Police to use fleets of cameras downtown.

**brizee** · August-14-11, 05:28 PM

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...$3.5M-in-drugs

Not sure how I feel about this.

I value privacy and don't like the slow erosion of those rights.

I also don't like the idea of a bunch of assholes preying on people either.

lilpup · August-14-11, 06:02 PM

What makes you think you have a right to privacy when you're out in public space?

**Meddle** · August-14-11, 06:07 PM

A camera doesn't stop anything.

The money could be better used putting more beat and bike cops on the street.

Steve bennet · August-14-11, 06:17 PM

The two current trends that seem to be everywhere that I really hate are cameras and people wanting to always test your piss.

I say no for the cameras. Use the money and hire another cop to patrol.

**Ray1936** · August-14-11, 06:22 PM

The DPD installed a bunch of outside cameras for the 1980 Republican National Convention. They covered most of the convention area along with other key spots. I think there were a dozen cameras in all.

Alas, no one was assigned to monitor the damn things. Yes, they were taped, but it ain't the same.

**Blueidone** · August-14-11, 06:30 PM

I have no problem with the cameras. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. I value my safety far more than keeping my face a secret out in public. Between traffic cams, personal cameras and cellphones, cameras in police cars...I figure someone's always watching when I'm out of my house.

Steve bennet · August-14-11, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Blueidone

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.

Do you use this way of thinking for everything, or just cameras in public?

**Baselinepunk** · August-14-11, 07:32 PM

The only real privacy you have is within the four walls of your "shelter". Once you step foot on public property; you're public.

**detroitbob** · August-14-11, 07:49 PM

Chicago has cameras everywhere and city officials claim it has reduced crime in "formerly high" area's...I've got no problem with cameras...save the traffic ones.

**stasu1213** · August-14-11, 07:56 PM

I have mixed feelings about spending money on more cameras to be installed down5town instead mor using it for more police patrol. Increase in police presence does help to reduce crime in the downtown area. I had always thought that some of the police reserve should had walked the beat in the downtown area. Cameras are good for detected suspicious activities and to alert police when and where a crime is taking place. I had known someone who worked at 1300 beaubien who job was to watch the monitors to where the cameras were suveying the Hart Plaza, Cobo Hall, and some other areas of downtown. This was in the early 90s

**Blueidone** · August-14-11, 07:58 PM

I agree, Baseline.

Steve...I don't care about cameras in public spaces...particularly on the streets, airport security searches, or other security measures that protect me. I am not doing anything wrong. I don't live in fear of being caught because I do my best to live within the laws of the land. And if I fail...then I deserve to be caught and suffer whatever punishment applies.

I've heard all the arguments about possible abuses, privacy invasions, etc. But I would rather have the protections, thank you. It's my opinion...that's all.

**Joseph C. Krause** · August-14-11, 08:12 PM

It won't stop a crime while the crime takes place, but the facial recognition technology creates the ability to track individuals in all of their movements and actions. So I live downtown without a car for a year, the police could have a file on a computer showing every place I walked and how long I stayed their for that entire year. This isn't about "privacy" so much as the new creation of a record of every action one takes, going beyond one's own memories of one's own actions. I may have forgotten every place I visited on a walk last month, but there could be a database of it that only the police can access.

Most of us already are deep into this situation based on how we use our phones and the internet, but we are all able to choose not to. This would not be voluntary. In other words: dislike.

**stasu1213** · August-14-11, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Joseph C. Krause

It won't stop a crime while the crime takes place, but the facial recognition technology creates the ability to track individuals in all of their movements and actions. So I live downtown without a car for a year, the police could have a file on a computer showing every place I walked and how long I stayed their for that entire year. This isn't about "privacy" so much as the new creation of a record of every action one takes, going beyond one's own memories of one's own actions. I may have forgotten every place I visited on a walk last month, but there could be a database of it that only the police can access.

Most of us already are deep into this situation based on how we use our phones and the internet, but we are all able to choose not to. This would not be voluntary. In other words: dislike.

It won't stop the crime but the police could pinpoint what area the crime is taking place before it escalate

Steve bennet · August-14-11, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Blueidone

I've heard all the arguments about possible abuses, privacy invasions, etc. But I would rather have the protections, thank you. It's my opinion...that's all.

Really? No me. I'm rather have freedom and liberty.

I'm actually rather surprised that people aren't gathering in masses at airports throwing rocks at the people who favor the way the TSA handles customers.

I'd rather just take a couple extra days and drive. Less of a chance of having some creepy old pig rub my balls.

**ThisIsForTheHeart** · August-14-11, 08:41 PM

I see no difference in privacy between a cop on the street watching you versus a guy in a room watching you on camera.

London police seem to be able to catch criminals very well thanks to their CCTV cameras.

