Boston under surveillance even after the DNC?
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/conventions/articles/2004/07/18/surveillance_targeted_to_convention/
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/07/18/1821223.shtml
“In preparation for the DNC in Boston, 75 cameras monitored by the Federal government will be operating around the downtown Boston location. There are also an unspecified number of state police cameras, and 100 cameras owned by the Metro Boston Transit Authority. Quote: ‘And it’s here to stay: Boston police say the 30 or so cameras installed for the convention will be used throughout the city once the event is over. “We own them now,” said police Superintendent Robert Dunford. “We’re certainly not going to put them in a closet.”‘”
You can’t really blame them. Cameras in public areas isn’t exactly an invasion of privacy, and if they’ve already paid to own them, they might as well use them. If it was a leased system I’d say differently, but it stands to reason that, just as in clerks, honesty through paranoia might improve things a little bit. Besides, somebody’s got to watch the feeds so that means a few more jobs.
ps – where’s the register link to comment properly?
From what I understand the issue isn’t that the cameras are being used, but that they are networking all these, also private cameras and existing cameras.
Private cameras — that’s over the line. I’m not against the use of video surveillance in public per se, butthe efficacy seems suspect. According to the ACLU, the risk of abuse far outweighs any benefit.