I can't see how cameras would have stopped 9/11. In fact they stop no one. You would need a respond team ready to go right now if the camera showed a reason to do so. Yes for some crimes it can help solve those cases. It's like the lets check everyones packages now on the subways. What really works when it comes to explosives. Dogs trained to find them. Want to put money into something that works. Train more of these animals. Ones again a act like 9/11 would not have been stopped. Intelligence and many more trained in it is one way. We need so many more folks in this field. And of course folks that will listen to what they have to say would help.
Eyes Every Place Called Cameras?
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
GW....it's all good
I'm mixing my topics a bit in this thread. I can't stand our mayor and the BS he's been getting away with for years. That shades my views on things a bit at times. I live amongst a ton of fireman, policeman, and various city employees on my block and in my life. My brother is a cop, my brother in law runs a ward office on the North Side (a bit of power), my brother and sister were long time life guards working various beaches and pools across the city.
It's not spending money on REAL EFFECTIVE 9/11 type stuff that bothers me, it's cloaking the money being spent as 9/11 stuff, when all it's being used for (here) is patronage, job creation (votes), and keeping over all budgets high (to keep more votes and their families employed).
another tangent.....
The numbers for various crimes committed here in Chicago have been dropping. My brother laughes when I bring this up to him. Various crimes can be classified as any number of things and put into any number of catagories. Not only that, but there is a massive political machine involved with tracking and reporting crimes. It has many levels and flows with the political winds.
Does anyone really believe drug use, theft, prostitution, or violence is down because there is a box on some pole at the corner of some ghetto block (Division & Central Park Avenue)?
Does anyone really believe a camera in a subway or at the corner of Michigan and Ohio St will deter a terrorist from blowing himself up along with 100 others?
And what little these cameras ACTUALLY provide AFTER THE FACT, does nothing to solve the problems involved.
There has to be a better way to spend any money allocated. Whether it's taken the fight to them, or showing an ACTIVE HANDS ON presence here.
Truth be known...
I can't stand Bush's border policy and the way he blows this Vicente Fox dope every time he sees him. I get even more pissed when this Fox dope starts to threaten action when the illegals are not getting there rights. WHAT THE F LEVERAGE does this guy have, except whatever possible Mexican votes that are here?
I'm mixing my topics a bit in this thread. I can't stand our mayor and the BS he's been getting away with for years. That shades my views on things a bit at times. I live amongst a ton of fireman, policeman, and various city employees on my block and in my life. My brother is a cop, my brother in law runs a ward office on the North Side (a bit of power), my brother and sister were long time life guards working various beaches and pools across the city.
It's not spending money on REAL EFFECTIVE 9/11 type stuff that bothers me, it's cloaking the money being spent as 9/11 stuff, when all it's being used for (here) is patronage, job creation (votes), and keeping over all budgets high (to keep more votes and their families employed).
another tangent.....
The numbers for various crimes committed here in Chicago have been dropping. My brother laughes when I bring this up to him. Various crimes can be classified as any number of things and put into any number of catagories. Not only that, but there is a massive political machine involved with tracking and reporting crimes. It has many levels and flows with the political winds.
Does anyone really believe drug use, theft, prostitution, or violence is down because there is a box on some pole at the corner of some ghetto block (Division & Central Park Avenue)?
Does anyone really believe a camera in a subway or at the corner of Michigan and Ohio St will deter a terrorist from blowing himself up along with 100 others?
And what little these cameras ACTUALLY provide AFTER THE FACT, does nothing to solve the problems involved.
There has to be a better way to spend any money allocated. Whether it's taken the fight to them, or showing an ACTIVE HANDS ON presence here.
Truth be known...
I can't stand Bush's border policy and the way he blows this Vicente Fox dope every time he sees him. I get even more pissed when this Fox dope starts to threaten action when the illegals are not getting there rights. WHAT THE F LEVERAGE does this guy have, except whatever possible Mexican votes that are here?
Last edited:
Also
This whole camera thing is completely half ass.
It's like shoveling part of your sidewalk or only blowing part of your load.
