August 29, 2007

Looking for Chicagoans for a Photo Essay About Security Cameras

See Subjects for Photo Essay About Security Cameras:

A friend has recently posted this to craigslist. I thought I would post it here in case any readers could volunteer or had suggestions:

UPDATE - the craigslist is dead, but you can email him at trdouglas AT gmail.com

We are doing a photo essay about surveillance cameras. We are seeking people with stories to tell and who are willing to have their photo taken.

These images may later be incorporated into an art photo gallery show to create awareness of security cameras and their presence in everyday life.

-- Have you been detained (rightfully or wrongfully) from an act captured on a security camera?
-- Is your job in a workplace under video surveillance?
-- Do you have a video camera and record/observe police at crime scenes?
-- Are you employed installing security cameras and systems?
-- Were you the victim of a crime that was caught on a security camera? (you do NOT need to have footage of the incident)
-- Does your job include watching security camera monitors?

In exchange for your time, story and willingness to be photographed, you will receive an art-quality print from the resulting photo shoot.

Posted by rshah at 12:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 21, 2007

Under the Watchful Eye: The Proliferation of Video Surveillance Systems in California

From ACLU of Northern California:
A press release on a new report on video surveillance by the ACLU. The first two parts of the report provide the traditional arguments on the threat to civil liberties and the effectiveness of cameras. The third part is the most interesting and contains findings from a public records survey.
Among the key findings of 131 jurisdictions:

• 37 cities have some type of video surveillance program
• 18 cities have significant video surveillance programs of public streets and plazas; an additional 10 jurisdictions are actively considering such expansive programs
• 18 cities have systems in which police actively monitor the cameras
• Only 11 police departments have policies that even purport to regulate the use of video surveillance cameras
• No jurisdiction has conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the cameras’ effectiveness

The real shame is the lack of policies to ensure cameras are used properly. Here is what the ACLU found:

Only eleven of the 37 departments provided any written policies specifically addressing video surveillance. . . .
In San Francisco, the surveillance program grew from two to 33 cameras without any binding regulations: Members of the mayor’s staff and city organizations, such as the emergency Services department, promulgated policies, but these policies did not vest community members with any rights to seek redress for violations and were also easily changed. for example, camera footage originally was to be erased after 72 hours (three days), but the city changed that time span to seven days. It was not until June 2006, almost a full year after the first cameras were installed, that the board of supervisors passed an ordinance providing for some legally enforceable regulations on public processes and the use of the cameras.

Every police department using cameras (including Chicago) should have a publicly available and enforceable policy on video surveillance. As history shows, eventually our blind trust will lead to misuse.

Posted by rshah at 08:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 17, 2007

Cameras help cities reduce crime

From USATODAY.com:
Another article with anecdotes of how cameras reduce crime. There really is a need for some good empirical research in the US. The article notes:

Jose Cordero, police director in East Orange (NJ), said the sensors and cameras have helped reduce crime 38% and shootings 30% so far this year compared to 2006. The city has nearly halved its murders from 17 in 2004 to nine last year, Cordero said.

Posted by rshah at 08:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ineffective Cameras in San Francisco

From San Francisco Chronicle via Schneier on Security:

The 178 video cameras that keep watch on San Francisco public housing developments have never helped police officers arrest a homicide suspect even though about a quarter of the city's homicides occur on or near public housing property, city officials say.

Nobody monitors the cameras, and the videos are seen only if police specifically request it from San Francisco Housing Authority officials. The cameras have occasionally managed to miss crimes happening in front of them because they were trained in another direction, and footage is particularly grainy at night when most crime occurs, according to police and city officials.

Similar concerns have been raised about the 70 city-owned cameras located at high-crime locations around San Francisco.
The 178 cameras on public housing property, which have been installed over the past two years with money from the federal government, were the subject of a hearing Monday by the Board of Supervisors' public safety committee.

So far this year, 66 homicides have occurred in San Francisco, compared with 85 in all of 2006. On average, about a quarter of the city's homicides happen on or near public housing property every year, according to statistics from the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice.

Though the Housing Authority doesn't keep a record of how often its cameras' footage is used in making arrests in crimes, a housing authority official and a police lieutenant told the committee they are unaware of the footage ever being used to arrest a homicide suspect.

The city has its own security camera program with 70 cameras in 25 high-crime locations. None of them is on federal housing authority property, but many of them are positioned at street corners right outside them. The city cameras operate in much the same way; they are not routinely monitored in part due to privacy concerns, but footage is available to police upon request. Lenore Anderson, director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, said she didn't know whether any city cameras had been used to make an arrest in a homicide case.

Posted by rshah at 02:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 15, 2007

DHS funding millions of dollars of cameras

From The Boston Globe:

A nice reporting job on the role of the Department of Homeland Security in funding surveillance systems.

Since 2003, the department has handed out some $23 billion in federal grants to local governments for equipment and training to help combat terrorism. Most of the money paid for emergency drills and upgrades to basic items, from radios to fences. But the department also has doled out millions on surveillance cameras, transforming city streets and parks into places under constant observation.
The department will not say how much of its taxpayer-funded grants have gone to cameras. But a Globe search of local newspapers and congressional press releases shows that a large number of new surveillance systems, costing at least tens and probably hundreds of millions of dollars, are being simultaneously installed around the country as part of homeland security grants.
In the last month, cities that have moved forward on plans for surveillance networks financed by the Homeland Security Department include St. Paul, which got a $1.2 million grant for 60 cameras for downtown; Madison, Wis., which is buying a 32-camera network with a $388,000 grant; and Pittsburgh, which is adding 83 cameras to its downtown with a $2.58 million grant.
Small towns are also getting their share of the federal money for surveillance to thwart crime and terrorism.
Recent examples include Liberty, Kan. (population 95), which accepted a federal grant to install a $5,000 G2 Sentinel camera in its park, and Scottsbluff, Neb. (population 14,000), where police used a $180,000 Homeland Security Department grant to purchase four closed-circuit digital cameras and two monitors, a system originally designed for Times Square in New York City.

Posted by rshah at 09:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 13, 2007

Baltimore camera captures a shooting

From baltimoresun.com: (sorry the link doesn't work anymore)

Its a rare occurrence, but cameras in Baltimore caught a man being shot during a drug deal. As a result, three men were arrested and two handguns were found in the car.

"It's just another case showing that the cameras are effective," said Sterling Clifford, the Police Department's chief spokesman. "The cameras can't do everything. They can't replace other evidence and they can't take the place of good police work. But they provide an opportunity to make an arrest quickly and to get the right guys."

In December, police detectives used camera footage to track down a suspect in the beating death of a drifter. Officers have also been able to make quick arrests in armed robberies and assaults in at least four publicized cases this year.

State's Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy has, through her spokeswoman, criticized the police camera footage, saying the quality is sometimes too poor to be useful in criminal prosecutions or does not clearly identify a suspect.

Police have said that the video is an invaluable tool for detectives, and they called the footage of Wednesday's shooting a shining example of the cameras' effectiveness. The video appears in good quality, and shows a well-lighted downtown area, taken from a camera posted at Park Avenue and Mulberry Street. Some letters and numbers on the license plate of a 2003 Toyota Camry that the gunman is seen getting into are readable.

Posted by rshah at 09:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack