Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Alki Issue Makes National News in Relation to Boston Bombings ~
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 18, 2013 at 4:58 pm #607202
CountingCoupMemberApril 21, 2013 at 1:41 am #788465
DhlMemberThank God for cameras! If you have privacy issues, talk to the victims fam in Boston. Good people RULE!
April 21, 2013 at 3:24 am #788466
JanSParticipantdhl…I have had no problem with the cameras. I didn’t understand what the big gripe was. When summer gets here, people at Alki will be grateful for them, if something gets out of hand, I’m thinking.
April 21, 2013 at 12:39 pm #788467
BearsChickParticipantAnytime I chime in recently I’m shot down…but here I go again. Yes, I’m still against Alki’s surveillance cameras because SPD isn’t being honest about their intent. Boston…between business and personal cell phones, we were covered. And that’s my point. Regardless of police cameras, as a public, between business and personal cells, we are already under 24 hour surveillance. Boston proved this. And I’m ok with that.
April 21, 2013 at 5:02 pm #788468
DBPMemberWhy stop at 24 hours? I want 25-hour surveillance, and I want it on every street corner, starting with mine.
And I want it backed up by more citizen spies.
People said the “Rat on a Jaywalker” program was intrusive once, too, remember? That it was overkill. But where are those critics today?
I’m tired of living in constant fear of privacy. Let’s get those cameras and Klieg lights up NOW!
April 21, 2013 at 5:24 pm #788469
JiggersMemberIt’s sad to see what our great country was, to has become. If you haven’t read Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged yet,(I have read it myself) maybe now is a good time to start thinking how western civilization as we know it will fall. That book is supposed to be Fiction. But it is so real, it could be re-catergorized. Who is John Gault? Interesting timeline in the story although a lot of it is drivel.If you can understand her drivel then it will resonate.
April 21, 2013 at 5:49 pm #788470
elikapekaParticipantBearsChick, I agree with you. Between everyone’s cell phone cameras, private systems and even traffic cameras, we’ve already lost most of our privacy. But government has a different standard to meet. We live in more dangerous times, but we must balance that with living in an open society. When the City didn’t notify anyone in advance of the Alki camera installation and then wasn’t truthful about it subsequently, it looked very Orwellian.
There’s a difference between using surveillance to track down people that have and may continue to kill and maim and terrorize, and using surveillance to catch traffic violations for the sake of filling city coffers. It’s a matter of degree and proportion. That’s a challenge we’ll have to work out as a society.
And Atlas Shrugged – John Rogers says it better than I can: “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
April 21, 2013 at 6:16 pm #788471
JiggersMemberAtlas Shrugged is a bit tough for a fourteen year old to tackle.
April 21, 2013 at 6:35 pm #788472
DBPMemberelikapeka I would take your analysis a step further. We need to get beyond this question of “How much surveillance can we tolerate?” and starting asking ourselves a different question altogether. And that question is: Does surveillance even work?
My answer to that is: No it doesn’t. Not very well. It generally doesn’t prevent crime, any more than the so-called war on terror has prevented terror.
* * * * * * * *
How could we have prevented the Boston bombings? I don’t know. It’s not simple. But the fact that there was plenty of surveillance already in place in Boston proves that surveillance was not an effective deterrent. And surveillance doesn’t help at all against suicide attackers, of course, because they’re not around to be captured later anyway. Ditto for gun psychos.
In the meantime, we may be missing the boat on developing better interdiction techniques, because we’re putting all our eggs into the surveillance basket.
April 21, 2013 at 7:40 pm #788473
maplesyrupParticipantCan’t remember the source, but I read/heard that the reason cameras are effective is not because the footage can be reviewed to identify perpetrators, but because the knowledge that they exist is a substantial deterrent for would-be criminals. In other words, if criminals know they’re being watched they are less likely to commit a crime. That leads me to conclude that private business cameras and citizens with smart phones are not an answer.
April 22, 2013 at 1:12 am #788474
elikapekaParticipantI’m not thinking of it in terms of prevention, and I don’t think it’s very effective for that purpose. The idea of a whole staff of people that sit and watch real time video all day creeps me out – too intrusive and probably not a good return on investment of time and/or effort for the few things that would be caught. And it’s just simply too much of an invasion of privacy.
But it certainly was effective in this case in quickly identifying and tracking down the perpetrators. And since they still had bombs and lots of weaponry/ammunition, it’s pretty clear that future events were in fact stopped. So I think it has a place after the fact. The challenge is what’s worth going after. A terrorist, yes. Jaywalkers, no. And where on that continuum we draw the line is going to be a huge topic of discussion.
