Those who object to cameras in cabs are off the mark.
I've carefully read all of their responses.
What they are objecting to is the removal of partitions.
It seems that it doesn't matter if it is a camera or a pumpkin being installed in cabs.
What they are worried about is the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) and still pass inspection.
This worry is one I won't ignore.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a shield should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a camera should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with both a camera and a partiton should be able to do so.
Let's not scapegoat the cameras just because the City has decided to allow opting for one or the other.
If the important thing is keeping the partitions as a requirement, then that should be the focus of all you "anti-camera" cabdrivers.
Am I not expressing the basis of your objections more clearly?
Rather, how does permitting cabs to have cameras hurt cabdrivers? I don't see how it does at all.
-Mike Foulks
Those who support more government control and intrusion are missing the point.
What they are supporting is the additional cost to owners of $800 or more which is loaded on to the lease.
No one worries about the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) because freedom of choice is better than NO CHOICE at all.
Cabdrivers SHOULD have freedom of choice? If you want to ease a cab with a shield or a cameras you SHOULD be able to do so? On what planet?
At most garages the policy is simply you get what they give you, take it or leave it. Driver's choice is work or don't work. Lease from garage A or B. Love it or leave it. Maybe for a MINORITY of drivers who lease 24/7 they may get a choice.
The camera is not a scapegoat, the drivers are. It's their own fault if they get robbed because working in one of the most dangerous professions in the world, they are asking for trouble. It's their own fault if they get robbed because they should not accept cash payment.
Is 24/7 surveillance access really good for anybody accept ex-cons and people who may be dangerous if on the streets without law enforcement supervision? Child abusers, OK. Mentally ill, OK. Taxi drivers DOUBLE PLUS OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who object to cameras in cabs are off the mark.
I've carefully read all of their responses.
What they are objecting to is the removal of partitions.
It seems that it doesn't matter if it is a camera or a pumpkin being installed in cabs.
What they are worried about is the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) and still pass inspection.
This worry is one I won't ignore.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a shield should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a camera should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with both a camera and a partiton should be able to do so.
Let's not scapegoat the cameras just because the City has decided to allow opting for one or the other.
If the important thing is keeping the partitions as a requirement, then that should be the focus of all you "anti-camera" cabdrivers.
Am I not expressing the basis of your objections more clearly?
Rather, how does permitting cabs to have cameras hurt cabdrivers? I don't see how it does at all.
-Mike Foulks
These days, we might look back at life in the middle Ages, or life as an ANIMAL, and cringe.
But the fact is that the LACK OF FREEDOM in our biological or social lives is easier than exerting and fighting for our rights.
Your life has structure, meaning, there are no doubts, no cause for soul-searching, you fit in and never suffered an identity crisis.
Historically this simple, if hard, life began to get shaken up with the Renaissance.
In the Renaissance, people started to see humanity as the center of the universe, instead of God.
In other words, we didn't just look to the church (and other traditional establishments) for the path we were to take.
Then along came the Reformation, which introduced the idea of each of us being individually responsible for our own soul's salvation.
And then along came democratic revolutions such as the American and the French revolutions.
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GOVERN OURSELVES!
And then came the industrial revolution, and instead of tilling the soil or making things with our hands, we had to sell our labor in exchange for money.
All of a sudden, we became employees and consumers! Then along came socialist revolutions such as the Russian and the Chinese, which introduced the idea of participatory economics.
You were no longer responsible only for your own well-being, but for fellow workers as well!
So, over a mere 500 years, the idea of the individual, with individual thoughts, feelings, moral conscience, FREEDOM, and responsibility, came into being.
But with individuality came isolation, alienation, and bewilderment.
Freedom is a difficult thing to have, and when we can we tend to flee from it.
Authoritarianism.
We seek to avoid FREEDOM by fusing ourselves with others, by becoming a part of an authoritarian system like the society of the middle Ages.
There are two ways to approach this.
One is to submit to the power of others, becoming passive and compliant.
The other is to become an authority yourself, a person who applies structure to others.
Either way, you escape your separate identity.
This is referred to as the extreme version of authoritarianism as masochism and sadism, and points out that both feel compelled to play their separate roles, so that even the sadist, with all his apparent power over the masochist, is not free to choose his actions.
But milder versions of authoritarianism are everywhere.
In many classes, for example, there is an implicit contract between students and professors: Students demand structure, and the professor sticks to his notes.
It seems innocuous and even natural, but this way the students avoid taking any responsibility for their learning, and the professor can avoid taking on the real issues of his field.
Destructiveness.
Authoritarians respond to a painful existence by, in a sense, eliminating themselves: If there is no me, how can anything hurt me? But others respond to pain by striking out against the world: If I destroy the world, how can it hurt me? It is this escape from FREEDOM that accounts for much of the indiscriminate nastiness of life -- brutality, vandalism, humiliation, vandalism, crime, terrorism....
Automaton conformity.
Authoritarians escape by hiding within an authoritarian hierarchy.
But our society emphasizes equality! There is less hierarchy to hide in (though plenty remains for anyone who wants it, and some who don't).
When we need to hide, we hide in our mass culture instead.
When I get dressed in the morning, there are so many decisions! But I only need to look at what you are wearing, and my frustrations disappear.
Or I can look at the television, which, like a horoscope, will tell me quickly and effectively what to do.
If I look like, talk like, think like, feel like...everyone else in my society, then I disappear into the crowd, and I don't need to acknowledge my FREEDOM or take responsibility.
It is the horizontal counterpart to authoritarianism.
In fact, since humanity's "true nature" is FREEDOM, any of these escapes from FREEDOM alienates us from ourselves.
FREEDOM is in fact a complex idea, and that Fromm is talking about "TRUE" PERSONAL FREEDOM, rather than just political FREEDOM (often called liberty).
Most of us, whether they are free or not, tend to like the idea of political FREEDOM, because it means that we can do what we want.
A good example is the sexual sadist (or masochist) who has a psychological problem that drives his behavior.
He is not free in the personal sense, but he will welcome the politically free society that says that what consenting adults do among themselves is not the state's business! Another example involves most of us today:
We may well fight for FREEDOM (of the political sort), and yet when we have it, we tend to be conformist and often rather irresponsible.
We have the vote, but we fail to use it! I am very much for political FREEDOM -- but especially eager that we make use of that FREEDOM and take the responsibility that goes with it.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who support more government control and intrusion are missing the point.
What they are supporting is the additional cost to owners of $800 or more which is loaded on to the lease.
No one worries about the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) because freedom of choice is better than NO CHOICE at all.
Cabdrivers SHOULD have freedom of choice? If you want to ease a cab with a shield or a cameras you SHOULD be able to do so? On what planet?
At most garages the policy is simply you get what they give you, take it or leave it. Driver's choice is work or don't work. Lease from garage A or B. Love it or leave it. Maybe for a MINORITY of drivers who lease 24/7 they may get a choice.
