1984 - persistent surveillance necessary here?

**hybridy** · June-22-15, 09:09 AM

very intriguing story on the future of criminal deterrence. think its only a matter of time before its deployed here.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...ba3_story.html

http://cironline.org/reports/hollywo...r-reality-6228

**Lowell** · June-22-15, 09:51 AM

We have discussed the Gilbertville police cameras but they ain't nothing. For keeping track of things at night DARPA has the project Autonomous Real-time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance - Infrared [[ARGUS-IR) in the works. Of course this is for battlefield use only.

See it in daytime use here:
https://youtu.be/13BahrdkMU8

We have also willfully, if unknowingly, submitted with the advent of smart phones that allow tracking records of us. Can't wait until that is used to automatic issue speeding tickets.

**Honky Tonk** · June-22-15, 10:00 AM

They can hear everything you guys are saying, you know.....

**corktownyuppie** · June-22-15, 10:06 AM

DAYTON, Ohio — Shooter and victim were just a pair of pixels, dark specks on a gray streetscape. Hair color, bullet wounds, even the weapon were not visible in the series of pictures taken from an airplane flying two miles above.But what the images revealed — to a degree impossible just a few years ago — was location, mapped over time. Second by second, they showed a gang assembling, blocking off access points, sending the shooter to meet his target and taking flight after the body hit the pavement. When the report reached police, it included a picture of the blue stucco building into which the killer ultimately retreated, at last beyond the view of the powerful camera overhead.

2 shootings in Greektown in 2 days.
One mass shooting on the west side.
Sister of victim wailing that the police can't protect the residents.
People who have knowledge afraid that police can't protect them if they talk.

I have absolutely no problem with technology that will be able to multiply our police force ten-fold. Privacy comes at price, but it's a price we simply can't afford.

**Shai_Hulud** · June-22-15, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

[/FONT][/COLOR]

2 shootings in Greektown in 2 days.
One mass shooting on the west side.
Sister of victim wailing that the police can't protect the residents.
People who have knowledge afraid that police can't protect them if they talk.

I have absolutely no problem with technology that will be able to multiply our police force ten-fold. Privacy comes at price, but it's a price we simply can't afford.

Here, it almost sounds like this would indeed be a positive. We have too few police trying to cover too much area. This is an inexpensive solution that would save lives.

Of course, we also have too few prosecutors and not enough jail space, so perhaps the bottleneck would simply get pushed downstream.

**ndavies** · June-22-15, 01:53 PM

So, what happens when you get dragged into the police station just because you walked by a camera near where a crime was committed? Pretty soon they will have facial recognition installed and they'll start pulling in everyone who was anywhere near the area of a crime. I can see many law abiding people sucked into this quagmire.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/16/tech...&iid=obnetwork

**G-DDT** · June-24-15, 05:40 PM

M.I.T. had a device in one of it's hallways for it's "FAST light" functions a few years back. The monitor showed you [[the oncoming traffic facing the camera) and registered if you were smiling, frowning, or neutral as indicated with red, yellow, and green emoticons and a happiness meter that registered the "mood of the hallway". This may be similar to technologies employed at casinos that register pantomimes, body temperature, and other indications of mood or stress levels [[as theorized in the "Ocean's" films).

Imagine a society where everyone is monitored for happiness. Failure to do so may be an indication of "bad 'Thetan' presence that must be 'cleared'" or "criminal drug evasion". Repeat offenders will be described in media releases as depressed, withdrawn loners with a behavioral tendency towards terrorism that must be prevented before it occurs [[like the people blowing up in the Zach Galifianakis film Visioneers). How's that for 1984?

**Michael Seven** · July-01-15, 08:22 PM

If this concerns you I'd seriously look into a software now being used with surveillance cameras - TrapWire -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrapWire

**corktownyuppie** · July-01-15, 08:30 PM

I have the same concerns as all of the above. But for me, the calculation is a simple as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If you're living in a world where people are just shooting each other with no thought of repercussions, it's pretty hard to think about privacy being all that important.

Or, put another way, if you're starving on an island with no food, and all of sudden you find a box of edible twinkies, it's probably pretty stupid to worry about sugar intake and carcinogenic ingredients.

The two shooters in Greektown were caught...and in no small thanks to the cameras that caught the perps.

Either bring on a realistic solution to quintuple the number of cops on patrol. Or bring on the cameras. I'm fine with either.

**Mackinaw** · July-01-15, 09:20 PM

As a civil-rights minded attorney [[as, I suppose, all attorneys should be), I have no trouble with cameras covering our public spaces, both downtown and in every neighborhood.

127 square miles. Not enough cops. Not enough snitches. The answer: generate more evidence.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-01-15, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

As a civil-rights minded attorney [[as, I suppose, all attorneys should be), I have no trouble with cameras covering our public spaces, both downtown and in every neighborhood.

127 square miles. Not enough cops. Not enough snitches. The answer: generate more evidence.

Well said. We need more evidence.

**Gpwrangler** · July-02-15, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

We have also willfully, if unknowingly, submitted with the advent of smart phones that allow tracking records of us. Can't wait until that is used to automatic issue speeding tickets.

I would be happy to see the technology used to nail people who run red lights. I can just hear the whining already. "What if I loan someone my car?" Yeah right, everyone I know loans out their car.

**ndavies** · July-02-15, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Gpwrangler

I would be happy to see the technology used to nail people who run red lights. I can just hear the whining already. "What if I loan someone my car?" Yeah right, everyone I know loans out their car.

I loaned my SUV to my Niece just this weekend. it happens regularly in my family.

