New York City to get London-style "surveillance veil"

It looks like New York City will soon be seeing a slew of new ever-watchful eyes, as The New York Times reports that the city is set to get a London-style "surveillance veil" that would eventually consist of thousands of cameras monitoring vehicles and individuals alike. Dubbed the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, the system will initially include more than 100 cameras that are expected to be in place by the end of this year, each of which will be able to read license plates and send out alerts is suspect vehicles are detected. That appears to just be the tip of the iceberg, however, with some 3,000 public and privately-owned cameras set to be put into service by the end of 2008, along with a series of pivoting gates that'll be installed at critical intersections, giving authorities the ability to block off traffic at the push of a button. From there it'll apparently grow even further, with the entire operation expected to be up and running by 2010. No word on head-mounted cams as of yet though.

[EDomain @ Jul 9th 2007 5:56PM]

...and so it begins

[Dave @ Jul 9th 2007 6:00PM]

So on the next "9/11" they'll have the money shots from even more angles.

[narco @ Jul 9th 2007 6:03PM]

Scary isn't even the right word for this.

Fishes,
narco.

[Cellenin @ Jul 9th 2007 6:07PM]

It is about time.

[Tim Goldsmith @ Jul 10th 2007 9:31AM]

i definitely agree that it is about time. this will prevent crime so much and if something bad DOES happen, the cameras will be able to record all of it and allow the authorities to identify criminals/terrorists so that they can be taken off the streets. i think i would feel much safer knowing that there is a watchful eye on public streets. and you cant complain about privacy invasion because you shouldnt be doing anything on a public street unless you are willing to have other people see it.

[Schizoman @ Jul 9th 2007 6:04PM]

Note the lack of mentioning face recognition technology which is kind of inevitable and street blocking gates, how long until entire areas are blocked off to free roaming and you need a pass to get into the nicer areas of New York?

Imagine all the roadworks that'll be required to install those gates, New Yorkers are going to LOVE that.

The timing after the failed UK attacks are interesting too...

Big Brother control freak elitism pwns.

[Law @ Jul 10th 2007 4:23AM]

Paranoid much?

[Thomas @ Jul 9th 2007 6:09PM]

Its amazing how many people will have problems with this. Whats so wrong with keeping an eye on the streets, as long as they don't put cameras right into my house then I don't care. You should only have to worry about these advancements if your doing something you shouldn't be. I say bring on the added security and peace of mind.

[comcipher+crap @ Jul 9th 2007 6:17PM]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

[! @ Jul 9th 2007 6:27PM]

It's amazing how many people won't have a problem with this.

[yoshi @ Jul 9th 2007 6:24PM]

Never underestimate the power of the government - and by "government", I mean the humans who make up the government - to abuse whatever little piece of power you give them. They are very clever that way. The best way to prevent them from doing so is to give them nothing to abuse.

[Dave @ Jul 9th 2007 7:01PM]

Hitler could have said the same thing. As long as the German citizens weren't doing anything wrong, and harboring Jews, they had nothing to fear. Anyone who implicitly trusts their government does not believe in fundamental American ideals. You might as well live in a dictatorship.

[Jake Tobak @ Jul 9th 2007 7:25PM]

Um, they're not gonna be sitting behind these cameras jerking off to everybody that passes by. These are here for our safety. Benjamin Franklin may have been pretty cool and "with it", but just cause he says something doesn't make it 100% truth.
People who implicitly hate the government are worse, imo, than those who "implicitly trust" it.

[p-diddy @ Jul 9th 2007 7:25PM]

Thomas, do you really thing the cameras are somehow going to not look into people's windows as they scan? I think Google's vans showed if it's visible from the street, it will get captured.

Yeesh, I know I don't have an expectancy of privacy when I'm out in public but that doesn't mean I want to be taped all the time.

[p-diddy @ Jul 9th 2007 7:36PM]

Well Jake, considering the bang up job the government has been doing keeping us safe and capturing terrorists, pardon my skepticism at their altruistic motives.

Christ. It's not like any of us bitching on Engadget is going to do anything. Whatever. I wish we could just skip the slippery slope crap and jump ahead 15 years when the US is completely a police state. I'm so sick of caring when no one else does or how people just accept the government's "protection" from ourselves.

Our worst enemy is our own apathy.

-p-

[Dave @ Jul 9th 2007 7:36PM]

@Jake

I don't "hate" the government any more than the government hates me--but since I'm not asking to film all Congressmen and law enforcement personnel as they go about their daily tasks, I'd say I "trust" them far more than they trust American citizens.

