Interestingly enough, the JC Museum is holding a panel presentation this Sunday on the culture of surveillance.

See the calendar posting for more details.

If owners of the buildings want to put up cameras - so be it.
I don't like the notion of requiring owners to install them. It's essentialy forcing the community to spy on itself in the name of crime.
Now I'm all for lower crime- but not at the expense of another civil liberty.

there have been cameras monitored by JCPD in Greenville section for years now..just ride up Martin Luther King,Jr Blvd look up around armstrong ave, woodlawn, van nostrand area and others... remember to smile!

Quote:

Be on the"Watch" for this cretin!

Quote:
The cameras have been around in my area for maybe 2 years now. Just look up at the light poles when you are walking around and you will be able to spot them. I don't think it's a good idea to get too specific about where they are and where they are not.

At the JCPD town hall meeting, they mentioned that CCTV has finally been installed in JC. Where can we find out the locations of the cameras?

According to the Jersey Journal:
"At 10:50 p.m. Thursday, a 59-year-old man and a 51-year-old man, both of Washington Street, were at Warren and Morris streets when two men approached and one pointed a handgun at them and took money, police reports said."

Gee, I walked by that corner an hour and a half earlier. This is not good.

There are two restaurants at this corner, Presto's and Amelia's. On Warren and Morris Street there are several businesses. If they have cameras, it will help catch the perpetrators, or it will help discourage such crimes. Better street lighting would help too. It is so dark around here.

Steve, we need some incentives to encourage storeowners to put in cameras.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index ... 14509232798830.xml&coll=3

This is an article from today's jersey journal.
http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 43123235306400.xml&coll=3

Basically, two men held up two other men and the police were able to catch the criminals with survailance cameras.

There is a very good chance that these men would still be on the street if it were not for the cameras. Is it a deterrent? Maybe, Maybe not. But in this case it worked wonders.

I honestly don?t think anyone?s civil liberties are being compromised here, except maybe the criminals. If it would make catching them in the act as opposed to numerous man hours by law enforcement to try to ?prove their case? I am welcome to it. It won?t necessarily deter them at first, since I am not sure that criminals are smart enough to notice a camera pointing at them on the side of a building. I do think in the long run it will deter criminal activity, because as more get caught they will tell their friends, who will tell their friends, etc.

I think you may feel differently about having things done under the name of terrorism and criminal behavior if you were directly attacked by terrorist or the victim of a crime and a camera with an image of your attacker or the attacker of someone you loved aided in putting them away for a long while.

Just remember not to pick your nose or scratch your ass on the street and you will have nothing to worry about. There is no microphone so you can still fart all you want.

It is my understanding that careful research has shown that cameras do not deter crime, they just move them somewhere else. Just like a criminal doesn't pick a crowded area during day light hours to rob someone at gun point, they don't generally pick a place with cameras.

Will the cameras be hidden so ordinary citizens don't know the cameras are there (or the criminals)? This brings up issues of civil liberties. Carefully consider what might be caught on tape and may not be illegal. Would you mind having your livingroom taped? Private conversations and actions may be caught that could prove embarrassing.

I'm just saying, consider the down sides and whether it is really worth giving up your civil liberties for when research has proven these methods to have a very minimal success rate.

I am personally very tired of having my civil liberties dimished inthis country under the name of terrorism and crimnal behavior.

All I can say is that I live in a building with cameras that face the street. They do not bother anyone and in fact, no one really ever notices they are there. There was one night when there was a pretty serious hit and run. The managers were able to pull the video and see the make, model and license plate of the car. Isn't this what we all want? A little piece of mind, more eyes on the street so when someone is spraying graffiti on every level surface, or busting car windows or god forbid attacking someone at gunpoint we may have a better chance of catching them and deterring unacceptable behaviour in the future? I don't think the general population has much to hide walking down the street with the exception of the occasional nose itch

http://athens.indymedia.org

(start quote)

"On Friday 17/3/2006, at about 11 in the morning, anarchists comrades burned the operation boxes (cafao) of two police cameras in the Votanikos area of Athens. The first one is situated at the crossroad of Constantinoupoleos St. and Iera Odos, while the second one at the crossroad of Cavala Av. and Sp. Pachi St.