The camera is not a scapegoat, the drivers are. It's their own fault if they get robbed because working in one of the most dangerous professions in the world, they are asking for trouble. It's their own fault if they get robbed because they should not accept cash payment.
Is 24/7 surveillance access really good for anybody accept ex-cons and people who may be dangerous if on the streets without law enforcement supervision? Child abusers, OK. Mentally ill, OK. Taxi drivers DOUBLE PLUS OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who object to cameras in cabs are off the mark.
I've carefully read all of their responses.
What they are objecting to is the removal of partitions.
It seems that it doesn't matter if it is a camera or a pumpkin being installed in cabs.
What they are worried about is the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) and still pass inspection.
This worry is one I won't ignore.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a shield should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a camera should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with both a camera and a partiton should be able to do so.
Let's not scapegoat the cameras just because the City has decided to allow opting for one or the other.
If the important thing is keeping the partitions as a requirement, then that should be the focus of all you "anti-camera" cabdrivers.
Am I not expressing the basis of your objections more clearly?
Rather, how does permitting cabs to have cameras hurt cabdrivers? I don't see how it does at all.
-Mike Foulks
Yah, so where are you hiding Mr. "Brool"?
I hide behind the wheel of my taxi, where I have the authority and command position of a licensed chauffeur.
I hide in front of the shield of my taxi, though I drive on the streets of darkness, I fear no evil for I am one of the meanest (use your imagination) in the valley.
Hey, Einstein, how do you hide from a TV camera that transmits your ugly face to the office? If they make me drive a cab with spyware TV, this is what I will do: (1) hold up the centerfold of my favorite porno star when customers get in and out, and (2) that will be after my finger gets tired of me shooting them DCSspy*******s the friendly bird.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
These days, we might look back at life in the middle Ages, or life as an ANIMAL, and cringe.
But the fact is that the LACK OF FREEDOM in our biological or social lives is easier than exerting and fighting for our rights.
Your life has structure, meaning, there are no doubts, no cause for soul-searching, you fit in and never suffered an identity crisis.
Historically this simple, if hard, life began to get shaken up with the Renaissance.
In the Renaissance, people started to see humanity as the center of the universe, instead of God.
In other words, we didn't just look to the church (and other traditional establishments) for the path we were to take.
Then along came the Reformation, which introduced the idea of each of us being individually responsible for our own soul's salvation.
And then along came democratic revolutions such as the American and the French revolutions.
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GOVERN OURSELVES!
And then came the industrial revolution, and instead of tilling the soil or making things with our hands, we had to sell our labor in exchange for money.
All of a sudden, we became employees and consumers! Then along came socialist revolutions such as the Russian and the Chinese, which introduced the idea of participatory economics.
You were no longer responsible only for your own well-being, but for fellow workers as well!
So, over a mere 500 years, the idea of the individual, with individual thoughts, feelings, moral conscience, FREEDOM, and responsibility, came into being.
But with individuality came isolation, alienation, and bewilderment.
Freedom is a difficult thing to have, and when we can we tend to flee from it.
Authoritarianism.
We seek to avoid FREEDOM by fusing ourselves with others, by becoming a part of an authoritarian system like the society of the middle Ages.
There are two ways to approach this.
One is to submit to the power of others, becoming passive and compliant.
The other is to become an authority yourself, a person who applies structure to others.
Either way, you escape your separate identity.
This is referred to as the extreme version of authoritarianism as masochism and sadism, and points out that both feel compelled to play their separate roles, so that even the sadist, with all his apparent power over the masochist, is not free to choose his actions.
But milder versions of authoritarianism are everywhere.
In many classes, for example, there is an implicit contract between students and professors: Students demand structure, and the professor sticks to his notes.
It seems innocuous and even natural, but this way the students avoid taking any responsibility for their learning, and the professor can avoid taking on the real issues of his field.
Destructiveness.
Authoritarians respond to a painful existence by, in a sense, eliminating themselves: If there is no me, how can anything hurt me? But others respond to pain by striking out against the world: If I destroy the world, how can it hurt me? It is this escape from FREEDOM that accounts for much of the indiscriminate nastiness of life -- brutality, vandalism, humiliation, vandalism, crime, terrorism....
Automaton conformity.
Authoritarians escape by hiding within an authoritarian hierarchy.
But our society emphasizes equality! There is less hierarchy to hide in (though plenty remains for anyone who wants it, and some who don't).
When we need to hide, we hide in our mass culture instead.
When I get dressed in the morning, there are so many decisions! But I only need to look at what you are wearing, and my frustrations disappear.
Or I can look at the television, which, like a horoscope, will tell me quickly and effectively what to do.
If I look like, talk like, think like, feel like...everyone else in my society, then I disappear into the crowd, and I don't need to acknowledge my FREEDOM or take responsibility.
It is the horizontal counterpart to authoritarianism.
In fact, since humanity's "true nature" is FREEDOM, any of these escapes from FREEDOM alienates us from ourselves.
FREEDOM is in fact a complex idea, and that Fromm is talking about "TRUE" PERSONAL FREEDOM, rather than just political FREEDOM (often called liberty).
Most of us, whether they are free or not, tend to like the idea of political FREEDOM, because it means that we can do what we want.
A good example is the sexual sadist (or masochist) who has a psychological problem that drives his behavior.
He is not free in the personal sense, but he will welcome the politically free society that says that what consenting adults do among themselves is not the state's business! Another example involves most of us today:
We may well fight for FREEDOM (of the political sort), and yet when we have it, we tend to be conformist and often rather irresponsible.
We have the vote, but we fail to use it! I am very much for political FREEDOM -- but especially eager that we make use of that FREEDOM and take the responsibility that goes with it.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who support more government control and intrusion are missing the point.
What they are supporting is the additional cost to owners of $800 or more which is loaded on to the lease.
No one worries about the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) because freedom of choice is better than NO CHOICE at all.
Cabdrivers SHOULD have freedom of choice? If you want to ease a cab with a shield or a cameras you SHOULD be able to do so? On what planet?
At most garages the policy is simply you get what they give you, take it or leave it. Driver's choice is work or don't work. Lease from garage A or B. Love it or leave it. Maybe for a MINORITY of drivers who lease 24/7 they may get a choice.
The camera is not a scapegoat, the drivers are. It's their own fault if they get robbed because working in one of the most dangerous professions in the world, they are asking for trouble. It's their own fault if they get robbed because they should not accept cash payment.
Is 24/7 surveillance access really good for anybody accept ex-cons and people who may be dangerous if on the streets without law enforcement supervision? Child abusers, OK. Mentally ill, OK. Taxi drivers DOUBLE PLUS OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who object to cameras in cabs are off the mark.
I've carefully read all of their responses.