[Othello @ Jul 9th 2007 8:13PM]

@Dave: Just in case you were wondering, there's a big push going on right now to make the filming of police illegal.

[James @ Jul 9th 2007 10:19PM]

Thomas, let's hear that opinion again when somebody in the NY traffic-cam department with a vendetta against you posts a video of you picking your ass with your hand inside your pants on YouTube and it gets a hundred thousand views.

[StrongBad18 @ Jul 9th 2007 6:16PM]

"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither"

Big Brother is watching.

[barb newberg @ Jul 9th 2007 7:42PM]

Extensive use of these cameras is overkill and an invasion of privacy. This will not make NY a more attractive place to visit and will have a chilling effect on all kinds of spontaneous behavior at all times of day. I say NIMBY on this idea.

[RikF @ Jul 9th 2007 8:16PM]

What sort of 'spontaneous' behaviour do you think it will curb? Spontaneous muggings? Spontaneous hit-and-runs?

[Zarniwoop @ Jul 9th 2007 6:56PM]

I, for one, bow down to our new voyeuristic overlords...

Mooning the camera of course!

[PynkFloydd @ Jul 9th 2007 7:00PM]

Yay! The quote game!! I wanna play! I wanna play!
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
? President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918, during WWI

...but seriously, with the popularity of home surveillance items such as webcams and government spying (AT&T aka NSA), it's just a matter of time until we start getting sued for doing things like sharing files or something. ...oh. ...wait.

[p-diddy @ Jul 9th 2007 7:54PM]

I can play too!!

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

-- Martin Niemöller

You shouldn't let it go just because "you have nothing to hide."

[Zach @ Jul 10th 2007 1:54AM]

I'm next!

"If you give a mouse a cookie..."
-Laura Joffe Numeroff

the point is, if you start giving in a little to the government on small demands, they will always demand more and more and finally where will we end up?

[Grant @ Jul 9th 2007 7:31PM]

You guys have no idea how effective these cameras are.

I live in a pub and partake in our local communities 'Pub net'. We use a radio system to alert, and be alerted by CCTV of any individuals that should be either picked up by the police, or watched by CCTV due to drunkenness, violence, etc.

CCTV should only bother those who have something to hide. It's a step towards protection, don't fear it - embrace it.

[Dave @ Jul 9th 2007 7:40PM]

Grant,

My father didn't defect from Cuba because he didn't feel safe. His government kept him quite safe. There are greater things to fear than drunks. What you have to "hide" depends on what your government decides is or is not acceptable. The cameras will still be there--even if the laws change.

[PynkFloydd @ Jul 9th 2007 7:43PM]

For the most part, most of the cameras intalled out here so far have been to raise revenue for the state (red light traffic camera, etc.). There's nothing to prevent them from using any subsequent cameras in the same way. When they finally give us (in the U.S.) a national health care system, maybe I'll start to embrace it too. Until then, let me enjoy being drunk and obnoxious in public!

[Zach @ Jul 10th 2007 1:58AM]

Why would I ever want to spend MORE on taxes just to have some national health care system so that smokers, obese, and the "depressed" (the group of people who feel that they are depressed when really they can stfu) can be cared for thanks to their ineptitude.

Sorry, no thanks. I get health care through my job and even then, I rarely have to use it. I don't have a long wait for procedures and my meds still cost next to nothing. Once again, why would I want a national health care system?

[SugarDaddy @ Jul 10th 2007 10:36AM]

Zach,

I don't know how we got to national health care from surveillance cameras... Either way, you are a nasty person. First of all, if there was national health care then your company would not have to pay for health insurance. Socialized health care has a much lower overhead than privatized, therefore you would actually pay less in new taxes than you would get back on your salary. And no matter what job you went to, you would be covered even during the interim. When you lay out all the benefits (including societal, which you seem to be completely unaware of), there is no reason we should NOT have national health care. HMOs stand to lose a lot of money, which is why there is so much disinformation on the subject.

[DorianGray @ Jul 10th 2007 4:03PM]

@SugarDaddy

Internal Revenue Service
Department of Education
US Passport Office
Your local Motor Vehicle Administration

State and Federal agencies that are run for shit and are Rube Goldberg efficient. And I should want a federal agency to run my healthcare now too? Have you *been* to a government "service" agency recently? I live in DC. Dude, you don't want a gov't service agency responsible for your health and life.

