* The news reports on how the Chicago police came to the conclusion that Michael Scott’s death was a suicide contained an interesting little tidbit…
Much of that investigation involved public surveillance cameras that recorded Michael Scott over a roughly 45-minute time period as he drove to the location along the Chicago River where he would, police say, later commit suicide.
The cameras are all linked to the city’s 911 center as part of what is called Operation Virtual Shield. By entering a description of Scott’s Cadillac into the system, it gave detectives video of the vehicle as Scott drove it from multiple camera positions.
The program is referred to as video analytics and has been touted for its potential as a high tech crime-fighting tool. […]
The video analytics used to track Scott’s car searched through many terabytes of recorded video just based on the vehicles description.
* The Question: Are you comfortable with the knowledge that the Chicago police have this sort of surveillance capabilities? Explain.
LIVE session coverage...
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 11:36 am:
I’ve already deleted one comment. Stick to the question, please.
- DuPage Dave - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 11:41 am:
This is what the British do all over their country, so it’s clear Chicago is going with the wave of the future. The tidbit you quote tells us all we need to know that it is hardly a crime-fighting tool but a means of surveilling the general population at all times.
Did the American public ever agree to this level of spying? Of course not. Is anyone going to organize a meaningful protest? No again. This is one more step down the road to a complete lack of privacy.
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 11:41 am:
It’s straight out of the movie “Enemy of the State.” Scary scary stuff. So no, I’m not comfortable.
- MrJM - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 11:43 am:
“Are you comfortable with the knowledge that the Chicago police have this sort of surveillance capabilities?”
I am not comfortable with the CPD having this surveillance capability.
When was the public asked if they were willing to trade their privacy for a “potential high-tech crime-fighting tool”?
When were we allowed to participate in the decision-making process that resulted in video car tracking?
Maybe this is a wonderful use of spying technology, but in any case its pervasive nature seems to cry-out for consultation with the public prior to implementation.
– MrJM
http://twitter.com/misterjayem
- KGB - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 11:47 am:
It’s not like they have a camera trained through your bedroom window (not yet, anyway). It’s called “the public way” for a reason– everything you do on a public street is theoretically in full view of the public. Only now it’s also on tape. If you have something to hide, take it behind closed doors.
- Levi voted for Judy - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 11:59 am:
I was working with SPSS about 4 years ago and we did a presentation on this type of technology utilization to a group of Cook County and State CTO types. This isn’t that new. It can truly be a huge benefit in a crisis situation. For example, it could have probably reduced the number of victims in the D.C. sniper case. It could also be used in high crime/gang infested areas such as Englewood to view specific areas with high crime potential or near schools, such as Fenger. The Derrion Albert and similar cases should be particularly noted because of the continued lack of witnesses afraid to come forward (the snitching issue)that retards the police in solving these crimes. One other possible area of use is in resolving some of the “missing children” cases that have been reported lately. If you live in a high crime area or if you or a loved one are the victim of a crime, your concern about protecting your civil liberties is over-ridden by your need for safety.
- Greg - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:01 pm:
In theory, it’s a compelling tool. But the story about the driver’s license photos suggests its disadvantages. You don’t have to be engaged in criminal conduct in a public space to be potentially harmed by the state’s dossier on you.
- GOP4EVER - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:03 pm:
No because i have nothing to hide in my car or no reason for the police to track me.
- shore - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:05 pm:
yes, because in the 21st century enviornment in which we live it’s important to have tools like this to thwart crime. The civil liberties and abuses(republicans in 1992 checked into clinton’s passport files) are something that comes after we start using this, not as a reason NOT to use it.
This suicide or not business could have been ANOTHER distraction to the political mess.
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:05 pm:
Definitely not comfortable. Very creepy stuff and far too easy to abuse. Ick.
- Reddbyrd - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:14 pm:
This might a little off your precious question, but I think a better QOTD is if the cops monitored all this for 45 minutes was there any moment they sensed somethin’ was up and why not swing into action?
Michael Scott was a pretty solid guy who was clearly troubled and under some pressure. Perhaps some fast action might have saved his life, avoided all this grief and mourning.
With that in mind I think the cameras make sense.
- cassandra - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:21 pm:
I wish they’d put some more of them on Cicero, Laramie and Central, primo avenues from the Eisenhower into the Austin neighborhood’s huge drug market.
The Chicago police sure haven’t done much to curb the booming drug trade over there. Maybe the cameras would have a deterrent effect on the large suburban customer base.