What they are objecting to is the removal of partitions.
It seems that it doesn't matter if it is a camera or a pumpkin being installed in cabs.
What they are worried about is the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) and still pass inspection.
This worry is one I won't ignore.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a shield should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a camera should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with both a camera and a partiton should be able to do so.
Let's not scapegoat the cameras just because the City has decided to allow opting for one or the other.
If the important thing is keeping the partitions as a requirement, then that should be the focus of all you "anti-camera" cabdrivers.
Am I not expressing the basis of your objections more clearly?
Rather, how does permitting cabs to have cameras hurt cabdrivers? I don't see how it does at all.
-Mike Foulks
Derrick, you are beating a horse called PARANOIA to death. It already left the barn.
Cameras in cabs will help catch criminals by providing law enforcement and the public with images of them and their crimes.
If you are so worried about your privacy then you should smoke your weed someplace other than your taxi.
The taxicab is a "public vehicle" for good reason. It isn't to oppress your individual right to privacy.
Again, you seem to be overstating the financial impact of installing and mantaining a camera. If it cost five bucks total you still wouldn't want it.
Why don't you just be more honest about your objection if you are so sincere? Get to the root of why YOU really DON'T WANT a camera in your cab.
I'm sure your objections can be accomodated and still have cameras which will provide images of criminals and their crimes and help law enforcement apprehend a lot of them.
Or are you in favor letting the criminals have their "privacy" too?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who support more government control and intrusion are missing the point.
What they are supporting is the additional cost to owners of $800 or more which is loaded on to the lease.
No one worries about the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) because freedom of choice is better than NO CHOICE at all.
Cabdrivers SHOULD have freedom of choice? If you want to ease a cab with a shield or a cameras you SHOULD be able to do so? On what planet?
At most garages the policy is simply you get what they give you, take it or leave it. Driver's choice is work or don't work. Lease from garage A or B. Love it or leave it. Maybe for a MINORITY of drivers who lease 24/7 they may get a choice.
The camera is not a scapegoat, the drivers are. It's their own fault if they get robbed because working in one of the most dangerous professions in the world, they are asking for trouble. It's their own fault if they get robbed because they should not accept cash payment.
Is 24/7 surveillance access really good for anybody accept ex-cons and people who may be dangerous if on the streets without law enforcement supervision? Child abusers, OK. Mentally ill, OK. Taxi drivers DOUBLE PLUS OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who object to cameras in cabs are off the mark.
I've carefully read all of their responses.
What they are objecting to is the removal of partitions.
It seems that it doesn't matter if it is a camera or a pumpkin being installed in cabs.
What they are worried about is the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) and still pass inspection.
This worry is one I won't ignore.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a shield should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a camera should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with both a camera and a partiton should be able to do so.
Let's not scapegoat the cameras just because the City has decided to allow opting for one or the other.
If the important thing is keeping the partitions as a requirement, then that should be the focus of all you "anti-camera" cabdrivers.
Am I not expressing the basis of your objections more clearly?
Rather, how does permitting cabs to have cameras hurt cabdrivers? I don't see how it does at all.
-Mike Foulks
I don't think that anyone is out to get me and I don't smoke anything.
What do you smoke, the **** that comes out of your ass?
Recent studies show that video cameras are mostly hype anyway.
The one in San Francisco is just the tip of the iceberg, or in this case, the pile of camera bull**** that grows higher by the minute.
Suckers like you fall for this kind of hype BS all the time. It's an historical fact.
There is one born every minute and as long as there is a steady supply of suckers, people will continue to come up with rip off bull crap like video surveillance for taxi cabs.
You can argue benefits all you want, but that does not change the facts Mr. Security Expert:
1) Studies from around the world have shown that surveillance cameras DO NOT prevent or reduce crime.
2) Surveillance cameras also DO NOT appear to be deterring crime in San Francisco communities.
3) Crime has INCREASED in more than half (8 of 15) of the locations where cameras have been installed.
CCTV surveillance called ineffective, debate gets more data
By Nate Anderson | Published: September 24, 2007 - 12:36PM CT
The UK's Liberal Democrats object to the "surveillance society" that they believe has grown up in Britain, and they've released a set of figures on CCTV use that purport to show that the cameras are ineffective at helping police solve crimes.
Related Stories
* Problems with the Panopticon: UK CCTVs don't cut crime rates
* Be quiet: the surveillance cameras might hear you
* Big brother may be watching you in Chicago
The data was released by the London Assembly of the Liberal Democrats, which gathered police data from the greater London area. According to the information, London police solve only 21 percent of all crimes, and the rate of success does not appear to have any correlation to the number of CCTV cameras installed in each borough.
The numbers led a spokesperson for the group to say, "Some of this money might have been better spent on police officers. Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in preventing or detecting crime and too often still, calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction. It is time we engaged in an open debate about the role of CCTV cameras in London today."
The Liberal Democrats' data is too limited to provide a complete scientific look at how the cameras impact crime. Every borough uses CCTV, from Merton (which has 58 cameras) to Hackney (which has 1,484), so there is no control group which does not use the cameras. The data also can't answer questions about what the crime rate and "clear up" rate would be if a borough dropped the cameras; perhaps cameras are depressing crime rates everywhere. The numbers also take no account of size or population, and offer no comparisons with other parts of the country.
The current data was gathered to help make a political point. The Liberal Democrats have just concluded their Autumn Conference, at which they passed a motion calling for the immediate repeal of the Identity Cards Act, the destruction of all DNA samples from people not charged with a crime, and more regulation of CCTV and personal information.
Apart from the recently released numbers, there have been a number of more rigorous studies done on the topic. The UK's own Home Office reports that CCTV helps lower crime rates by about 4 percent. The effect only works so long as people remain aware of the cameras, though. CCTV is actually much more effective in car parks, though it has small or no effects in many other situations. In fact, five of the 22 studies analyzed by the Home Office showed that CCTV deployments actually correlated with a rise in crime.
Though the statistical impact of CCTV on overall crime rates may be up for debate, there's no question that the technology has played a critical role in solving some high-profile cases. Last week, for instance, the first barrister ever sentenced for "perverting the course of justice" in the UK found out that he could spend up to a year in chokey after forging some legal documents for a case he was involved with. A CCTV camera in London captured pictures of the barrister sending the bogus e-mails from a shop.
Video Surveillance Blog
October 3, 2008
Vivotek wireless IP cameras watch over animals (including monkeys!) on South African game farm
South Africa's Marulani game farm is a haven for wild life enthusiasts. But because of the area's rugged terrain, properly monitoring the farm can be a difficult task. Recently Marulani solved that problem by installing a wireless surveillance solution using 30 network cameras from Vivotek. The system features the Vivotek IP7132, IP7137, IP7152, and PZ6124 network cameras.