[marlonuf @ Jul 9th 2007 7:39PM]

Ok, if I look at the pros and cons of this, I am left comparing the US (in particular NYC) to the book 1984. Say what you want but this isn't a good thing. I think too much power in government leads to eventual abuse and misuse of the power, irrespective of the "good intentions". That being said, some will disagree, but at the end of the day the better questions are: 1) What's next 2) What's too intrusive 3) And what will this really prevent... (to parallel the third question, look to all the failed/breached security devices that were in place to prevent a 9/11 from occurring).

These are just my thoughts, don't mean to offend anyone, just thought I would chime in...

[Arnie @ Jul 9th 2007 7:59PM]

What the people dont realize is the already amazing benefit these cameras have brought to the city of London. I mean look at the convictions of terrorists and the people they have to catch after terrorist attack attempts etc. etc. is very convenient.
I had briefly worked on surveillance and the problem is that in most cases these things are only viable to catch someone or find out information after a crime has occurred. The information coming in is so much that it is impossible to stop an attack since the intimidation angle hardly works for terrorists who is anyways going to blow himself up.

[Dave @ Jul 9th 2007 8:12PM]

Where's all the footage from 7/7? Oh, yeah--all the cameras were broken. OH! And you shot the wrong guy... Great system you guys have over there.

[Dave @ Jul 9th 2007 8:21PM]

Sorry. I just re-read your comment and realized that you were probably against the cameras. I think...

[sean.jennings @ Jul 10th 2007 8:54AM]

As a Londoner I can confirm Arnie is right whereas Dave obviously knows nothing about about 7/7 and all the subsequent terrorism attempts.

The 7/7 bombers were all caught on video and their journey traced-backwards allowing the discovery of a car containing explosives.

The 21/7 bombers whose bombs failed to detonate were all captured after their pictures from security-cameras were circulated, and this helped secure their convictions this week.

[Dave @ Jul 10th 2007 9:38AM]

"They list evidence which apparently doesn't add up. For example, the official Home Office report into the bombings stated that the four bombers caught the 7.40am train from Luton to London. However, there was no 7.40 that morning, it had been cancelled. The Home Secretary, John Reid, apologized for the error in parliament, blaming erroneous first-hand witness accounts.

Whichever train the bombers did catch, when they got to London, there appears to be no photograph of the 4 of them together in the capital - no CCTV either, despite London having one of the highest numbers of surveillance cameras of any city in the world."

And you shot Jean Charles de Menezes for wearing a coat. The UK and the US are becoming alarmists. You still have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being the victim of a terrorist attack. Why don't our governments do something about the lightning if they're so worried about our safety? Perhaps federally mandated lightning rods on every home? Mandatory non-conductive body-suits?

Try to keep one eye half-open as you cower in fear.

[Zach @ Jul 9th 2007 8:18PM]

If Google can do it, why can't the government?

[p-diddy @ Jul 9th 2007 8:24PM]

Because the Constitution protects us from the government but does not protect us from other private citizens.

[Chaya @ Jul 10th 2007 12:52AM]

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Anything that you can be seen doing in public can be photographed or filmed. (Goes way back to Katz v US in 1966, where the court rules that there are places where we have reasonable expectations of privacy (our homes) and places where we don't (public streets).

if half of 5th Ave. can see you running down the street with an old lady's purse, why shouldn't the govt. be able to film you running down the street? On the same note, if you pick your nose while walking down the street, why can't someone take your picture? TMZ catches celebs all the time. http://www.tmz.com/2007/02/17/pick-a-winner/ Are you so special?

[Zach @ Jul 10th 2007 2:03AM]

Chaya, that's a good agonizing point, however, you need to make the distinction between a private and public (the gov) entity.

I don't pay taxes to TMZ to film that crap. There also isn't much fear involved with TMZ coming back later and going "Oh, well we can film anything. you can't film police brutality."

Show me some statistics that proves that cameras in London have actually made a great impact. IMHO they're a waste of time and money.

[Chris @ Jul 9th 2007 8:29PM]

For all you legal eagle's ... there is no legal expectation of privacy when you are in a public place. Therefore, there is no infringement of civil liberties, therefore the repeated quotes from Benjamin Franklin demonstrate that you don't know your ass from your mouth.

Okay, discuss...

[p-diddy @ Jul 9th 2007 8:38PM]

Dear Chris, I feel that being surveilled all the time will have a chilling effect on my willingness to speak my mind in those public places that have traditionally been set aside for public debate. Additionally, it will also infringe on my freedom of association because now I will be afraid to gather in a public place for such debate because I will be linked to the guy standing next to me who is in fact a terrorist, even though I've never seen him before in my life.

You have more liberties than the Privacy Rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment (and as they are incorporated into the States under the 14th Amendment). But I guess only those of us that don't know our asses from our mouth would think that, right?

-p-

[Marshall @ Jul 10th 2007 11:56AM]

While there is no expectation of privacy there is an expectation that law enforcement will get a warrant or have reasonable cause to start survelliance on someone. Prior to these cameras, that surveilance was forward in time only. Now that the capacity theoretically exists to retroactively review someones entire outdoor life, just because they have the wrong friends, I think we need some additional checks and balances.

[Chris @ Jul 9th 2007 9:33PM]

Dear Mr. Vote or Die,

There you go again... stuff that should be coming out of your ass is coming out of your mouth.

What you present are unsound legal arguments that would never hold up in court. The principal I have stated, that there is no legal expectation of privacy in public places, is established legal precedent. Even the ACLU would agree with me (although they would probably still fight it).

Additionally, I was not saying it was good or bad to install cameras. I was saying that the government has the right to do so. I was attempting to frame the discussion how it should be framed, that is in terms of right and wrong, not in terms of government legality. Otherwise it is pointless. This is not one that can be reasonably fought in the courts; however, it can be fought by lobbying your elected officials.

I also want to thank you for demonstrating Godwin's Law in near record time.

[PynkFloydd @ Jul 9th 2007 9:37PM]

Please see comment directed at you (by me) below...

[p-diddy @ Jul 9th 2007 11:08PM]

I'm not saying it's about privacy. I'm saying it may have a detrimental affect on Free Speech. Completely difference civil liberties.

>> I was saying that the government has the right to do so.

Reread your post. You never ONCE said this. You said you have no right to privacy and therefore it is not an infringement of your civil liberties. My reply was that while, yes, it does not infringe a right to privacy, a right covered by your Fourth Amendment civil liberties, it may in fact have a deleterious affect on people exercising their First Amendment civil liberties of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.

I know there is legal precedent for being recorded in general in public. But, unless you can direct me otherwise, there has not been a mass surveillance of this nature in the US. I know the government has the right to install the cameras. I'm just saying I don't think they should and there are Constitutionally motivated reasons why they shouldn't (not that they can't). And if you know of precedent supporting mass surveillance versus ordinary surveillance, please provide it because I don't think it exists and I think there IS a difference.

For example, the NAACP does not have to disclose it's member list. If I was a member of the NAACP, and I thought I was being recorded ALL THE TIME, I may be less likely to attend a rally that the NAACP was throwing. It's not a privacy issue, it's a freedom of association issue. What if I wasn't a member of the NAACP. I also have the freedom not to be associated with a particular group. Just because I passed by and stopped to listen for a minute doesn't mean I am associated with them. If I thought I was being recorded all the time, I may cut a wide swath and avoid it all together.

Lastly, the Nazi reference was part of the quote game. It is a poem that was written about how people need to stand up for others. I never claimed that this administration was comparable to the Nazis, therefore I never invoked Godwin's Law.

[Chris @ Jul 10th 2007 9:10AM]

Mr. Diddy -

A cop is allowed to stroll down the street and look around with his own eyes. If this chills your speech, than that is your problem. The only thing it can reasonably be expected to chill is your propensity to perform an illegal act.

Legally speaking, there is no difference between a cop walking down the street patrolling and a cop in the operations center watching on CCTV.

Now-you make the argument that surveilling en masse changes the constitutionality. Well I would argue that we have been doing this for a long time in varying ways and degrees. At public events or demonstrations, over which you express the chilling effect of cameras on your First Amendment freedoms, you are guaranteed a strong police presence to keep the peace. Also, where I am at least, Washington, DC metroplex, there are multiple traffic cameras at almost every intersection.

Ask yourself this: What has the larger chilling effect on speech, the 50 cops that have been dispatched in uniform with firearms to your demonstration, or a ubiquitous camera array?

You can take the parting shot.

[Sarah @ Jul 12th 2007 5:11PM]

You could of course have a copyrighted tshirt or a copyrighted video where you own the rights playing as you are caught on these cameras and then sue under copyright.

Seems a sad state of affairs where you have no rights to protect yourself from being monitored and recorded in this way but if it is a video or movie instead of a person that is captured on the camera then we will pin them to the wall and take them for every penny

[Jesse @ Jul 9th 2007 8:34PM]

Are we the people actually going to let this happen. We are the voice of this nation.