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:23 pm:
Anon 12:05, please get another handle. Thanks.
No, I don’t feel comfortable with it for the same reason Anon 12:05 mentioned. I remember when “computers” were first installed in squad cars in the burbs, there seemed to be a rash of looking up plates for no valid reasons other than the driver “looked interesting”. You can define “interesting” anyway you want, but I know of several attractive women who were “targeted” at least once.
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:24 pm:
Reddbyrd - I think you misunderstood. This type of system is basically a record preserved to be reviewed after the fact. Very little if any footage is being reviewed in real time.
I agree with those who say, if you do it in public, it’s public. It would be perfectly legal for the city to have a thousand extra police officers doing the surveillance. It’s a lot cheaper to use cameras. Fine with me.
- COPN - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:25 pm:
Comfortable? No. Willing to accept? Yes.
Surveillance capability like this is more palatable when it’s admitted to by the CPD. In the same breath, Big Brother should also be watched; I just pray someone is doing it (e.g. Mr. Shaw and the other goo goos) because I don’t have the time to watch, only time to comment.
- Been There - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:25 pm:
===It’s not like they have a camera trained through your bedroom window (not yet, anyway). ===
I don’t know if all their cameras have the same level of zoom but one cop told me about the camera they have on those trucks at special events. The ones that telescope up over crowds. He said when testing the camera it was located on top of a building on Michigan Ave. He was standing near Buckingham Fountain. The guy looking at the camera was able to read his star number as clear as if it was right in front of him. My point is, who knows where they can point these cameras. If you are downtown or on a street that that has these then I assume it would be easy to be looking into your window. They probably couldn’t use it as evidence to hold up in court but that doesn’t mean they won’t be looking into your window anyway. I am not sure I wanted to give up that much of my privacy to get better police protection. It’s amazing the tools they have out there but at the same time the courts won’t even let them use simple tools such as data bases or allowing the schools to know of arrest records of their students. It is not a clear line.
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:35 pm:
Anon 12:05, please get another handle. Thanks.
This joke was dumb the first time you made it, to say nothing of the next 5,000.
- Old Milwaukee - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:35 pm:
Yes, I’m comfortable with it. They are using this technology to catch criminals and solve mysteries. There is enough crime here. We need the police to have as many tools as they can have.
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:45 pm:
I love the people who say “I have nothing to hide so why worry.” You think you have nothing to hide until you do something to offend “authorities” or those with access to these technologies. The driver’s license pics is a perfect example of abuse. This is so wide open to abuse that it’s downright scary.
If you’re not at least nervous about this technology and its potential, you just haven’t been paying attention.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:47 pm:
I too was surprised to learn from the Scott episode that this technology exists the way it does. I am not entirely comfortable with it given the history of CPD and its alleged spying on political organizers in the 60s and 70s. Who is to say these cameras won’t be used to see who is going door-to-door for a challenger of the Mayor in 2011? Or who attends an anti-TIF rally? Maybe I’m just paranoid, but I’ve lived here long enough to sometimes suspect the worst from this administration.
On the other hand, I just got a red light camera ticket (and deservedly so), so I’m not objective when it comes to the city’s use of cameras. Cameras don’t call in sick, they don’t get paid overtime, and they have no pensions. From the city’s perspective, these cameras can do a lot that sworn officers cannot, and at lower cost.
Definitely a mixed bag, but I’ve learned to accept that there is no privacy in public anymore.
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:48 pm:
Oh dear. Everyone seems to want to be “Anonymous” today. Wonder why.
- GoldCoastConservative - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:55 pm:
No, I am not comfortable with the cameras. They hold the potential for the systematic encroachment in our rights in exchange for a demonstrably meager public safety benfit. In London, home to more cameras (per capita) than any other city in the world, the camera’s have been a failure. According to a report released in August by the Metropolitan Police, “for every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year.”
- Loop Lady - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:57 pm:
if the cameras are used to deter crime instead of punishing motorists for petty infractions, I’m ok with it, but it is very Orwellian…
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:00 pm:
No. My reason: “1984″ This is not a tool the state needs to have. The temptation to spy on people who disagree with the government is too great.
We are told it will help reduce crime. How so? There aren’t enough people on the force to use it real time, and, if you had enough, you’d be better off putting them on the beat. After the fact is too late in the case of suicide and murder, and theives would still be awfully hard to find (most are smart enough to cover their faces).
It’s a waste of resources and brings a false sense of security. AND The potential down side is too great.