All four Vivotek IP camera models support wireless connectivity, allowing for flexible installation throughout the game farm without requiring Ethernet cables or complicated wiring. The Vivotek PZ6124 and IP7152 both offer two-way audio which allows operators to communicate with tourists on the farm and quickly respond to any incidents.
A key benefit of the wireless surveillance system is it provides the farm owner with greater control over animals trying to escape. Many of the animals are considered dangerous if they get loose, so it's important to be able to monitor them consistently. The system also plays an important role in reducing accidents and emergencies from getting out of hand, and helps to prevent break-ins and theft. Additionally, the Vivotek wireless IP cameras make it easier to monitor the health of the animals on the farm.
Here's a report for you, there are thosands like it from all over the world.
From http://www.nyclu.org/node/1043
Report: Who's Watching? (2006)
Who's Watching? Video Camera Surveillance in New York City and the Need for Public Oversight (PDF).
Who's Watching? Video Camera Surveillance in New York City and the Need for Public Oversight documents the impact of the PROLIFERATION OF UNREGULATED SURVEILLANCE ON THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY, SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION.
The report concludes with recommendations that will assist policy makers in protecting the public against the harms and abuses that will surely occur absent legislative action.
Excerpt from the report:
DO VIDEO SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS MAKE US MORE SAFE?
In testimony before the New York City Council in 2006, the commanding
officer of the police department’s Technical Assistance Response
Unit claimed that the department’s Video Interactive Patrol
Enhancement Response (VIPER) program offered proof that cameras
deter crime.
The numbers the officer cited look very convincing. The VIPER program,
a collaboration between the NYPD and the New York City Housing
Authority, operates 3,100 monitored cameras in fifteen public housing
buildings. The cameras were installed in 1997; during the following
year, the officer asserted, the monitored buildings experienced 36 percent
less crime on average than in the year before installation.
But close examination shows that these numbers do not prove what
the NYPD would like them to prove. In fact, crime decreased steadily
throughout the city during the decade of the ’90s, when these cameras
were installed. The expansion of the police force and the NYPD’s introduction
of Compstat, a computer system that facilitated more effective
allocation of police resources, are widely credited with contributing to
a decline in the city’s crime rate—from approximately 5,000 crimes per
100,000 residents in 1994 to approximately 3,000 per 100,000 residents
in 2000.8 Thus the decrease in crime in the VIPER buildings, social
scientists say, was to be expected—cameras or no cameras.
IN FACT, NO RESEARCHER HAS PRODUCED CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT CAMERAS DETER CRIME.
It isn’t for lack of trying. During the 1990s, after a member of Congress
demanded a comprehensive investigation into the surveillance of federal
property in Washington D.C., the federal government initiated a study
that sought to evaluate the efficacy of video surveillance.9 Researchers
from the government’s General Accounting Office interviewed public
officials, analyzed documents from four American cities that used video
surveillance,10 and toured CCTV control rooms and law enforcement
offices in England.
The final report of the General Accounting Office, published in June 2003, concluded that there was simply NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER CAMERAS WERE PREVENTING CRIME.
Researchers and others stress the importance of measuring the effectiveness of CCTV systems in order to justify costs and the potential impact on individuals’ civil liberties. THERE IS GENERAL CONSENSUS AMONG CCTV USERS, PRIVACY ADVOCATES, RESEARCHERS, AND CCTV INDUSTRY GROUPS THAT THERE ARE FEW EVALUATIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CCTV IN REDUCING CRIME, AND FEW JURISDICTIONS ARE KEEPING DATA TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR CCTV SYSTEMS ARE EFFECTIVE.
Bad news for cab drivers’ privacy: Fourth Amendment Implications
The U.S. Supreme Court in Katz vs. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967), defined modern "search and seizure" law under the Fourth Amendment. The Court declared that "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Generally, a person walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police. As recognized by the Supreme Court in United States vs. Knotts 368 U.S. 276, 281-82 (1983):
A PERSON TRAVELING IN AN AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES HAS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY in his movements from one place to another. When [an individual] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.
Following this reasoning courts, for the most part, have allowed police to videotape individuals on public roads.
Somebody should tell Reyes and Daley about this kind of information before they make total fools out of themselves like this guy who thinks cameras in cabs are good for drivers.
These cameras can and will be used against drivers more so than armed robbers, jumpers, assailants and thieves.
That's what they are really for. We must draw the ;ine and fight!
Hmmmmm...
Reyes read about San Fran's gas surcharge and rammed it home. Maybe she missed this article.
San Francisco security cameras' choppy video
Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, January 28, 2008
Print E-mail
deliciousdel.icio.us
diggDigg
technoratiTechnorati
redditReddit
facebookFacebook slashdotSlashdot
farkFark
newsvineNewsvine
googleGoogle Bookmarks
Share Comments (76)
Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial
Font | Size:
(01-27) 22:04 PST San Francisco -- The 68 city-funded cameras perched above San Francisco's toughest street corners have been under fire in recent months for failing to provide evidence leading to arrests, and one of the reasons may be simple:
Images
This video shows footage captured from a surveillance cam...These consecutive images from a surveillance camera at 16... View Larger Images
More News
* Government moves again to unclog credit lines 10.14.08
* Stocks fluctuate as profit-taking sets in 10.14.08
* Man shot to death in car in S.F.'s Sunset District 10.14.08
* McCain proposes $52.5 billion economic plan 10.14.08
Choppy video.
Run on a modest budget, Mayor Gavin Newsom's surveillance camera program has produced footage that is disjointed and less clear than the nearly seamless and sharp quality of video that the devices are capable of delivering, a Chronicle review found.
The difference can be dramatic, leaving police with less potential evidence. A review of videos taken last year by four cameras at 16th and Mission streets found a striking problem with the cameras' frame rate, or the number of images produced per second.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys viewed the Mission District footage, taken between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. Aug. 6, in connection with a robbery case. What they saw looked less like a streaming video than a series of still pictures taken several seconds apart.
In Chicago, where Newsom sampled anti-crime cameras before starting his program, police get motion-picture-quality footage shot at 30 frames per second. But in the San Francisco footage, as many as 10 seconds pass between frames. Some cars and bicycles going through the intersection show up on just a single frame.
"If this is a representation of the system, we're throwing money away," said Theresa Sparks, president of the San Francisco Police Commission, after being shown the footage. The commission regulates use of the cameras.
The problem is only the latest for the 2 1/2-year-old surveillance program, which has contributed to just one arrest in a city where the homicide total in 2007 hit a 12-year high. That lone arrest was more than 19 months ago.
San Francisco officials are also hampering the crime-fighting potential of their program by precluding police from watching video in real time, a nod to privacy concerns. Police are not allowed to maneuver the cameras for a better shot.