SABOTAGE THE SOCIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS

BURN DOWN THE CAMERAS

THE FIGHT GOES ON

More at http://athens.indymedia.org/display.php?articleId=9363

In over a year hundreds of police cameras have been destroyed by Greek anarchists. Previous actions with some photos can be found at

http://athens.indymedia.org/display.php?articleId=8576
* http://athens.indymedia.org/display.php?articleId=3116
* http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=301692
* http://athens.indymedia.org/old/front ... =el&article_id=313764#313
* http://athens.indymedia.org/display.php?articleId=4339
* http://athens.indymedia.org/display.php?articleId=1829
* http://athens.indymedia.org/display.php?articleId=7802
* http://athens.indymedia.org/display.php?articleId=6382
* http://athens.indymedia.org/display.php?articleId=5795
* http://athens.indymedia.org/display.php?articleId=2578
* http://athens.indymedia.org/old/front ... =el&article_id=264055#264
* http://athens.indymedia.org/old/front ... =el&article_id=115792#115
* http://athens.indymedia.org/old/front ... =el&article_id=88172#8818

( end Quote )

Source -

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/03/336351.html?c=on#c144840

Trolling, Trolling, keep those inflamatory posts trolling...yee hah

OK seriously tho...

Please note I am not implying that security cameras should be smashed/burned/hacked into, it's just that they should have a public acess law allowing the public the same acess to the cameras that the police have. One of the hallmarks of a Fascist society is that the police state can monitor the people, but the people can't monitor the state. For example, you cannot photograph chemical plants, bridges, tunnels, PATH trains etc. Now if you had a system where all the cameras accessable to the police are available for public viewing like online then there would be less worry of 1984.

Quote:

N.Y.C.'s crime fight to get more eyes

Commish orders 505 surveillance cams

BY ALISON GENDAR and MICHAEL SAUL
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said he is seeking $81.5 million in federal aid for additional electronic surveillance.

New Yorkers, get ready for your closeup.
The NYPD is installing 505 surveillance cameras around the city - and pushing to safeguard lower Manhattan with a "ring of steel" that could track hundreds of thousands of people and cars a day, authorities revealed yesterday.

The police cameras will constantly keep watch over neighborhoods plagued by crime and monitor potential terror targets as the city moves to put another 1,200 cops on the street, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.

The exact locations of the cameras were not revealed, but the electronic eyes will be set up in 253 spots, including many Operation Impact zones - high-crime areas already targeted by teams of cops.

"They'll serve to reinforce safety already stabilized by Operation Impact, and serve as a high-visibility deterrent and investigative tool in other outdoor, public places," Kelly said.

Recording high-quality images, the electronic sentinels will help the city's Finest track down criminals and terrorists as well as provide valuable evidence to convict them.

Most of the cameras will be clearly marked so crooks know that their every move is being recorded by the cops.

The NYPD is also testing audio sensors that would allow the cameras to point in the direction of gunshots, sources said. The cameras will be put up in Brooklyn first before spreading to other boroughs.

City Hall is paying for the cameras using $9.1million in homeland security funds.

The NYPD also has applied for $81.5 million in federal aid to install surveillance cameras, computerized license plate readers and vehicle barriers around lower Manhattan, Kelly said.

The security measures would be similar to London's "ring of steel," which gained worldwide recognition after that city's terror attacks of last July, when police cameras provided images of the suspected bombers.

The NYPD has no comprehensive system to monitor the Financial District - considered the nation's No. 1 terror target - and a team of five NYPD experts visited London in September to get a look at the "ring of steel."

Aboveground, London has cameras posted at 16 entry points and 12 exits from the City of London, an enclave that includes that city's financial district and landmarks such as St. Paul's Cathedral.

