The City of Chicago has amost 2000 surveillance cameras, and will be adding another 250 by 2006. The cameras are currently set up at O'Hare International Airport, in public housing overseen by the Chicago Housing Authority, on the city transit lines, in parks, and in schools. These cameras will be tied into the 911 center.
The cameras will be checking for bags abandonded in stairwells, for movement in areas off limits to citizens, for a person falling, and for erratic behavior, among other things.
Mayor Daley was quoted as saying "We own the sidewalk. We own the street and we own the alley." Since these cameras are only in public areas, according to Daley, there will be no invasion of privacy.
In designing the system, representatives studied how the casinos and hotels in Las Vegas used their surveillance cameras. The Pentagon, and London have similar systems. When cameras were installed on the streets of the west side of Chicago last year, drug trafficing cut back, and there were fewer calls to report the sale of drugs on the street.
I'm torn. I can see both sides of this issue. As a law abiding citizen, I don't mind being watched in a public place. If this were to give law enforcement a leg up on detering the incredible incidence of crime, and it seems to function that way, it should be a good thing.
But.....I worry that this could be the start of the slippery slope. If we are observed as we walk to work, or as we drive past certain intersections, will someone eventually create software that will track our activities? I know that it's possible for lawyers to petition the tollway for records showing that someone has used the IPass on a certain day, at a certain time, so we can't be far from it.
How do you feel about it? Give up a little freedom to cut back on potential terrorism and make our streets safer? Or....no cameras....no loss of freedom, but greater risk?
Comments (4)
Since we are in data overload--having vast amounts of data beyond our capacity to process--I'm like you, I don't worry about what pictures they take of us in public (although, I'd hate to see my image published--LOL). I have a bigger problem with people who walk around with their own equipment (especially camera/PDA/phone units) snapping away and sharing at will. (I've kindly offered to stomp on at least one person's PDA when they got out of hand!) There are a lot of privacy issues involved in the power of the Office of Homeland Security.
"Justice Talking", one of my very favorite radio programs, debated the issue just yesterday. What I got to hear of the program was very informative. I was somewhat comforted by emphatic assertions that at least military and civil systems are separated--they do not share databases. We have a long history of separation between military and civilian police agencies (National Guard mobilization for law enforcement not withstanding)--that I surely want preserved.
Only hind sight will answer the slippery slope question.
Posted by Cop Car | September 12, 2004 6:03 AM
Posted on September 12, 2004 06:03
I wish I was a better student of history, Cop Car. I have friends who are paralyzed by the idea that the registration of firearms is the first step in loosing the right to bear arms, and they base that on German history in WWII. I don't know what signs to worry about, so I can't winnow through the news and know what could be a dangerous step toward loosing our freedom. Like you, I'd like to keep the miliary and civil guard separate. I don't think I slept through my civics classes, I just don't think they talked about things like this.
Posted by Buffy | September 12, 2004 10:41 AM
Posted on September 12, 2004 10:41
Mr. Curtis, may his soul rest in peace, was hard put just to teach me what the various branches and executive positions in government were when I was in 8th or 9th grade. I do recall being in awe of one of my fellow (Ward Attebury) 7th graders when he not only knew what a Secretary of State was, but who held the post at that time (probably Dean Atchison, but my recall isn't that good!). Ward was a brainiac (and looked it) and he knew stuff to which I, being a technocrat (before there was such a word) had not been exposed. Both Mr. Curtis and Ward were really neat people to know!
Posted by Cop Car | September 13, 2004 8:16 AM
Posted on September 13, 2004 08:16
And the absolute worst to my mind is that Ward would be called a "geek" or a "nerd," now. It's really too bad that as kids we don't revere our intelligent peers. What was it that made throwing a football such an important thing to our culture?
Posted by Buffy | September 13, 2004 4:24 PM
Posted on September 13, 2004 16:24