April 22, 2013 at 1:34 am #788475
maplesyrupParticipantSure. But isn’t the idea behind the Alki cameras to reduce the amount of petty street crime and general thuggery we’ve seen escalate recently? And will government monitors really be watching you emerge from Pepperdocks with an ice cream cone? (Sgt. Wojohowitz, is that cookie dough or rocky road?) They’ll probably rely on the footage as needed.
And in the meantime if the cameras are publicized they can serve as a deterrent. I could be wrong, but that’s how I see the Alki cameras being used. And if I’m wrong then I’d be more inclined to agree with you.
April 22, 2013 at 2:07 am #788476
elikapekaParticipantMapleSyrup, sorry, I meant to respond to your example in my response earlier. Yes, I do agree with you that there is probably some deterrent value in just knowing cameras are there. You can see that in action with the speed camera van by OLG on 35th. Pretty much everybody knows it’s there now and people actually slow down on that stretch of road. It’s also why businesses often have cameras up that aren’t operational or have signs that they have a security system, even if they don’t.
But I still see the main benefit, if you want to call it that, of camera systems as being collection of evidence and information after something has happened.
It all still makes me kind of uneasy, though.
April 22, 2013 at 5:19 am #788477
WSBKeymasterJust for accuracy’s sake, since we have covered this one since a couple of WSB readers first pointed out the unannounced cameras’ installation:
The stated/procured purpose was NOT to deter/solve/fight street crime. It was “port security.” This is where much of the hue and cry originated once the camera plan came to light two and a half months ago – not all from people opposed to the idea of cameras; many were concerned about the fact the installation was done without the public being told/asked first. How that happened has never really been explained thoroughly, aside from one police official saying somebody somewhere dropped the proverbial ball. They have continued to address public concerns as if they were only concerns about privacy.
Once it was explained they were purchased through a “port security” grant from the Department of Homeland Security – authorized last year without any mention of cameras in recreational/residential areas – the questions included, what is “port security” about a camera over the Fauntleroy ferry dock bus stop or the Statue of Liberty Plaza (including cameras that originally were turned away from the water)?
SPD eventually, at City Council/Mayoral request, gave some briefings and said that street-crime fighting would be a benefit (along with a variety of others).
Also, though somehow they’re being referred to as the “Alki cameras,” just wanted to remind folks that they are not just Alki. There’s one in Admiral, one in Fauntleroy, and then dozens more slated for elsewhere in the city, some installed, some not yet, stretching to the Ballard vicinity. One of our original reports included a reference to an SFD tech official quoted last year as saying it could/would eventually be part of an even bigger citywide system. It’s all tied to a wireless communication system – designed to work, SPD said, with or without the cameras – that will enable public-safety personnel to communicate even if regular wireless networks get overwhelmed.
We don’t editorialize, so this is not a pro/con statement. Just the background. Our coverage archive (reverse chronological), for anyone interested, is at:
https://westseattleblog.com/category/seattle-police-surveillance-cameras
-Tracy
P.S. And if anyone wants to voice an opinion, pro/con or otherwise, the mayor has yet to announce his decision on activating them – last time we asked, they said they were awaiting more public meetings to be scheduled by SPD – so I’m sure he’s still interested in hearing thoughts from the citizenry.
April 22, 2013 at 7:53 am #788478
inactiveMemberNot 100% sure where, but I believe I read somewhere since this blew up here in WS that a state(s) back east actually have been awarded homeland security grants specifically for gang unit funding. I thought it odd nobody has seemed to pick that up, but I certainly haven’t read everything there is on the matter. And there is always that chance that what I read was not accurate…of course.
April 22, 2013 at 2:56 pm #788479
maplesyrupParticipantAh, thank you for the clarification, Tracy. My mistake.
April 22, 2013 at 3:26 pm #788480
DBPMemberLet me be crystal clear: I’m not willing to trade what little privacy we have left for the possibility that a few terrorists might be caught a little sooner. Feel free to disagree, but that’s my position.
I’m quite glad that the Alki cameras were stopped in their tracks (for now.) I’m also glad that the drone program was axed (for now.) I thought most of West Seattle felt the same way, and I hope people don’t go running for the exits now, just because of what happened in Boston.
Like I said in another thread, what happened in Boston affects you ALMOST NOT AT ALL.
In comparison, having cameras watching you 24/7 in Seattle affects you quite a bit. You’re not only losing your rights here, you’re sacrificing quality of life. How can you relax on the beach with your friends with cameras pointed at you? That sucks.
People rushing into the arms of Big Brother over the isolated act of a lunatic . . . it’s disgraceful.
Dude . . . where’s my country?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.