In addition, a promised study of the cameras' efficacy has repeatedly been delayed. Under an ordinance that the Board of Supervisors approved in June 2006, police were supposed to have provided data on the cameras' performance to the board and the Police Commission by Jan. 17.
City Administrator Ed Lee was given responsibility for a broader report that would include the data. He has been negotiating for nine months with a team of University of California researchers who want to study the cameras, but officials have not worked out a deal. Lee did not respond to several interview requests. Newsom's office said the report will be ready in early March, though it's unclear who will write it.
"No study has started yet," said Travis Richardson, the development manager for the UC group, the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society.
Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard said the mayor planned to review the report on the cameras, which is expected to deal with the quality of the images, among many other aspects of the program.
"If there are problems that can be remedied with further investment, we're open to that possibility," Ballard said.
Newsom said in September, in an opinion piece published in the San Francisco Examiner, that the city had spent $500,000 on the cameras since 2005. But his office gave a much higher cost estimate earlier this month. The true cost of the cameras has amounted to $900,000, Newsom aides said, and the city has budgeted an additional $200,000 for 25 more cameras that the mayor intends to ask the Police Commission to approve.
After being shown the footage from the Mission District intersection, Ballard said, " 'Citizen Kane' it's not," a reference to the revered 1941 film by Orson Welles. But Ballard also said, "We believe these cameras have a deterrent effect on crime. The neighbors appreciate them."
Officials with the city's Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, which operates the cameras, said the ones in the Mission intersection are not representative of the program as a whole. They said that the Mission cameras were hamstrung for more than six months by a poor wireless connection, and that the connection was only recently upgraded.
But they acknowledged that most of the city's cameras achieve only 80 percent of the resolution they are capable of, and that they generate, at best, two to four frames per second because the city lacks the data storage space to accommodate more footage.
Motion pictures and television programs are shown with a frame rate of at least 24 frames per second. Las Vegas casinos are required by regulators to film many gaming areas at 30 frames per second.
That is also the rate generated by more than 550 cameras installed and maintained by the city of Chicago, which has spent millions on the nation's most robust government surveillance of streets and other public places.
Anti-crime cameras in the Contra Costa County city of Pittsburg are typically set at eight to 10 frames per second, officials there said. A BART spokeswoman said her agency's cameras capture from two to 15 frames per second.
The cameras in the Mission, made by IQinVision of San Clemente (Orange County), provide optimal footage at 12 frames per second, said Peter DeAngelis, the company's president.
Officials with San Francisco's telecommunications office said they were doing their best with limited funds. They said they needed hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of additional data storage space for the footage, which is kept for a week before being erased. The officials also said they were nearly $200,000 short on cash needed for camera maintenance and would have to tap into their own budget to cover the costs.
"Given the resources we have, I think we've done a remarkable job putting in a system that's useful," said the agency's chief operations officer, Richard Robinson.
Even at their best, surveillance cameras have delivered mixed results in studies of their effectiveness at decreasing violent crime.
Under city law, surveillance footage is stored by the city's Department of Emergency Management and may be turned over only to police. The Chronicle obtained the footage from the Mission intersection from the public defender's office, which got it from police while seeking to establish an alibi for two suspects in a robbery case.
The Mission cameras failed to produce even a single frame per second, on average, based on a review of four hours of footage. And there was little consistency to the cameras' frame rate. There were gaps of less than a second and gaps of several seconds.
Over an hour, the most active camera at the intersection delivered one frame every 1.7 seconds, while the least active delivered one frame every 2.9 seconds.
The footage does not show the actual robbery, which occurred two blocks away. Prosecutors dropped charges against the two suspects but said the decision had nothing to do with the footage.
Sparks and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who chairs the board's Public Safety Committee and drafted the ordinance regulating the cameras, both viewed the footage and said the resolution appeared to be sharp enough to make the cameras effective.
But of the frame rate, Mirkarimi said, "If you're going to go through the trouble of installing cameras, at least have the best technology to work with, or let's reroute our dollars."
Newsom, inspired by Chicago's efforts, began his surveillance program in mid-2005 in an attempt to cool violent crime in neighborhoods, including the Western Addition and Bayview-Hunters Point. City records show that police asked to see footage last year about once a week. Chicago and Pittsburg police watch footage almost constantly.
Ballard said Newsom's request for 25 additional cameras would not go to the Police Commission until the report on the cameras' performance is completed. But the mayor faces an increasingly skeptical commission, whose members have the authority to approve - or remove - cameras.
Watch a video clip from a San Francisco surveillance camera online at sfgate.com.
Weigh in
To express your thoughts on San Francisco's surveillance camera program, contact the director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice at kevin.ryan@sfgov.org.
Online resources
To view San Francisco's ordinance on video surveillance cameras, go to:
http://www.municode. com/content/4201/14131/ HTML/ch019.html
E-mail Demian Bulwa at dbulwa@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Anybody, Can kill you first. Then, break and steal that camera from your cab. Not a safe job.
As the city installs more and more equipment, crime rate keeps going up!
"The Chicago area is in the most dangerous 10% across America.... in a population of 2,857,796, this puts the town in the most dangerous 25% for murder across America." (http://www.homesecurity8.com/map/Illinois/Chicago.html)
+++
"For the first seven months of 2008, murders rose by 18 percent over the same period in 2007 and by 9 percent for the same period in 2006. According to internal police data, 291 people were killed from January through July, up from 246 in 2007 and 266 in 2006."
"In May and June, the murder rate hovered at a 13 percent increase for the year after a spike in homicides in the spring. July furthered the uptick with 19 more murders than a year earlier. Still, that July tally fell three below 2006 levels when there were 65 murders." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chicago-murders-upaug07,0,260187.story)
+++
From CPD Research & Development Division:
Index Crime January - July 2008 Up 2.4% Compared to January - July 2007
291 Murders, up 18.3 %; 8,835 Robberies Up 6.1%; 48,140 Thefts, up 1.5%
+++
Chicago’s (Hidden) Surveillance Cameras
In Chicago a few weeks ago, Mayor Daley held a press conference to announce a second generation of police surveillance cameras. The first generation cameras were large, white and blue boxes with a flashing blue light on the top and a large police seal painted on each side. These cameras were mounted on telephone poles and were visible for blocks.
The cameras were initially announced under the name “Operation Disruption,” which was fitting, if one interpreted the name to mean that the camera’s unmistakable presence itself was intended to disrupt criminal activity. I think I remember someone suggesting that the cameras might not even have to be turned on, or that they may even be fake. The deterrence factor was the primary function.
The second generation cameras do not have lights or the police seal, and could be mistaken for street lights. I find this change of tack somewhat troubling. Upon hearing about the first generation of cameras, before they were installed, I though the installation of surveillance cameras was pretty Big Brotherish, but became less concerned when I saw that they would be highly visible, or more accurately, intentionally impossible to miss. With the announcement that the second generation of cameras will be less obtrusive, more portable, and may be installed without any notification, my concern is back. The questions logically follow: how long until the cameras are true hidden cameras? Will there even be a press conference for the third generation?