Thankfully Michigan law prohibits this. The only place Cameras are allowed in Michigan is at railroad crossings. And only because they are covered by federal law.

There are also studies out that show red light cameras increase accidents.

just wait until the Vehicle to Vehicle and Vehicle to Infrastructure becomes required on your car. Every light pole and traffic light you pass will be capable of recording your traffic violations and sending you a ticket.

**Gpwrangler** · July-02-15, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by ndavies

I loaned my SUV to my Niece just this weekend. it happens regularly in my family.

Thankfully Michigan law prohibits this. The only place Cameras are allowed in Michigan is at railroad crossings. And only because they are covered by federal law.

There are also studies out that show red light cameras increase accidents.

just wait until the Vehicle to Vehicle and Vehicle to Infrastructure becomes required on your car. Every light pole and traffic light you pass will be capable of recording your traffic violations and sending you a ticket.

I haven't had a ticket in 40 years. Cameras will not change my driving one bit. Bring it on.

Red light cameras virtually eliminate fatal accidents caused by running the light. They increase minor accidents, mostly rear ending cars that stop quickly for the light. I've seen the data.

**Scottathew** · July-02-15, 07:43 AM

I have no issue with being taped while in public, especially when it's used to help prosecute people who will do ill.

I once used a video camera to record the illegal activities of a landlord across the street from me. When I showed the video to the tenant of the landlord going into her house when she was not home [[without notice), going through her trash, and driving by the house at 4am at night, she was rather shocked.

**Dan Wesson** · July-02-15, 08:28 AM

[QUOTE=ndavies;482815
Thankfully Michigan law prohibits this. The only place Cameras are allowed in Michigan is at railroad crossings. And only because they are covered by federal law.

[/QUOTE]

I don't know about that. They are being deployed everywhere. the latest being the new cameras installed along the expressways all over michigan by the state.

**ndavies** · July-02-15, 08:31 AM

None of those cameras can issue tickets. They are just there to monitor traffic they have no law enforcement ability.

The cameras at intersection are only there to assist in traffic flow and light timing. They cannot issue tickets.

You can see the information from the freeway traffic cameras and speed sensors here:
http://mdotnetpublic.state.mi.us/drive/

I should have been clearer in my earlier post. In Michigan the only cameras that are allowed to issue tickets are Rail road crossing cameras

**313WX** · July-02-15, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by ndavies

None of those cameras can issue tickets. They are just there to monitor traffic they have no law enforcement ability.

Can you provide a citation to this law? I understand there's no program permitting the use of cameras for issuing tickets, but there's also no law prohibiting it either.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/l...o_enforce.html

"Some localities operate speed and/or red light cameras even if the state does not specific permit or prohibit it. The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety maintains a list of all communities operating automated enforcement. This list changes and is updated regularly."

If so, the the city of Warren wasted an awful lot of taxpayer dollars then putting these cameras at every single one of their intersections if the only goal was to ensure a handful of people got to their destination a couple minutes faster [[as the signals are already timed automatically based on traffic flow)....

**ndavies** · July-02-15, 08:51 AM

A little old:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1582.asp

And in 2013 a state Rep tried to bring in a law to allow them. The bill died before it was brought up for vote.
https://www.mackinac.org/19123

Warren didn't put in all those cameras Oakland county did. I think they got federal money to do it. The cameras are cheaper and easier to service than the electric loops they also put in the road.

**ndavies** · July-02-15, 08:58 AM

Warren may have put in there own system. the rest of Oakland county is covered by this:
http://www.rcocweb.org/Commuters/FAST-TRAC.aspx

It give an explanation as to the reasoning behind the cameras.

**313WX** · July-02-15, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by ndavies

A little old:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1582.asp

But is an Attorney General's opinion binding?

**ndavies** · July-02-15, 09:07 AM

Yes it is. Southgate tried to put in cameras a few years ago. The state told them the tickets were unenforceable.

**313WX** · July-02-15, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by ndavies

Yes it is. Southgate tried to put in cameras a few years ago. The state told them the tickets were unenforceable.

Did that case actually go to court [[or was the AG's opinion actually upheld by a court)?

Because the below link says otherwise with respect to an Attorney GEneral's opinion in Michigan...

http://www.mml.org/resources/publica...spotlight.html

**ndavies** · July-02-15, 09:19 AM

The problem with the red light cameras is they have to be leased. They cost about $5000 a month per intersection. The cameras require a substantial infrastructure to issue the tickets.

How many tickets do you have to give out to cover the cost of operating the cameras? To cover the cost of the cameras some jurisdiction installing them shortened the yellow light to drive up revenues.

Studies show by actually increasing the length of the yellow accidents in intersection go down. So if you are really trying to improve safety, you can go with the no cost option of lengthening the yellow, or spend $5000 a month per camera generating more tickets.

**313WX** · July-02-15, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by ndavies

The problem with the red light cameras is they have to be leased. They cost about $5000 a month per intersection. The cameras require a substantial infrastructure to issue the tickets.

How many tickets do you have to give out to cover the cost of operating the cameras? To cover the cost of the cameras some jurisdiction installing them shortened the yellow light to drive up revenues.

Studies show by actually increasing the length of the yellow accidents in intersection go down. So if you are really trying to improve safety, you can go with the no cost option of lengthening the yellow, or spend $5000 a month per camera generating more tickets.

Well I'm not really concerned about the cost of operating the system. In some locale, they are actually effective in reducing red-light turning accidents and are thus still effective despite the expense.

Rather, I'm questioning the legal authority municipalities have to issue and enforce traffic tickets using the system...