The cameras capture images of license plates and drivers' faces. Officials then run the license plates through a database of stolen cars and terrorism suspects. Last year, the system read 37 million cars and got 91,000 hits, leading to 550 arrests.

The NYPD will find out by the end of May whether it will receive the federal money. New York officials have also discussed the possibility of creating a similar surveillance system for midtown Manhattan.

Law enforcement and transportation agencies already have about 1,000 cameras in the subways, with 2,100 scheduled to be in place by 2008. An additional 3,100 cameras are monitoring city housing projects.

Thousands of other cameras at private buildings and apartment towers also train lenses on New Yorkers and often provide valuable clues to cops.

But don't expect the NYPD to install its cameras without battling the New York Civil Liberties Union. The watchdog group's associate legal director, Chris Dunn, questioned the plan.

"Commissioner Kelly may be ready to launch us all into a surveillance society, but we believe cameras are not a cure-all for crime and terrorism," Dunn said. "It is far from clear that cameras deter crime."

Originally published on March 21, 2006

New York City has plenty of CCTV cameras, but when a crime is commited in view any of the nearby privately owned cameras NYPD grabs the video or still image from the countless businesses that have cameras showing the outside front of their places. My 8 block walk to work in midtown from Port Authority I estimate I pass through 30-50 cameras depending on the route I walk. Those are not inlcuding the ones in the actual Port Authority bus terminal. But I do walk through Times Square which I bet actually has 50 cameras cameras. The building I work in I can count 7 cameras at least on the outside of the building that show the sidewalks.

Annod-

Thanks for the article and I think we would all agree that the city has been behind the curve with regards to cameras, in any capacity. In downtown up to this point we haven't had any.

As you can see from some of the previous posts some people are skeptical from the "big brother is always watching" standpoint and I would suspect that even with those people there is more trust for the police to have access to cameras, than any/all neighbors. The JC CCTV program has not been set up in a way for the public to view it.

Personally, I think more cameras in downtown is a good thing. They clearly will not solve all the problems we are having but they will act as a deterrent and is unfortunately a reflection of the environment today. The goal is certainly not to use them to give traffic tickets or fines but rather to help with real crime. Most large cities have put in place a substantial camera program and we are playing catch up - this is a way to start moving forward without taxpayers paying.

Steve

I just saw a report on UPN 9 about the surveillance cameras in East Orange. Residents can go on the web and see what is going on in their neighborhood. If they see something going on, they can report it. There is also an acoustic gunshot sensor that listens for gunshots. Neat. Is Jersey City looking into all this, Steve?

Your Neighbor Now Works For the Man

CALLING ALL EYES
E. Orange seeks volunteers to tell of crime via Web
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
BY KEVIN C. DILWORTH
Star-Ledger Staff

The East Orange Police Department is getting ready to greatly enlarge its public safety ranks, with what's being called the Virtual Community Patrol, Police Director Jose Cordero said yesterday.

Soon-to-be-chosen residents will get access to a a Web site that provides panoramic views of their block, allows them to type in general complaints, pinpoint a problem location, immediately send that information to police headquarters, and simultaneously activate hidden police surveillance cameras, Cordero said.

A quick google search came up with these 2 stories from the UK (who have had CCTV long before the US). The first one is a report on a study from 2002 that suggests that CCTV doens't prevent or deter crime, but does make it easier to detect it (although it does help in stopping property crimes)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2192911.stm

The second is a story about how police started writing more traffic tickets using the cameras for things like double parking and other violations, so while taxpayers may not have to pay in taxes, we all may be paying in higher fines

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22750-2079711,00.html

Quote:

The idea of cameras on every street corner does seem a bit Orwellian, but it really is no different as having an officer on every corner (as far as privacy is concerned). You really don't have a right to privacy if you're in public anyway but the idea of someone watching you when you think you're alone is a little creepy.

I propose installing security cameras in everyone's bedrooms and bathrooms, so that you don't do drugs or other untoward activities.