Let put cameras in our subways..............
forget about ALL the municipal water sources, ALL the ports, ALL the public parks, ALL the major bridges, in and out of ALL large buildings, ALL schools, ALL day care centers, ALL the stadiums, ALL the highways and there interchanges, ALL the tourist locations in cities, ALL the tourist locations across the country side, and ALL titty bars.
And don't forget the equipment and manpower used to deploy and maintain all these intallations.
This whole camera thing is completely half ass.
It's like shoveling part of your sidewalk or only blowing part of your load.
Let put cameras in our subways..............
forget about ALL the municipal water sources, ALL the ports, ALL the public parks, ALL the major bridges, in and out of ALL large buildings, ALL schools, ALL day care centers, ALL the stadiums, ALL the highways and there interchanges, ALL the tourist locations in cities, ALL the tourist locations across the country side, and ALL titty bars.
And don't forget the equipment and manpower used to deploy and maintain all these intallations.
Hell know I agree with most. The camera idea is the hot ticket right now because of the bombings in England. They did nothing to stop those bombing. So I don't know why anyone thinks they worked so good. We keep telling our terrorist were not protecting the borders. And chemical plants and nuke plants and on we go. We need tons of first responders trained and there is no money for it. We need more eyes and intelligence on the street in plain clothes. No one has money for it. So we claim were fighting them in Iraq. At least Bush and Cheney seem to believe that. I wonder if there following ware the last 4 bombing took place by terrorist. Not insurgents. Looks like London, Spain, Turkey, Egypt. Is our turn getting closer? We say were ready. I say B S.
They cite one crime being solved with the help of cameras in Philly. Only one with all the thousands of cameras in all the cities across the country.
'Step Up Surveillance,' U.S.A.
Associated Press
09:09 AM Jul. 24, 2005 PT
NEW YORK -- Pressure is building for greater use of video cameras to keep watch over the nation's cities -- particularly in transportation systems and other spots vulnerable to terrorism -- after the bombings in London.
The calls have come over the last few weeks as British investigators released surveillance footage of the bombers in the deadly July 7 attacks and then put out frames of suspects in Thursday's failed attacks.
"I do not think that cameras are the big mortal threat to civil liberties that people are painting them to be," Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony A. Williams said Friday.
He's not alone. While privacy advocates question their effectiveness, Sen. Hillary Clinton called for New York City subway officials to install more cameras, even though officials said some 5,000 cameras are already in use across all modes of city travel. In Stamford, Connecticut, Mayor Dan Malloy said it's time to revisit a 1999 ordinance that limited cameras to watching traffic.
In many other spots around the country, cameras already are in place.
"In general, I think we're getting used to cameras," said Roy Bordes, who runs an Orlando, Florida, security design consultant firm. Hey, that's just the way the world is."
Consider these recent developments:
? Chicago now has at least 2,000 surveillance cameras across its neighborhoods, after leaders last year launched an ambitious project at a cost of roughly $5 million. Law enforcement says they've helped drive crime rates to the lowest they've seen in 40 years.
? In Philadelphia, where the city has increasingly relied on video surveillance, cameras caught an early morning murder which ultimately led to the capture of a suspect. Police say the accused is now a suspect in an unsolved murder from 1998.
? Homeland Security officials last week announced they would install hundreds of surveillance cameras and sensors on a rail line near the Capitol at a cost of $9.8 million, months after an effort by local officials to ban hazardous shipments on the line.
In most cases prior to the last few years, street crime -- not terrorism -- was the driving factor behind the cameras. There has also been a boom in traffic-monitoring cameras, and huge reliance on surveillance cameras in private business, especially in retail establishments like convenience and department stores.
Security experts say that technology hasn't yet caught up with hopes for the equipment, however. They point out that despite London's huge network of cameras, the bombings weren't prevented. In those two cases, the cameras have only helped in the investigations.
One significant weakness is that the images caught by camera can't automatically link to a list of known terrorist suspects -- not that that would have helped in London, as men identified as bombers weren't on any watch lists.
"I haven't heard of anything being successful that allows us to prevent something by flashing up on a screen somewhere a positive identification of someone on a terrorist database," said Jack Lichtenstein with ASIS international, a Washington-based organization of security officials. Still, "that's where we're headed," he said.
