Baltimore To Buy Talking Surveillance Cameras

Maf54

Inactive
Talking Cameras Baltimore-Bound
City Hopes To Deter Vandalism, Illegal Dumping

BALTIMORE -- Scofflaws beware, the next on-street surveillance camera could talk to you.

Baltimore City's Board of Estimates recently approved the purchase of five talking cameras at a cost of $5,000 apiece.

According to The Baltimore Sun, city officials will employ the talking cameras to catch vandals and litterbugs.

A motion detector activates the camera to capture still pictures, and the device calls out with a recorded message.

"We will use (the picture) to prosecute you. Leave the area now," the voice says.

WBAL-TV 11 News reporter Lowell Melser reported city officials got the idea from a similar program that Cincinnati officials have in effect.

"It says you're being watched and we're recording you and dumping is illegal in this area," Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley said.

Even the mayor himself can record a message.

The city installed a camera at a test location to keep watch over a vacant lot off Ellsworth Street in east Baltimore.

"We used one camera and it worked effectively in one area (that was) constantly victimized by unscrupulous people who were dumping," O'Malley said.

Residents who live near that test location told 11 News the camera has benefited their neighborhood.

"Since the cameras have been installed, it has been very little excessive debris or illegal dumping, they haven't been doing that as much and it's a big help," Shawn Gary said.

Michael Greenberger, who heads the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security, believes the cameras could potentially help deter terrorists if the cameras are posted near potential targets, like the Inner Harbor and Penn Station.

"I think it can be used not just after the horse is out of the barn, but to lock the barn up. It could scare people because they would be so quickly identified," he said.

Greenberger pointed to arrests made in this summer's London subway bombings as proof that cameras can double as detectives.

The camera company, Q-Star Technology, said about 150 cities use the cameras to control graffiti, loitering and illegal dumping.

"We have so many requests from community leaders who want cameras than we're able to fill," O'Malley said.

Still, some residents have a problem with more cameras keeping watch over the city.

"More people should be using common sense, spreading the word in the community instead of relying on machines to determine the shades of gray," said John Dacampos, a southeast Baltimore resident. But some city leaders hope the cameras will serve an effective crime-fighting tool.

"It's another tool we can use for quality of life," Baltimore City Council President Sheila Dixon "I don't think it invades anybody's personal space because, most likely, the camera's not going to talk if somebody's not doing something they're not supposed to be doing."

Melser reported that the city will also install two dummy cameras that do not take pictures, but will still yell at you. City officials aren't saying where the cameras will be placed.

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/5347261/detail.html


Cameras in action in england: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAuZi8ZiJOg&eurl=
 
What's going to happen when the people this is trying to control (litterbugs, dumpers, graffitists) realize that the police can't really identify who someone is just because they have a picture of the back of his head or something, or the sweatshirt he's wearing? What'll happen when the people realize that the police are not going to dispatch officers to the scene of an aggravated littering, when they are stretched thin enough by real crimes? The expensive cameras will be useless.


"Since the cameras have been installed, it has been very little excessive debris or illegal dumping, they haven't been doing that as much and it's a big help," Shawn Gary said.

Ebonics. Gee, thanks. :rolleyes:
"It (sic) has been very little excessive debris..."
Very little excessive debris"? Plenty of the regular debris kind, but not a lot of the excessive debris... :rolleyes:


Michael Greenberger, who heads the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security, believes the cameras could potentially help deter terrorists if the cameras are posted near potential targets, like the Inner Harbor and Penn Station.

Yeah, terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up are very scared of being photographed and yelled at by cameras on poles. :barf:

People in positions of authority or academia should be taken out back and beaten for telling us such absolute garbage as this.

But don't forget to get the beating on camera, so we can be sure it actually took place. :D


-azurefly
 
The camera company, Q-Star Technology, said about 150 cities use the cameras to control graffiti, loitering and illegal dumping.


But, strangely, we never get to see stats or studies that should show whether there's been a measurable decline in these crimes due to the cameras' presence.

This quote actually says the cameras CONTROL graffiti, loitering and dumping. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:


"We have so many requests from community leaders who want cameras than we're able to fill," O'Malley said.


Wonderfully stated, O'Malley. :barf:
Kids, stay in school!

-azurefly
 
They have cameras in DC

http://www.nbc4.com/news/9985252/detail.html?rss=dc&psp=news

"Many D.C. police said they had hoped that installing dozens of new surveillance cameras across the city would assist them in cracking down on crime, but the system does not appear to be working as planned.

It was a very violent weekend across the D.C. area, with 11 people shot, four of them fatally.

One of the shootings in the District was caught on one of the new cameras, but police said so far, the cameras have not been much help in any other case."
 
Lookit, if it actually WORKS (as they say it does), then I see little downside to it. Suprised that it works, but apparently it does.

Downside is, the slight irritation to someone who is NOT doing anything illegal, just passing by, of being told "we're watching you; dumping is illegal".

Let me clarify. What I mean is, arguing about the presence of cameras themselves is a whole other subject, which I am generally against. BUT, in the event that you think having cameras about in in public is A.O.K, then merely ADDING this voice thing to the already-present cameras has little downside, it seems to me...if it works.
 
Hmm --
D.C. has these sorts of cameras, crime rate is high.
Great Britian has these sorts of cameras in spades, and the crime rate is atrocious.

Best I can figure out, the bad guys have figured out that the cameras are useless.

Sounds to me like the fine folks of Baltimore get to have a another sizeable chunk of their tax dollars flushed down the toilet in yet another useless lefty feel-good program.
 
Back
Top