Signed

Big Brother

Case in point, as I was reading this thread, this story came on the TV:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/brucia/031506_sentencing_ctv.html

Muffilator
I think that most of the new buildings are installing cameras anyway,what this will do is make everyone use the same brand that will be compatible with the police dept.system.
This way if the doorman is watching the monitor and see's something going on he can call the police and say "check camera 619".At least that is what i hope this ord.is for.
If you just take the two buildings being built by the Grove street path and install cameras on each corner, that would be a great help.They should also install signs that tell people that this area is under surveillance.
This is a very simple thing that can have a big impact.It is important that Fulop comes up with idea's to improve safety since he is the one complaining about the police upper management.Smart move.

Quote:
The JCPD cameras are viewed in real time and probably have digital storage as well. I sometimes monitor the police frequencies and have heard first hand how efective they can be. When a call comes in, the people viewing the cameras will switch to the camera in that area and can keep a suspect in view and direct a car or officer to his exact location. Sometimes the bad guy travels out of range of the available cameras and is lost so the more cameras, the better.

I'd support this. More and more these days, I read about how cameras like the ones you are proposing, are helping law enforcement. It's a shame that it's come to this, but I'm behind it 100%.

Great idea Steve, Thank You! We never can have enough security. I wonder if there is a way, that when a call is made from one of these monitored buildings, the police could somehow dial into the cameras and better assess the situation before the patrolmen actually arrive. It might better prepare them for the situation they are responding to. It might be a valuable tool for the Fire Department as well.

Great work Steve, hopefully this goes through.

muffilator, I believe the cameras just record to tape or digital storage, and would only be accessed if there's a reason (no one is sitting around watching the cameras). The reason they need to be compatible with the police system is most likely to ensure the quality of the images as well as the ability of the police to view the tape/disk at the station or courthouse.

The price of these systems has fallen dramatically over the last few years (we have one in my 16 unit building), and should not be an issue for a large building, especially for the amount of security it provides.

I appreciate your ideas to make Jersey City safer - although I am not one of your constituents, if the city is safer, I am safer.

I am curious who will monitor the cameras once they are installed. I assume from the press release that since the cameras have to be compatible with JCPD?s camera system, that they will do the monitoring. Are there funds ready to hire extra officers to monitor the feed from the cameras? If not, are we diverting street patrol officers to monitoring duties? Ideally, we could add beat cops and have the cameras. Also, who is responsible for maintenance ? what if a camera breaks? If it is the developer, how do we make sure they maintain the camera?

I mentioned this at several community meetings over the past two months, as we are all working towards a safer Jersey City.

The ordinance will be on the next council agenda and I am posting the press release just to keep you all in the loop.

Best Regards,
Steven Fulop

------Press Release-----

COUNCILMAN FULOP PROPOSES SECURITY CAMERA ORDINANCE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS
Developers, not taxpayers to pay for added security

(JERSEY CITY) ? Councilman Steve Fulop plans to introduce a municipal ordinance that would require developers of commercial and residential units to abide by new, stricter security measures that would require the implementation of security cameras consistent with the Jersey City Police Department CCTV camera system.

The ordinance requires that all newly constructed residential dwellings, including large condominium complexes and industrial structures of more than 25 units shall provide for the installation and maintenance of security cameras in accordance with a plan approved by the Construction Code Official and the Chief of Police. The cameras will be installed as to maintain continuous surveillance of the public streets adjacent to the units and shall conform to standards adopted by the city for CCTV cameras.

The ordinance goes on to detail the penalties for units that are not in compliance.

"This ordinance will go a long way in making our city safer while expanding the CCTV program, at no cost to taxpayers. This is a way that developers can continue to help the community by making our streets safer and working with our police with the tools they need to prevent crime," said Councilman Fulop.

"The cameras will be at no cost to taxpayers, making both the streets and the development projects safer. I think this is a real win-win situation for Jersey City," added Fulop.

# # # # #