- Cheswick - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:05 pm:
I’m curious what crimes this technology has thwarted. Or, in which crimes was it used to catch the bad person after the fact. Also, I’d like to know how the state’s attorney’s office is getting these videos admitted into evidence.
With that in mind, I do not like that the cops have this ability.
I’m sorry for what happened with Michael Scott, but I wonder how this technology has helped his family. Because it sure didn’t help him.
- The Prophet - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:07 pm:
If there was a better way to help decrease crime, I believe the majority of people would rather not surrender their privacy. However, I would be willing to run the risk of my privacy being abused by a rogue policeman rather than run the risk of my wife or children being harmed in the commission of a crime. I would accept it although not enthusiastically.
- Say WHAT? - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:07 pm:
No, I am not comfortable with camera’s watching every move. And to those of you who think that privacy only matters behind closed doors, pleeeeease! The technology to watch all that we do, even behind closed doors does exist. We are all being warmed up slowly to the idea. It makes me think of the old analogy: You cannot place a frog in boiling water, or it will jump out. A frog must be placed in water and warmed up slowly, only then can you cook a frog. Today it is used to catch “criminals.” We need to ask ourselves how this technology could be abused. The potential is huge.
Hey, if people in Chicago didn’t know about it, what else DONT they know about? Big Brother is watching. Very Orwell! Land of the free? or land of the watched? Personally, I don’t think it can be both ways. Start asking questions when we are told “It is for your safety.”
- Irish - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:19 pm:
I think the time has passed when anyone could feel that they can do what they want or feel unobserved in any public place. With phone camera’s, video camera’s etc. I think it can be safely said that anyone can expect that they could be photographed at anytime in any public place.
With that in mind I think the technology is a good thing at face value. Where it gets squirrely is when you figure in who is in charge of the information being collected, who can access it, and what will they do with it.
I also agree with some of the other commenters in the question of why isn’t this technology in all of the places where crime is a real problem and if it is why is it so difficult to identify perpetrators of crime.
- Cheswick - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:21 pm:
Perhaps now would be a good time to assume that everything flying over our houses, from helicopters to satellites, already has the technology to photograph through the roof. And is doing so.
- Plutocrat03 - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:31 pm:
No I am not comfortable with that capability.
That said, I believe that is curious that since they have it, why don’t they use it more? Who are they choosing to monitor and whose behavior are they willing to overlook?
- cermak_rd - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:36 pm:
Yes. I am comfortable with this technology in the hands of the police. I have no expectation of privacy the moment I step onto a public thoroughfare, including city streets and sidewalks.
Even if it doesn’t by itself solve many crimes, it may help solve some. Given that the bulk of the crimes are committed by a relatively small number of people, getting a handfull off the streets a year is a net plus.
- SHMO - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:41 pm:
A very liberal friend from college is now a deputy police chief in a major city. I asked him his feelings about this issue recently and he agreed there is an “ichh” factor. He felt the good outweighed the harm and that there are so many cameras out there in use by private businesses, that our privacy in public was already gone.
- Levois - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:43 pm:
If we were talking about old Chicago then I might be very uncomfortable. All the same I would be very weary of a city where we are all under surveillance on public streets.
- Little Egypt - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:49 pm:
If the FBI can listen in on your conversation being conducted in a private area when you are not on your cell phone IF you have your cell phone on your person whether it is on or off, then the thought of a camera watching my every move doesn’t phase me. I have absolutely nothing to hide.
- irv & ashland - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:54 pm:
I think of it in the context of the Reader article last week about the cabbie whose drunken fare refused to pay and pulled a gun on him.
He called the police, who came, tracked the guy down (by then he had collapsed in an alley), went through his pockets, found the gun, but then found his police ID, and came back and advised the cabbie to drop the issue.
This wasn’t a single rogue officer. This wasn’t a single rogue office and then one other officer who sided with him. This was a rogue officer; 6 responding police officers; and then the sergeant who followed up.
Some parts of the CPD are essentially a rogue police force. No, I’m not at all comfortable with their being able to track cars across the city.
- irv & ashland - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:59 pm:
>- GOP4EVER - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:03 pm:
>No because i have nothing to hide in my car or no reason for the police to track me.
I find this post amusing. GOP4EVER, I don’t think most of us are concerned because we think the police have a legitimate reason to track us.
We’re concerned because we know the police, and the governments that employ them, sometimes do things that are illegitimate.
In Chicago, the reason to track you could be because you’re a Republican, or because you’re helping a campaign against someone’s favored candidate for county board president or governor.
