murphy Brown TV character becoming a single mother wasn’t a good role model? What did the Modern Liberals do? They didn’t deal with it or make civil comments. No, they went berserk and hysterical! The real problems relate to the breakdown of the family in the inner city, but Modern Liberals ignore this for the most part. Actually, their programs (Great Society, etc, etc) CAUSED these problems but they cannot and will not admit it.
About a week ago, on the message boards of the Chicago Tribune about a similar story, a copy said “I am a police officer and have already given up ‘active’ policing. I handle calls for service but do not conduct traffic stops anymore. The liberals will get what they have been asking for: higher crime rates.”
http://www.topix.net/forum/sou.....IS7S8JU/p7
The Chicago Police Superintendent dared say that the family life and behaviors of some kid killed was contributory. Instantly, the subject moved along the Modern Liberal path of now the family is a “victim” and the police are villains. It’s the same story every time. The Super was threatened with a suit for uttering those words.
Kids are taught it in schools; churches are attacked for teaching people to judge bad behavior; the police are hamstrung because they cannot do the things that help prevent crime because that requires judgment, etc. So the only things Modern Liberals can do is create programs that are never reviewed for success or failure (because that requires judging) and they attack inanimate objects like guns. Cameras and gunshot detectors (we have them in Chicago and they seem to be always flashing) are just more ways to avoid the real problems.
For those of who are mad, this is where this “tolerance” and Modern Liberalism” has brought us: to a place where we are unable to advance and deal with problems because the very thought of figuring out what to do (judging) has been basically criminalized.
They cannot and will not admit it because it would screw up their goal of their Utopia. Their Utopia is a place where there is no arguing, fighting, war, poverty or injustice. Sounds great! But the problem is the only way to get there is to give up all the tools we have built up over the centuries like morals, ethics and reason that help us advance. Modern Liberals hate morals. They don’t’ even like reason. (See The July 26th New Scientist magazine. I saw it at a Borders and just laughed. There is a series of articles attacking reason. Some of the titles are (and I am not making this up): “Reason is just another faith”, “No one really uses reason”, “Reason destroys itself”, “Seven reasons why people hate reason” (http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2666.html) As I said, all of the tools that we have built up over the centuries are under attack by these “counter culture” (their words) Modern Liberals.
Common sense says we should profile airline passengers. The likelihood that the 87 year old grandmother from Minnesota is carrying a bomb versus the three Imams shouting Alah Akbar is small. So we have to give up our reasoning abilities in order to not judge people. These stories play themselves out over and over.
This is where all of that “tolerance” comes from. We are supposed to be tolerant of bad behaviors. This is one reason why the Modern Liberals dislike Giuliani: he started cracking down on petty offenses, which meant he had the government start judging behaviors. A big no no for Modern Liberals.
All of this Modern Liberalism is ruining society.
Watch the video “HOW MODERN LIBERALS THINK” to learn more about this strange philosophy and mindset that has taken over the leadership of the Democrats.
Here’s the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
It would be great to have a follow up article about the use of such technology in border control. There are areas in test now, so reading about the success/failures of such efforts from a hands-on participant would be beneficial, particularly because the rollout of a virtual fence appears to be less intrusive environmentally and potentially more pervasive than a brick and mortar double lined wall.
Big Brother would be so envious of what the government can and is doing today.
There is no doubt that a total surveillance and control society is safer, for those who don’t object to any government policies or leaders at least.
Please. Who is going to wade through all the recordings?
Mechanical turk approaches do not scale well.
You might be confusing safe with stupid.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....fears.html
All those saying how “we have to do something”, and that it’s no big deal because it’s in public areas, just remember:
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Thank you for helping us down this path.
another way to capture bad guys and find missing kids:
http://www.canadafreepress.com.....082907.htm
This is crass, but what is the economic ramifications of this program? I would imagine it would encourage economic growth, tourism (if only to see the security system), and may even force drug dealers to get taxable jobs!
I almost wonder from a purely economic standpoint if this system could pay for itself.
Why do they want to stop the killings if most are drug related?
Let the druggies kill each other….
nice little obama plug at the end
As a native Newarker, i really support Mr. booker’s efforts to bring about much needed opportunity and viable living conditions to those that have been brainwashed by the “victim” mentality.