Another 100 police cameras are headed to high-crime street corners as the city expands a security system intended to disrupt crime, Mayor Richard Daley announced Tuesday.
But the new generation of cameras will be less obtrusive than the 200 already on the street. They will be a fraction of the weight and size of the current model and not be equipped with flashing blue lights. (Chicago Tribune)
Operation Disruption cameras used to be about as subtle as a punch in the nose. They weighed 100 pounds, had flashing blue lights and were encased in the Chicago Police Department’s classic logo. The $30,000 cameras virtually announced that you were entering a high-crime neighborhood.
The next generation of video surveillance — in a city that’s fast become famous for it — is a lot more discreet. The camera weighs just 15 pounds, costs $6,000 and looks about as unobtrusive as a street light.
Police Supt. Phil Cline said the new and improved cameras can be moved more easily to accommodate shifting crime patterns. In some neighborhoods, signs will be posted warning criminals that Big Brother is watching. In other places, there will be no warning signs.
“It looks like a streetlight. So it’ll come to our tactical advantage,” Cline said. (Chicago Sun-Times)
+++
Chicago Video Surveillance Gets Smarter (???)
Sep 27 By DON BABWIN, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO (AP) - A car circles a high-rise three times. Someone leaves a backpack in a park. Such things go unnoticed in big cities every day. But that could change in Chicago with a new video surveillance system that would recognize such anomalies and alert authorities to take a closer look.
On Thursday, the city and IBM Corp. are announcing the initial phase of what officials say could be the most advanced video security network in any U.S. city. The City of Broad Shoulders is getting eyes in the back of its head.
"Chicago is really light years ahead of any metropolitan area in the U.S. now," said Sam Docknevich, who heads video-surveillance consulting for IBM.
Chicago already has thousands of security cameras in use by businesses and police—including some equipped with devices that recognize the sound of a gunshot, turn the cameras toward the source and place a 911 call. But the new system would let cameras analyze images in real time 24 hours a day.
"You're talking about creating (something) that knows no fatigue, no boredom and is absolutely focused," said Kevin Smith, spokesman for the city's Office of Emergency Management and Communications.
For example, the system could be programmed to alert the city's emergency center whenever a camera spots a vehicle matching the description of one being sought by authorities.
The system could be programmed to recognize license plates. It could alert emergency officials if the same car or truck circles the Sears Tower three times or if nobody picks up a backpack in Grant Park for, say, 30 seconds.
IBM says this approach might be more effective than relying on a bleary-eyed employee to monitor video screens. "Studies have shown people fall asleep," Docknevich said.
It is unclear when the system will be fully operational. Existing cameras could be equipped with the new software, but additional cameras probably will be added as well, Smith said.
"The complexity of the software is going to define how quickly we are able to do this," he said.
Chicago's announcement comes as it is vying to bring the 2016 games to town. A purportedly security-enhancing surveillance system is something city officials could trumpet to International Olympic Committee.
"The eventual goal is to have elaborate video surveillance well in advance of the 2016 Olympics," said Bo Larsson, CEO of Firetide Inc., the company providing the wireless connectivity for the project.
Neither Smith nor IBM would reveal the cost of the network, but Smith said much of it would be paid by the Department of Homeland Security. The cost of previous surveillance efforts has run into the millions of dollars. Just adding devices that allow surveillance cameras to turn toward the sound of gunfire was as much as $10,000 per unit.
Some critics question whether such systems are effective and whether they could lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Jonathan Schachter, a public policy lecturer at Northwestern University, said there are no studies that show cameras reduce crime. And the idea that placing cameras near "strategic assets" would prevent a terrorist attack is "absurd," he said.
Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said he was concerned that more cameras and more sophisticated technology would lead to abuses of authority.
"It is incumbent on the city to ensure that there are practices and procedures in place to sort of watch the watchers," he said.
City Journal Summer 2008.
Theodore Dalrymple
Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence
Constant surveillance seems to have had little effect on Britain’s sky-high crime.
16 October 2007
After the North Koreans, the British are probably the most highly surveyed people in the world. Around 10,000 publicly funded closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras—to say nothing of the private ones—watch London every day. The average Briton, you often hear, winds up photographed 300 times a day as he goes about his business, even if his business is crime.
Whenever a brutal murder is committed in a public place, the police announce that they are examining the video evidence: no such murder ever seems to occur off camera. Yet the number of CCTV cameras in place seems to have no effect on the number of crimes solved—the police in the London boroughs with many cameras, for instance, clear up no larger a proportion of crimes than those in boroughs with few.
A recent study demonstrating this failure to improve the clear-up rate, however, could not also show that the cameras failed to deter crime in the first place. Common sense suggests that they should deter, but common sense might be wrong. For if the punishment of detected crime is insufficient to deter, there is no reason why the presence of cameras should deter.
It is a matter of observation, however, that speed cameras on our roads cause most drivers to slow down. The reason is clear: if drivers are photographed speeding, they likely will receive fines and, if caught repeatedly, lose their licenses. For most people, such an outcome would be, if not a catastrophe, at least a severe inconvenience. Getting caught is not in itself sufficient to deter: for example, receiving an admonishing letter, evoking the driver’s moral responsibility to respect speed limits, would almost certainly have no effect upon his subsequent behavior behind the wheel. A serious penalty if caught is necessary for effective deterrence.
The drivers whom speed cameras do not deter are those driving illegally in any case. Not only are they harder to trace than people driving legally—they are, after all, usually driving in borrowed or stolen cars—but they have no licenses to lose, and probably no legal income with which to pay fines. If caught two or three times, they may go to prison for a couple of weeks, true. But the low risk of getting caught a sufficient number of times, combined with the mildness of the penalty if they are, makes illegal driving worthwhile for them.
The problem with the criminal law in Britain today is that it neither incapacitates criminals nor deters those inclined, for whatever reason, to break the law. The crime-inclined are probably more numerous than ever before, which makes leniency doubly disastrous. The huge number of CCTV cameras in Britain—perhaps as many as a third of all such cameras in the world—is an official response to the increased lawlessness of the population. But as with so much official activity in Britain, it achieves nothing. It is para-detection and para-deterrence rather than real detection and real deterrence.
In fact, the surveillance may even make matters worse, for if people run no additional risks in breaking the law while under surveillance, they may conclude that they have absolutely nothing to fear from the law. What is certain is that we begin to feel Big Brother watching us; thus arises a strange alliance between leniency and authoritarianism.
Theodore Dalrymple, a physician, is a contributing editor of City Journal and the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
To touch on this issue of "solving" murders, that is, successfully identifying and prosecuting the murderer...