I’m not saying that happens. Obviously I have no idea. But it has certainly happened in the past that the Chicago police were used to track people who disagreed politically. Some of the people tracked in the Cointel case were Quaker pacifists. The only “threat” they posed was the threat of getting people to vote differently than Mayor Daley the elder wanted them to.
- Captain Flume - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 2:06 pm:
No problem if the surveillance recordings are streamed live and made part of my basic Comcast Cable package, maybe one of the public access channels.
- Third Generation Chicago Native - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 2:13 pm:
Yes I am comfortable with it. There is, and has been a lot of blue light cameras in my neighborhood. I am not doing anything I have to worry about, so if it helps solve a crime, deters crime, fine, they do it in public places.
Everywhere you go there are cameras, from the Target, Jewel, etc. capturing people who come in and out, and in the electronics department.
There are security cameras in most places people frequent and they don’t even know it.
When someone in a Convience Store gets killed etc. they show video footage on the local Chicago news hoping people come forward.
So whether people realize it or not they have been on camera numerous times, it’s been that way for a while and it will not subside.
- George - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 2:31 pm:
Silly question…
But wouldn’t it have been easier to just look at the video footage from his last known location and trace it backwards?
- George - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 2:32 pm:
Second silly question…
Does this technology allow you to search for, say, “Obamallac”?
- Come on, now - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 2:34 pm:
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 2:35 pm:
Get back to the question, please. And to the above commenter, what do you regard as “essential liberty”? Does it fit in with this? Explain, don’t just drive by.
- Anon62 - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 2:43 pm:
The good outweighs the bad…. we obviously have some creepy people here in Chicago …. (aside from the obvious)…
A new AP story today:
CHICAGO – A Chicago man accused of planning an armed attack on a Danish newspaper was charged Monday with conducting surveillance on potential targets in the Indian city of Mumbai before terrorist attacks there in 2008 that killed 166 people.
- Fan of the Game - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 2:43 pm:
I don’t feel comfortable with government having this technological capability. The opportunity for abuse is too great.
- Quiet Sage - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 2:44 pm:
We are becoming so inured to high tech surveillance we no longer fully realize how intrusive it is. Merle Haggard (who served a sentence at San Quentin in the 1950s) said there is less freedom for citizens on the streets today than there was for prisoners at San Quentin when he did time.
- MrJM - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 3:12 pm:
The anonymous and pseudonymous commenters untroubled by privacy concerns have broken my irony-meter.
- Captain Flume - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 3:27 pm:
Serious answer: not at all comfortable with the argument that privacy ends upon entering or using a public thoroughfare, that is unless the public has voted for such surveillance specifically. The public has the right to expect safe public streets and sidewalks, but it should also have the expectation that it has the direct authority to approve the means for attaining the safety, and not leave that authority to the judgment of agencies acting without full disclosure of the means those agencies desire to use.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 3:31 pm:
Captain Flume,
We don’t live in a direct democracy. We elect representatives, whether Alder critters, Statehouse critters or Congress critters. They have decided on these issues. Don’t like it? Elect new critters.
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 3:44 pm:
#1 They do not stop crime. You would need a large crew of watchers and an additional crew ready to respond to what the observers perceive to be a crime. They may help police solve crimes, but you have to assume the cameras provide a clear image of the suspects face and/or that there are enough cameras to follow the fleeing perpetrator electronically.
#2 The potential for their use tracking individuals not suspected of any crime is great. Where I go and who I associate with in the course of my day is nobodies business. And if you think you won’t be watched, you are wrong. Imagine a company approaching a cash-strapped city and requesting permission to use the cameras to do marketing research.
#3 They provide a false sense of security. Hey, we have cameras all over this city, why should we spend more for police when we can hire a couple of people to watch/follow up on the cameras. (see point 1)
#4 They send the message that no one can be trusted and everyone must be watched. People often live up to, or down to, the expressed expectations of society.
We would be much safer if the money were spent to hire police to walk the beat and get to know people in their neighborhoods.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 3:53 pm:
In the hands of the old CPD Red Squad (once was a neighbor of one), I’m sure this capability would’ve been put to some mischievous uses (I heard lots of “stories”). No doubt people (including me) feel good when this technology is used to catch the bad guy, or to shed light on the truth, or to thwart that terrorist plot. Not feeling so good when we think the technology might be used on US.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 4:19 pm:
I know God is always watching-I didn’t think Mayor Daley was too.
