Live From New York
Posted on April 17, 2006
Along an avenue in Brooklyn, police in NYC have begun to implement the city’s version of the “Ring of Steel.” About 30 feet above the sidewalk are three wireless video recorders, each emblazoned with “NYPD” and equipped with two zoom lenses. They are on and recording.
I have been following the progress of this plan since January, when I first wrote about how New York City was looking to London as an example of how to improve security in lower Manhattan. London has what is known as the “ring of steel”, a system of closed-circuit cameras and narrow roads. Police can block it off while cameras scan for wanted vehicles and monitor traffic and people entering and exiting the area.
I warned in March that the NYCLU was already trying to portray this system as the final step before the placement of cameras in your living room.
These cameras in Brooklyn are the first installment of a program that will place 500 cameras throughout the city if the federal dollars come through.
The NYPD claims the money will be well spent because al-Qaida once cased the Stock Exchange and other financial institutions in lower Manhattan.
“We have every reason to believe New York remains in the cross-hairs, so we have to do what it takes to protect the city,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in remarks last week at Harvard University.
The department “is installing cameras first and asking questions later,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director the New York Civil Liberties Union.
Exactly what she means by that, I am not sure. The cameras will be restricted to public areas and the police commissioner recently established a panel of four corporate defense lawyers to advise the department on surveillance policies.
What expectation to privacy should you have in the public arena? Whatever you do in public has the potential of being viewed by someone, including law enforcement personnel.
I repeat myself, but I have to say again that the ACLU is the first to defend unlimited freedom for drug dealers, pedophiles and practioners of oddball religious rites. They proclaim the right of panhandlers to invade my privacy and personal space when I’m in public, going so far as to define begging as not just asking for money but delivering a political message.
What is it about the ACLU and its chapters that always makes them want to harass law enforcement while rallying to the causes of the vilest criminal element and the outpatients of the local asylum?
Last year, in London, the system read 37 million license plates and identified 91,000 positive matches for wanted vehicles. Nearly 550 arrests were made as a result.
The cameras in London played a key role in identifying the July 7 Underground and bus bombers. Although they didn’t prevent the terrorist act they certainly assured apprehension.
Why would the NYCLU want to deprive law enforcement from accomplishing at least the same here? As I said last month, they fail to understand that without security there is no freedom and that the twin towers disaster showed us the enemy of our way of life. Again, it is not, despite NYCLU and ACLU arguments to the contrary, the NYPD.
Thanks to Newsday.
Crossposted at Sweet Spirits of Ammonia.
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “Live From New York”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“Exactly what she means by that, I am not sure. ”
It means that we don’t know if, for example, the principles of fair information practices will apply to the cameras. We don’t know who gets to see the tapes. We don’t know how long they’re kept for. We don’t know if they get released to the public or are used only for official purposes, etc…
This may run contrary to my libertarian knee jerk response; but, when it comes to being viewed in public I would have to lean toward the loss of individual “rights” and toward the public safety issue. This is not in conflict with my negative opinion toward camera issued traffic tickets, which side steps the need for a human “witness”, something basic to our established right to confront such a witness.
The same is true on the internet and blogs; once you say something it is “out there” forever. Be careful what you say and do in public because somebody, anybody and all can view it.
Didn’t that Orwell guy think up something along these lines? I think there was something in there about a perpetual state of war, too.
You know what they say about giving an inch…
Orwell, heh.
If by “Orwell, heh” you mean “Yes, George Orwell was one of the most brilliant writers in history”, then I agree with you.
It’s captain irrational again, espousing the socialist George Orwell. what were the odds?
The man is a prophet. What more can I say?
“The man is a prophet.”
Define prophet.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prophet
1-4 apply I think.
“… unlimited freedom for drug dealers, pedophiles and practioners of oddball religious rites.”
If I had a nickel for every time a virulently right-wing pundit used language like this, I’d be in a Bush-tax-cut-eligible tax bracket.
Do you really think the ACLU wants pedophiles to molest children high on the crack sold to them by ACLU-endorsed drug dealers during satanic human sacrifice ceremonies?
Really?
You must know how unlikely that sounds. And even if it were true, how relevant would it be to a discussion about video cameras in public?