Generally, murderers know their victims well. A high percentage of murders are crimes of passion or vengeance. A lot of times, a camera isn't needed to solve these homicides.
Yep, that "love of your life", your spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend, or ex-, is one of the likeliest people to kill you someday.
Kind of makes you want to show you care a little more and take out the garbage without having to be nagged, eh?
Maybe sleeping with and/or proposing to her sister isn't the best thing to do.
However, in the case of cabdrivers, this familiarity isn't the case. A cabdriver's killer is likely to be that of a random robbery.
All told, most murders are NEVER solved, with a camera or without.
But, in some cases, a clear picture from a camera will help law enforcement identify, apprehend, and prosecute a cabdriver's killer.
It can also be used to catch mere robbers or support a cabdriver's claims of theft of service or some other abuse from passengers.
There will always be crime. That doesn't mean reasonable steps shouldn't be taken to identify, apprehend, convict, confine, and possibly rehabilitate criminals.
Cameras in cabs could help us become somewhat safer or more respected.
I can't see how cameras in cabs would make us less safe or less respected.
Those who present arguments that cameras are "useless" or "ineffective" are selling hogwash.
There's at least one guy sitting in Cook County Jail right now who can tell you so - he shot and killed a young lady on the CTA bus recently.
The images from the cameras convinced his mother to publicly plea for her son to turn himself in.
One murder "solved". One murderer off the streets, off to prison, no doubt.
We are that much safer, no? At least, justice is being served, no?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
City Journal Summer 2008.
Theodore Dalrymple
Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence
Constant surveillance seems to have had little effect on Britain’s sky-high crime.
16 October 2007
After the North Koreans, the British are probably the most highly surveyed people in the world. Around 10,000 publicly funded closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras—to say nothing of the private ones—watch London every day. The average Briton, you often hear, winds up photographed 300 times a day as he goes about his business, even if his business is crime.
Whenever a brutal murder is committed in a public place, the police announce that they are examining the video evidence: no such murder ever seems to occur off camera. Yet the number of CCTV cameras in place seems to have no effect on the number of crimes solved—the police in the London boroughs with many cameras, for instance, clear up no larger a proportion of crimes than those in boroughs with few.
A recent study demonstrating this failure to improve the clear-up rate, however, could not also show that the cameras failed to deter crime in the first place. Common sense suggests that they should deter, but common sense might be wrong. For if the punishment of detected crime is insufficient to deter, there is no reason why the presence of cameras should deter.
It is a matter of observation, however, that speed cameras on our roads cause most drivers to slow down. The reason is clear: if drivers are photographed speeding, they likely will receive fines and, if caught repeatedly, lose their licenses. For most people, such an outcome would be, if not a catastrophe, at least a severe inconvenience. Getting caught is not in itself sufficient to deter: for example, receiving an admonishing letter, evoking the driver’s moral responsibility to respect speed limits, would almost certainly have no effect upon his subsequent behavior behind the wheel. A serious penalty if caught is necessary for effective deterrence.
The drivers whom speed cameras do not deter are those driving illegally in any case. Not only are they harder to trace than people driving legally—they are, after all, usually driving in borrowed or stolen cars—but they have no licenses to lose, and probably no legal income with which to pay fines. If caught two or three times, they may go to prison for a couple of weeks, true. But the low risk of getting caught a sufficient number of times, combined with the mildness of the penalty if they are, makes illegal driving worthwhile for them.
The problem with the criminal law in Britain today is that it neither incapacitates criminals nor deters those inclined, for whatever reason, to break the law. The crime-inclined are probably more numerous than ever before, which makes leniency doubly disastrous. The huge number of CCTV cameras in Britain—perhaps as many as a third of all such cameras in the world—is an official response to the increased lawlessness of the population. But as with so much official activity in Britain, it achieves nothing. It is para-detection and para-deterrence rather than real detection and real deterrence.
In fact, the surveillance may even make matters worse, for if people run no additional risks in breaking the law while under surveillance, they may conclude that they have absolutely nothing to fear from the law. What is certain is that we begin to feel Big Brother watching us; thus arises a strange alliance between leniency and authoritarianism.
Theodore Dalrymple, a physician, is a contributing editor of City Journal and the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
In general, cameras don't stop or reduce crime.
The multi-billion dollar budgets and the police, the State's Attorney's office, the courts and the prison system barely slow it down.
Most US prisons are filled beyond their capacity and crime rates are on the rise, despite more and more installations of cameras.
While there seemed to be a reduction in crime rates during the time communities were installing cameras, it is now widely believed that the lower crime rates due to booming economies.
We have already seen that many communities around the world are questioning the efficacy of video systems after several years of use. Crime rates are on the increase despite installation of surveillance systems.
Of the 338 crimes reported in 2008 so far against taxi drivers, how many have been solved?
Of the 212 total crimes reported in 2007 against taxi drivers, how many have been solved?
Of any of the 550 crimes in 2007 and 2008 against cave drivers, how many were captured on video and resolved?
Of the 587,840 crimes reported since June 15, 2007 in Chicago, how many were captured on video?
Of the 587,840 crimes reported since June 15, 2007, how many have been caught, tried and sentenced based on video evidence?
Is it possible that crime rates do not "connect" to use or non-use of video surveillance, but instead increase or decrease based on other social, cultural and economic factors?
Of the above crimes that have been solved, is not because of good old fashioned police work and aggressive prosecution based on solid leads and evidence that result in an arrests and convictions?
Using cameras is not regulated.
You can check it out. Read the US constitution.
Cameras should NOT be tools for the fleets or police or the regulators to monitor the activities of private businesses. Taxis are not public conveyances. They are private. They are driven by independent contractors. Camera recordings should be DRIVER tools... not tools of those who wrongfully presume to have the authority to over-control I-C's, as IF they were city employees or fleet owners' employees. We are not ANYBODYS' employees.
SWC
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Derrick, you are beating a horse called PARANOIA to death. It already left the barn.
Cameras in cabs will help catch criminals by providing law enforcement and the public with images of them and their crimes.
If you are so worried about your privacy then you should smoke your weed someplace other than your taxi.
The taxicab is a "public vehicle" for good reason. It isn't to oppress your individual right to privacy.
Again, you seem to be overstating the financial impact of installing and mantaining a camera. If it cost five bucks total you still wouldn't want it.
Why don't you just be more honest about your objection if you are so sincere? Get to the root of why YOU really DON'T WANT a camera in your cab.
I'm sure your objections can be accomodated and still have cameras which will provide images of criminals and their crimes and help law enforcement apprehend a lot of them.
Or are you in favor letting the criminals have their "privacy" too?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who support more government control and intrusion are missing the point.
What they are supporting is the additional cost to owners of $800 or more which is loaded on to the lease.
No one worries about the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) because freedom of choice is better than NO CHOICE at all.
