New York Police Unveil New Surveillance System

Meet the Domain Awareness System, unveiled today by Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. It was developed by Microsoft.

The Domain Awareness System... aggregates and analyzes information from cameras, license-plate readers, sensors and law enforcement database.

3,000 closed-circuit television cameras are connected to the system, mostly in mid and lower Manahttan.

The system allows investigators to instantly see information including arrest records, 911 calls associated with a suspect and related crimes occurring in a particular area.... It also allows investigators to map crimes to reveal patterns and track where a car associated with a suspect is located and has been in the past.

< The "Over the Top" Tactics Used in Kim Dotcom Raid | An Unnecessary Lesson >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Only makes sense. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 02:36:28 PM EST

    Those 24 ounce drink containers are too easy to smuggle into the city.

    Oh dear (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sj on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    I'm 5ing Abdul :)

    Forgive us lord... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 02:59:58 PM EST
    we know now what we do, and people are b*tchin' that there aren't enough cameras outside of places Bloomberg's buddies would hang out!  

    It's understandable, this surrendering of liberty for temporary safety...if you're in a high crime area, and with all these shootings lately with kids killed in the crossfire...people are scared and people rarely think clearly or think long term when they're scared.  

    But cameras ain't the answer, high speed analyzers & uber-databases ain't the answer....unless the question is "wanna live in a poice state?".

    Job opportunities are the answer, economic and education opportunities are the answer.  Equality under the law is the answer.  Ending the drug war is the answer.  Love is the answer...not endless suspicion, surveillance, fear, and police state madness...and making the Bill of Rights into a mockery.

    I'm know I'm a broken record but it's getting spooky folks.

    I've read that in London, which has more (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 06:12:13 PM EST
    surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the world, crime has not decreased. The cameras do nothing to stop a crime from being committed. At best, they may allow the police to track someone after the fact.

    I think these cameras may give people a false sense of safety. I don't believe I would surrender my liberty even for a guarantee of crime reduction. I am certain I would not willingly surrender that liberty for surveillance program that does not make me safer.

    As with so much of the national security state, these "crime reduction" machines are really just a big boondoggle for the corporations that manufacture and maintain them, not unlike the machines at airport checkpoints.

    It is all just theater, and another way to rip off the American taxpayer.


    I agree, casey (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:53:36 AM EST
    I do not want to surrender my liberty for either reason.

    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    Benjamin Franklin


    Getting caught... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 07:35:04 PM EST
    is rarely on the mind when up to no good...though I don't doubt they will have an impact on behavior, sh*t humanity, eventually...how negative the impact, time will tell.  Crime?  Not much impact, if any, imo.  Convictions, different story.

    Domain Awareness System investigators huddling over screens all up in anybody's and everybody's business...sounds like a helluva price to pay for more convictions.  


    I've been driving close to 50 yrs (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    and have never been ticketed for running a red light, stop sign, or anything like that. But, guess what, this crappy town in Tennessee I'm in now has proclaimed me a menace.

    They've recently installed one of those cameras on an intersection here. So, the other day I open up my mail, and there's a greeting from them, pictures and all, with a bill for $50.00. The picture shows my car entering the intersection with the light yellow, and another one, about 20 feet after the intersection, when the light was red.

    Now, I can't get into the accuracy, or fairness, of this system, but all I know is that it sucks. Everyone I know here swears they've noticed a marked speed-up of the time the light stays yellow before switching to red, And, since when is 20 feet beyond the light considered still being in the intersection?

    Anyway, now people approach that intersection, and even when they're 100 feet away, when the light turns yellow they slam on their brakes and all you hear are tires screeching all around. I don't know how many rear end collisions this "new & improved" law enforcement technique is going to cause, but I tell the citizens are P.O'D!

    I wondered why taxes are so low down here......I think I just found out.

    Reported this morning in Fla... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by heidelja on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:51:56 AM EST
    ...is this here for additional red light cameras!

    In July it was here2 for additional red light cameras in Orange County (Orlando).

    My comment to the former was:

    For what reason? Revenue or safety? This reports no substantiation of the safety argument, so we must assume revenue. Are double the number necessary to offset the diminishing returns of the cameras installed as people are no longer running those lights abating the early windfall after first being in place? If for safety, then the technology is going misapplied by private contractors duping local goverrnments and the insurance industry.

    My understanding is (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    that the "camera companies," as a trade off for financing the original installation, get to keep a disproportionate amount of the penalty income.

    My personal feelings as to why this whole business sucks is that it's another one of those "privatizing" scams (like our prisons) where justice is sacrificed for profits. When "nailing" unsuspecting motorists is the source of a company's profits all kinds of incentives arise for all sorts of chicanery in order to maximize those profits.


    before the light turned red, you did not break the law.

    The pictures showed (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 03:55:01 PM EST
    what I indicated above.

    Don't know if the law is different in each state, but I'll be finding out soon. There's a Town Hall meeting coming up, and from what I hear it's going to be a packed house.

    Should be fun, will let you know.


    I'd be interested in a recap of that meeting (none / 0) (#7)
    by sj on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 04:22:43 PM EST
    Apparently Baltimore is choosing to beef up its faltering budget with automated traffic citations.  Full disclosure: I have a natural lead foot that I try (sort of) to rein in.  Anyway, about 6 weeks ago I received several citations from two cameras over a four day period.  I've been traveling these particular streets frequently for months. Actually one of them I've been using often ever since I moved here.  Those streets are arteries and are used frequently for cross town traffic.  And don't even get me started on the trap (in both directions) of I95.  It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Anyway, I bought a new radar detector and I'm actually shocked at how many cameras w/radar had gone up that I had never even noticed.  There is a ~2 mile section of road on my commute home that sets my detector off like crazy which is particularly disturbing.  The road is in such bad shape and the lights are timed ... inconveniently so hardly anybody exceeds the speed limit.  It's also through the 'hood.  So I'm thinking those cameras are doing double if not triple duty.


    I will be sure (none / 0) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 05:01:21 PM EST
    that you get a full briefing from our "citizen's brigade" meeting.

    BTW, I didn't realize it before, but many of the new GPS's have built-in radar detectors as standard equipment. But, like you mentioned, the cameras are so prolific you can forget about trying to have a normal conversation with a passenger....beep, beep, beep, it's enough to drive you crazy.


    Also, google says Tennessee (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    does not require a front license plate. I would remove it, if you have not already. If your local red-light cameras only take front pics of your car, they will not be able to identify you or your car.

    Thanks, I'll check it out (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 04:53:09 PM EST
    I believe at least one picture was a rear shot, but it was at an angle of about 45 degrees. Since they're so picky I wonder how much of a distortion that angled shot indicates.

    Since I don't have the pictures in front of me, I don't want to continue guessing, and give possibly faulty information.

    My son is a cop in NY, and well versed in these devices. So, I'll be well prepared for the coming meeting.


    BION TN has (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 08:02:51 AM EST
    due process. If all they can show is you entering on a yellow then you should beat it.

    Also, I think it was a Demo city admin that pushed the cameras... and a Demo gov who blocked a state law getting rid of them state wide.


    Anyone here (none / 0) (#13)
    by Amiss on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 10:25:25 PM EST
    Been watching "Person of Interest" ? It is fascinating and. And even worse, it seems as though (at least among our readers) it is coming to fruition.