**Joseph C. Krause** · August-14-11, 09:44 PM

There isn't much difference if one is sitting in a room watching a camera or observing people on the street. But there is a difference when facial recognition software is capable of identifying anybody entered into its database with extremely high accuracy, and storing and cross-referencing that information forever. If, for example, one was entered into the database when one's license photo was taken, there could easily be a record of every person on the street with a Michigan ID, lasting for decades. That is *very* different than an officer observing a citizen on the street.

**CLAUDE G** · August-14-11, 10:45 PM

The Cameras aint gonna do any good unless they got enough people in their operations center to be able to effectivly monitor all 350 cameras at the same time, and have a fast police responce when their is a problem.

Just in the case of the video of my GPS being stolen the other day. It took them 8 seconds, and I couldn't get out there fast enough to stop it.

Now if you get a large enough area covered by cameras and if your properly monitoring the cameras, when a crime takes place you can use the cameras to follow the person who committed the crime till the police are able to make an arrest.

But if you are going to have 350 cameras,what good is it if the only purpose is to go back and watch the crime after it already happened and the criminal got away.

**Detroitej72** · August-14-11, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by Steve bennet

I'm actually rather surprised that people aren't gathering in masses at airports throwing rocks at the people who favor the way the TSA handles customers.

I'd rather just take a couple extra days and drive. Less of a chance of having some creepy old pig rub my balls.

Do you really believe that a bunch of "creepy old pigs" are applying for a job just to rub your balls? If so, you must rally be paranoid every time you walk into a store and see all the cameras.

**wolverine** · August-15-11, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

A camera doesn't stop anything.

The money could be better used putting more beat and bike cops on the street.

They don't stop crime, but they are great tool for catching and prosecuting criminals.....which is why I disagree with CLAUDE G. When I read about all the stories of people getting arrested in cities that have them, it was with the assistance of cameras. Granted I'll take more police any day, but technology is always watching when cops can't.

The whole privacy argument is irrelevant. There's no such thing as privacy in public. Additionally, surveillance footage that is saved by police departments probably represents 0.00001% of all images and video posted out on the internet for all the world to judge people by. No need to worry about big brother when you have a better chance of being seen on the local news.

I'm not bothered by it. Heck my landlord has cameras in all the hallways, stair towers, elevators, laundry room, lobby, roofdeck. When I signed my lease, I had to acknowledge all the common areas would be under surveillance.

Originally Posted by Steve bennet

Really? No me. I'm rather have freedom and liberty.

I'm actually rather surprised that people aren't gathering in masses at airports throwing rocks at the people who favor the way the TSA handles customers.

I'd rather just take a couple extra days and drive. Less of a chance of having some creepy old pig rub my balls.

You've already admitted to illicit activities on this board, so I'm not surprised you are opposed to this.

**Gannon** · August-15-11, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by lilpup

What makes you think you have a right to privacy when you're out in public space?

It is not a privacy issue, it is whether this is used as reasonable or unreasonable 'searching' of individuals.

Looking over a crowd? Doesn't sound unreasonable.

Using technology to become another 'person' and identify faces? Still pretty reasonable.

Scan through the crowd obstensibly looking for weapons? Well, it seems the common modern ASSUMPTION is that all weapons are carried for ill will. Having to be GRANTED the right to carry a weapon for the sole purpose of self-defense is absolute hogwash. It is a basic human right to be able to defend oneself, period.

Scan through the crowd for the SOLE purpose of identifying personal-use items that may or may not be on some public list as prohibited? Perpetuating an illegal, immoral, and unethical prohibition...like what they tried through Constitutional Amendment, and what they ARE doing today through extra-constitutional process...exacerbated by propaganda-induced hysteria in the more ignorant masses?!

Well, as you can tell by my language...THEN we've gone well beyond reason.

Thanks for letting me meander through another thought exercise.

Cheers,
John

**davewindsor** · August-15-11, 02:52 AM

I think the cameras are long overdue. In addition to deterring and catching aggressive panhandling during the day and nightclub violence at night, it'll help deter and catch rioters in a downtown with a history of two major riots. Just google rioting in recent months in other major cities like the millions in damage from the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver and rioting across England.

**Gannon** · August-15-11, 03:46 AM

Watch their success rate in finding people. It will be very low.

You are being too optimistic.

Plus, these cameras almost never catch the agents provocateurs, only civilian ones do. I'm talking about the real instigators of the riots...LOL!

**Roq** · August-15-11, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Gannon

Watch their success rate in finding people. It will be very low.

This is almost guaranteed. Personally, I don't like it but I'm resigned to it since everywhere you go, some entity is watching your every move.

**GOAT** · August-15-11, 06:41 AM

usually I am against cameras as an intrusion on privacy. But in Detroit....these are must and in fact should be expanded onto streets in surrounding neighbourhoods.

**Gannon** · August-15-11, 06:46 AM

LOL, yeah...because the scrappers are running out of metal to sell!

They should get just enough for a day's worth of smack, turning these cameras in for junk.