Cabdrivers SHOULD have freedom of choice? If you want to ease a cab with a shield or a cameras you SHOULD be able to do so? On what planet?
At most garages the policy is simply you get what they give you, take it or leave it. Driver's choice is work or don't work. Lease from garage A or B. Love it or leave it. Maybe for a MINORITY of drivers who lease 24/7 they may get a choice.
The camera is not a scapegoat, the drivers are. It's their own fault if they get robbed because working in one of the most dangerous professions in the world, they are asking for trouble. It's their own fault if they get robbed because they should not accept cash payment.
Is 24/7 surveillance access really good for anybody accept ex-cons and people who may be dangerous if on the streets without law enforcement supervision? Child abusers, OK. Mentally ill, OK. Taxi drivers DOUBLE PLUS OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who object to cameras in cabs are off the mark.
I've carefully read all of their responses.
What they are objecting to is the removal of partitions.
It seems that it doesn't matter if it is a camera or a pumpkin being installed in cabs.
What they are worried about is the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) and still pass inspection.
This worry is one I won't ignore.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a shield should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a camera should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with both a camera and a partiton should be able to do so.
Let's not scapegoat the cameras just because the City has decided to allow opting for one or the other.
If the important thing is keeping the partitions as a requirement, then that should be the focus of all you "anti-camera" cabdrivers.
Am I not expressing the basis of your objections more clearly?
Rather, how does permitting cabs to have cameras hurt cabdrivers? I don't see how it does at all.
-Mike Foulks
"Cabdrivers SHOULD, AND do, have freedom of choice! If you want to lease a cab with a shield or a camera you SHOULD be able to do so?"
On what planet?"
On THIS planet!
Cameras should not be tools for fleet owners to monitor and modify driver behavior... unless the driver is AN EMPLOYEE!
What never... is considered in the discussion about partition use/mandates... is the reality that either a camera OR a partition could and should... easily be a driver option.
The issues of cameras, GPS and partition requirements are always viewed as an "all or nothing" proposition.
THAT is just simply whacky.
I use a camera. That is my choice. I determine who gets access to my recordings.
I DON'T use a partition. It might hamper my ability to shoot and kill assailants who pose a deadly threat to me. I concede self-defense, for those most likely to be murdered on the job in the US (for decades) is not a popular notion. I don't really give any 'yardage' to those who wish to repeal the second amendment.
Putting second amendment considerations aside.... drivers have a choice available concerning if or when they use a partition.
LEGAL partitions, which can be installed in a couple of minutes, based on the drivers' particular, specific whim, on any particular shift ARE available and HAVE been since the early 80's.
I build them.
They move with the seat... yay!
They cannot, however, EVER disincline or prevent an assailant from shooting the driver through one of the OTHER three windows (or the weapon access hole in the partition - itself).
SO.... the only thing that makes the taxi partition mandate discussion an 'all or nothing' proposition is the narrow-mindedness of anyone who refuses to consider that there might be a taxi partition design that ISN'T illegal, which can be installed very quickly... or removed very quickly... but only IF the driver specifies whether he does, or doesn't, WANT one there.
TRUST ME! I am not an entrepreneurial retard. I just don't need the success of my partition design to be hinged on some airhead, hair-brained taxi regulator... making my product MANDATORY!
My ethics dictate that my partition-purchase customers be only those... who desire my product... and not those who are forced to just because the regulators need to appear like they CARE (which is BS).
SWC
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who support more government control and intrusion are missing the point.
What they are supporting is the additional cost to owners of $800 or more which is loaded on to the lease.
No one worries about the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) because freedom of choice is better than NO CHOICE at all.
Cabdrivers SHOULD have freedom of choice? If you want to ease a cab with a shield or a cameras you SHOULD be able to do so? On what planet?
At most garages the policy is simply you get what they give you, take it or leave it. Driver's choice is work or don't work. Lease from garage A or B. Love it or leave it. Maybe for a MINORITY of drivers who lease 24/7 they may get a choice.
The camera is not a scapegoat, the drivers are. It's their own fault if they get robbed because working in one of the most dangerous professions in the world, they are asking for trouble. It's their own fault if they get robbed because they should not accept cash payment.
Is 24/7 surveillance access really good for anybody accept ex-cons and people who may be dangerous if on the streets without law enforcement supervision? Child abusers, OK. Mentally ill, OK. Taxi drivers DOUBLE PLUS OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who object to cameras in cabs are off the mark.
I've carefully read all of their responses.
What they are objecting to is the removal of partitions.
It seems that it doesn't matter if it is a camera or a pumpkin being installed in cabs.
What they are worried about is the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) and still pass inspection.
This worry is one I won't ignore.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a shield should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a camera should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with both a camera and a partiton should be able to do so.
Let's not scapegoat the cameras just because the City has decided to allow opting for one or the other.
If the important thing is keeping the partitions as a requirement, then that should be the focus of all you "anti-camera" cabdrivers.
Am I not expressing the basis of your objections more clearly?
Rather, how does permitting cabs to have cameras hurt cabdrivers? I don't see how it does at all.
-Mike Foulks
Cab drivers DO NOT NEED 'permission' from ANYBODY to make and keep recordings (video or audio) of events that occur in his cab.
It seems to me that 'in your world' there is room for rules that would make - available... cabs... with a partition, with a camera... or with both.
How about drivers like me? Drivers who, like me, object to regulators posturing themselves as more concerned, functional and effective concerning how to address or 'handle' risk of attack in a taxi than I am.
The are 'out-of-touch' with actual cab driving matters, and with no cab driving experience, are undeniably blowing smoke up our skirts.
I demand, as the federal law specifies, retention of the right to choose - if... I want to use, or NOT use, a partition... and when I might DO SO (as an I_C... it IS my choice)... to do either, both... or neither.
I also demand that taxi regulators mind their own fnquing business. My survival... is MY business... not theirs.
I demand an end to the use of illegal, unsafe, uncertified, non-complying taxi partitions.
SWC
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Those who object to cameras in cabs are off the mark.
I've carefully read all of their responses.
What they are objecting to is the removal of partitions.
It seems that it doesn't matter if it is a camera or a pumpkin being installed in cabs.
What they are worried about is the provision allowing owners to have one or the other (a camera or a partition) and still pass inspection.
This worry is one I won't ignore.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a shield should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with a camera should be able to do so.
Cabdrivers who wish to lease a cab with both a camera and a partiton should be able to do so.
Let's not scapegoat the cameras just because the City has decided to allow opting for one or the other.
If the important thing is keeping the partitions as a requirement, then that should be the focus of all you "anti-camera" cabdrivers.
Am I not expressing the basis of your objections more clearly?
Rather, how does permitting cabs to have cameras hurt cabdrivers? I don't see how it does at all.
-Mike Foulks