Scary but necessary. Especially in large urban centers, airports or other terrorist targets.
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 4:33 pm:
OK, Whoopee. I’ll bite. How do you address protection v. spying in this context and intelligence v. CI?
- wordslinger - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 4:41 pm:
I have no expectations of privacy while I’m in public. Those words mean something.
But like the man said, Charley Rich, when you get behind closed doors it’s a different story.
- MrJM - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 4:50 pm:
No expectation of privacy means that one should expect to be *observed* in public, not that one is expected to be *surveilled* and *recorded* merely for appearing in public.
– MrJM
http://twitter.com/misterjayem
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 5:22 pm:
===
But like the man said, Charley Rich, when you get behind closed doors it’s a different story.
===
Yeah, well, when you’re tracked to “the door”–and then leaving, doesn’t mean much does it?
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 5:25 pm:
Add an announcement on a blog or two as to where you’re supposed to be soon, and a couple of photos about what you did while inside–and there goes your precious desire for privacy.
- Nero - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 8:29 pm:
Having been to London several times recently… they have cameras absolutely everywhere and I had no problem with it… actually gave me a sense of security. I live in Chicago and have no problem with the camera program here.
Pingback Smart Cameras Blog » Mapping Chicago’s Cameras - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 8:50 pm:
[…] Despite concerns about big brother, the current network is totally inadequate at monitoring every possible location. As I have previously pointed out, the current network of cameras covers only 5% of the city. (This does not include private cameras that are not networked to the city’s camera network.) Nevertheless, the city’s network is large and impressive. […]
- Emily Booth - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 9:21 pm:
You still have to have employees sift thru all of those images and I don’t think the CPD has that kind of staff. I don’t think any employer does. It’s a record, it’s archived and it’s pulled up after the fact.
BTW, wear your seat belt when going thru a green light at an intersection with cameras. I heard on WGN this afternoon that someone got a camera ticket for not wearing his. Those cameras are not just for red-light violations.
- Squideshi - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 9:28 pm:
The Wall Street Journal did a nice piece on Operation Virtual Shield last month, with pictures.
- DuPage Dan - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 9:33 pm:
NCIS has come to Chicago!
This is useful after the fact but as Emily mentions, it takes alot to maintain contact in real time. No expectation of privacy while in public. There is a line that can be crossed and I don’t think it has been yet.
- Squideshi - Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 9:37 pm:
IBM was a major partner in OVS, and it has been called a model by the Department of Homeland Security. I’m torn between two extremes on this issue: I think if you allow your photons to emanate and collide with the receptors in my eyes in a public space, even if the source is from inside your home and through a window, that’s your problem–learn how to shield. On the other hand, I wonder if this constitutes a type of search–an unreasonable or warantless one.
- matt - Tuesday, Dec 8, 09 @ 3:50 am:
I think there are decent arguments on both sides. It could be abused, but adequate safeguards could be put into place. It could deter crime, but criminals could know where they are, and just deal drugs in a hidden place. It could catch criminals, but I’d want to see the solid numbers.
Could something like this be put up for a referendum? I have no idea, but I’d like that.
- Captain Flume - Tuesday, Dec 8, 09 @ 8:28 am:
cermak rd: I am not sure what direct democracy had to do with my comment. The agencies to which I referred are not staffed by elected personnel, they are police agencies. I realize, though, that the laws governing public surveillance are made by elected officials. Much of the public surveillance in place now stems from supposed fear of “terrorist” activity. Non-terrorist criminals are caught in the same net as a consequence. Non-criminal behavior is also caught in that net. We are a nation of peeping Toms, and we give license to peep. In my mind, the tipping point has already been reached where we have sacrificed the expectation of privacy to security.
Whether I feel comfortable that the Chicago Police, or any other police agency, have the type of surveillance described in the article is the question. And for reasons stated in above, I do not.
- Y2D - Tuesday, Dec 8, 09 @ 8:49 am:
Hey-
Love it! Saw a presentation on how our ports were being covered with the shield to prevent attacks and immediately explained to my 2 sons how their future employment will be different then what we may have expected when they were toddlers. I hope they both find work in homeland security.
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Dec 8, 09 @ 9:23 am:
=Could something like this be put up for a referendum?=
This ain’t California.
- Squideshi - Tuesday, Dec 8, 09 @ 10:13 am:
dupage dan, yes, the democrats in power in Illinois seem to be adverse to forms of direct democracy, such as initiative, referendum, and recall.