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
