Technological eyes and ears for police
There was an interesting article in the Sunday Press about the impact the installation of cameras and noise sensors has had on reducing crime in East Orange. Asbury Park officials should take note.
The technology isn't cheap. Despite getting price breaks from the manufacturer, it cost East Orange about $150,000 to install nearly 100 sensors, which can detect the sound of gunfire, and 18 cameras. But the network covered about half a town that is more than twice as large as Asbury Park and has a worse crime problem.
The results in East Orange have been impressive. Police say crime this year is down 38 percent and shootings are down 30 percent from a year ago. Murders have fallen by half.
The city also is using a "Virtual Community Patrol," which allows selected residents access to a Web site showing views of their neighborhood through the cameras, so they can assist police in reporting crimes in progress.
Police can use all the help they can get in Asbury Park. The cameras and sensors could be a wise investment.
The technology isn't cheap. Despite getting price breaks from the manufacturer, it cost East Orange about $150,000 to install nearly 100 sensors, which can detect the sound of gunfire, and 18 cameras. But the network covered about half a town that is more than twice as large as Asbury Park and has a worse crime problem.
The results in East Orange have been impressive. Police say crime this year is down 38 percent and shootings are down 30 percent from a year ago. Murders have fallen by half.
The city also is using a "Virtual Community Patrol," which allows selected residents access to a Web site showing views of their neighborhood through the cameras, so they can assist police in reporting crimes in progress.
Police can use all the help they can get in Asbury Park. The cameras and sensors could be a wise investment.
posted by Randy Bergmann at 11:35 AM
13 Comments:
More cameras and sensors, huh? What's next? National ID cards with microchips in them that will enable Big Brother to know precisely where each citizen is at any given moment?
Do you ever stop to think, Mr. Bergmann, and wonder why it is that your proposed solution to virtually every problem invariably involves bigger, more intrusive and more costly government?
I knew something was up with the cooler weather we're having today. Because Hell has frozen over, I actually agree with something Randy is saying.
I think the idea of cameras and noise sensors makes a lot of sense. I don't think they're intrusive at all. In fact, having them is no different than having extra police on the street watching. And they're cheap compared to the cost of putting a pair of real police eyes in each of those locations.
Perhaps 'Anonymous' would care to provide us with another solution instead of merely complaining?
Police: Cameras NOT Helping Fight Crime Much
Houston Police Chief Wants Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes
Peeping Tom CCTV Workers Jailed
I really wish the APP would get rid of this blog option to post anonymously.
I don't know if the last post by anonymous was the same anonymous I asked for a solution from. If it was, the post was irrelevant. That being said, noting that abuses occur with surveillance doesn't argue against it. Abuses can be found in any system, technique, program or philosophy. Were we to make decisions on the basis of noting imperfection there'd be no acceptible solutions for any problems.
CCTV is a hell of a lot more intrusive than having extra cops on the street. A cop normally isn't 50 feet in the air on a pole using telescopic lenses to look a quarter mile away and into the bedrooms of the neighborhood MILF or Co-ed. He certainly isn't taping what he sees in those bedrooms so that he can take those tapes home for his own enjoyment. You may be all too quick to dismiss these abuses by those entrusted to serve the public, I am not.
Secondly, far from being "irrelevant," pointing out that CCTV has done little in other cities to reduce crime, particularly when Bergmann is claiming different results in East Orange, seems to me to be a valid criticism.
Lastly, and unless and until I am in a position of public trust, I don't have to proffer any "solutions" to anyone for the crime problem in Asbury Park. A taxpayer, it is enough that I express my opinion that domestic spying through the use of costly and intrusive CCTV cameras is a lousy idea.
Don't be ridiculous. Would you feel any better if the cameras were only 6 feet off the ground? I doubt it. As for taping, perhaps you'll be the first to argue that video cameras should be outlawed altogether since they are used that way by the general public, too.
And not being in a position of "public trust" doesn't immunize you from the fact that complaining without offering solutions is silly and selfish. Stop wasting people's time.
"Don't be ridiculous" .... "silly" ... "selfish" ... "Stop wasting people's time" ...
You sure do resort to ad hominem attacks often. Why do you suppose that is? I also take notice of the fact that you often make many comments here on the APP blogs where you are critical but where you neglect to offer "solutions" to whatever problem is being discussed. Hypocrisy fits you well.
With respect to what you wrote, while I am concerned that my neighbor might potentially misuse his camera, my neighbor isn't using my money to purchase that camera (or a large pole upon which he can place that camera) and he certainly isn't acting in my name when he uses that camera, be it properly or improperly. A cop or a CCTV operator collecting a government paycheck is using my money and is acting in my name (and in the name of every other resident of New Jersey). For that reason alone, I am concerned about the costs that taxpayers such as myself will have to pay for CCTV. I am also much more concerned about CCTV abuses that occur at the hands of the government than I am concerned about potential CCTV abuse that might occur at the hands of civilian members of the general public over whom I exercise no control.
How long does anyone think a police camera six feet off the ground is going last in Asbury Park before someone spray paints the lens black or takes a baseball bat to it?
"Stop wasting people's time," but let me write 2 paragraphs about what you wrote. LOL
anonymous wrote:
"With respect to what you wrote, while I am concerned that my neighbor might potentially misuse his camera, my neighbor isn't using my money to purchase that camera..."
So the effect is the same but the response is different. I see. Perhaps the issue isn't government intrusion at all. Is this is just another complaint about taxes?
Abuses occur. So do solutions... of which you offer none.
anonymous wrote:
"How long does anyone think a police camera six feet off the ground is going last in Asbury Park before someone spray paints the lens black or takes a baseball bat to it?"
No one suggested they should put them 6 feet off the ground.
Regarding the ad hominem attacks, I apologize for that. Another 'anonymous' in the previous item was calling me names and I guess I conflated the two of you.
Hence the need to post with a unique name and not 'anonymous'.
Post a Comment
<< Home