Privacy advocates say the London bombings should persuade policymakers to stay away from surveillance rather than invest in it. It doesn't prevent terrorism, and at best only encourages terrorists to shift their target, they argue.
"Let's say we put cameras on all the subways in New York City, and terrorists bomb movie theaters instead. Then it's a total waste of money," said Bruce Schneier, author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World.
It's not much more likely to catch a terrorist than the random searches that New York officials have begun conducting on subways, he said. Better to spend money on intelligence resources to prevent attacks and emergency training to respond to them, he said.
But in Stamford, Connecticut, a city on a train line that runs to New York, Mayor Malloy said potential targets like trains, hospitals and water reservoirs should all be monitored, with regulations to guard against snooping on private homes, parks and other unlikely targets.
'Step Up Surveillance,' U.S.A.
Associated Press
09:09 AM Jul. 24, 2005 PT
NEW YORK -- Pressure is building for greater use of video cameras to keep watch over the nation's cities -- particularly in transportation systems and other spots vulnerable to terrorism -- after the bombings in London.
The calls have come over the last few weeks as British investigators released surveillance footage of the bombers in the deadly July 7 attacks and then put out frames of suspects in Thursday's failed attacks.
"I do not think that cameras are the big mortal threat to civil liberties that people are painting them to be," Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony A. Williams said Friday.
He's not alone. While privacy advocates question their effectiveness, Sen. Hillary Clinton called for New York City subway officials to install more cameras, even though officials said some 5,000 cameras are already in use across all modes of city travel. In Stamford, Connecticut, Mayor Dan Malloy said it's time to revisit a 1999 ordinance that limited cameras to watching traffic.
In many other spots around the country, cameras already are in place.
"In general, I think we're getting used to cameras," said Roy Bordes, who runs an Orlando, Florida, security design consultant firm. Hey, that's just the way the world is."
Consider these recent developments:
? Chicago now has at least 2,000 surveillance cameras across its neighborhoods, after leaders last year launched an ambitious project at a cost of roughly $5 million. Law enforcement says they've helped drive crime rates to the lowest they've seen in 40 years.
? In Philadelphia, where the city has increasingly relied on video surveillance, cameras caught an early morning murder which ultimately led to the capture of a suspect. Police say the accused is now a suspect in an unsolved murder from 1998.
? Homeland Security officials last week announced they would install hundreds of surveillance cameras and sensors on a rail line near the Capitol at a cost of $9.8 million, months after an effort by local officials to ban hazardous shipments on the line.
In most cases prior to the last few years, street crime -- not terrorism -- was the driving factor behind the cameras. There has also been a boom in traffic-monitoring cameras, and huge reliance on surveillance cameras in private business, especially in retail establishments like convenience and department stores.
Security experts say that technology hasn't yet caught up with hopes for the equipment, however. They point out that despite London's huge network of cameras, the bombings weren't prevented. In those two cases, the cameras have only helped in the investigations.
One significant weakness is that the images caught by camera can't automatically link to a list of known terrorist suspects -- not that that would have helped in London, as men identified as bombers weren't on any watch lists.
"I haven't heard of anything being successful that allows us to prevent something by flashing up on a screen somewhere a positive identification of someone on a terrorist database," said Jack Lichtenstein with ASIS international, a Washington-based organization of security officials. Still, "that's where we're headed," he said.
Privacy advocates say the London bombings should persuade policymakers to stay away from surveillance rather than invest in it. It doesn't prevent terrorism, and at best only encourages terrorists to shift their target, they argue.
"Let's say we put cameras on all the subways in New York City, and terrorists bomb movie theaters instead. Then it's a total waste of money," said Bruce Schneier, author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World.
It's not much more likely to catch a terrorist than the random searches that New York officials have begun conducting on subways, he said. Better to spend money on intelligence resources to prevent attacks and emergency training to respond to them, he said.
But in Stamford, Connecticut, a city on a train line that runs to New York, Mayor Malloy said potential targets like trains, hospitals and water reservoirs should all be monitored, with regulations to guard against snooping on private homes, parks and other unlikely targets.
