http://dcist.com/…

This is pretty good: Fox 5’s Tom Fitzgerald decided to do a report on the ongoing harassment of photographers inside D.C.’s busy Union Station, a topic we’ve written about and heard about from our own Flickr contributors many times before. While he was there interviewing Amtrak’s spokesperson on the subject, who in fact told the reporter that photography is absolutely allowed inside the Amtrak portion of the station, a security guard came up to the Fox 5 crew and told them turn their cameras off. You can watch the report here. Interestingly enough, the company that owns the mall area of Union Station never got back to Fox 5 to clarify their policy.

If we can get the photography protesters to be consistent and persistent we could reverse this. It’s more likely to get this than the bikers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/…

Misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection are preventing amateur photographers from enjoying their hobby, say campaigners.

Phil Smith thought ex-EastEnder Letitia Dean turning on the Christmas lights in Ipswich would make a good snap for his collection.

The 49-year-old started by firing off a few shots of the warm-up act on stage. But before the main attraction showed up, Mr Smith was challenged by a police officer who asked if he had a licence for the camera.

After explaining he didn’t need one, he was taken down a side-street for a formal “stop and search”, then asked to delete the photos and ordered not take any more. So he slunk home with his camera.

“They [police, park wardens, security guards] seem to think you can’t take pictures of people in public places. It’s reached a point where everyone in the photographic world has become so concerned we’re mounting campaigns and trying to publicise this.”

It seems to be increasing, he says.

“There’s a great deal of paranoia around but the police are on alert for anything that vaguely resembles terrorism. It’s difficult because the more professional a photographer, paradoxically, the more likely they are to be stopped or questioned.

“If people were using photos for terrorism purposes they would be using the smallest camera possible.”

This happens in NYC a lot too and from my understanding in other small and large cities throughout the USA. My recommendation is carry around a badge that says you are a member of the press. Free Talk Live regularlly tells people that they can say they are contractors for FTL if they get harrassed by officials of the government. Obviously if you have a blog or the like you can use that. I really enjoy the fact that the UK has the most cameras watching its people per capita in the world and they hassle people for taking photos of random things.

For those who like propaganda:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/27/business/drone.php

The Miami police could soon use cutting-edge flying drones to help fight crime.

A small pilotless vehicle manufactured by Honeywell International, capable of hovering and “staring” using electro-optic or infrared sensors, is expected to be introduced soon in the skies over the Florida Everglades.

If use of the drone wins U.S. Federal Aviation Administration approval after tests, the Miami-Dade Police Department will start flying the 14 pound, or 6.35 kilogram, drone over urban areas with an eye toward full-fledged employment in crime fighting.

“Our intentions are to use it only in tactical situations as an extra set of eyes,” said Detective Juan Villalba, a police department spokesman.

“We intend to use this to benefit us in carrying out our mission,” he added, saying the wingless Honeywell aircraft, which fits into a backpack and is capable of vertical takeoff and landing, seems ideally suited for use by SWAT teams in hostage situations or dealing with “barricaded subjects.”

And the Miami-Dade police are not alone. Taking their lead from the U.S. military, which has used drones in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, law enforcement agencies across the United States have voiced a growing interest in using drones for domestic crime-fighting missions.

Not that the Posse Comitatus Act is really in effect anymore but many people still believe that the military can’t be used for policing domestically. Well those pushing for a fascist police state have figured out how to get around that. Make the police like the military instead.

And really… as if this will stop crime. It will only escalate it. Any crime it stops a petty thief has given up will be made up by the professionals in severity.

The cameraman is pretty annoying. I saw a lot of protesters lately in the subway… no one seemed to be beat up. I don’t know what the hell led to all this but I have no doubt the NYPD overreacted.

http://www.sfgate.com/…

San Francisco’s 68 controversial anti-crime cameras haven’t deterred criminals from committing assaults, sex offenses or robberies - and they’ve only moved homicides down the block, according to a new report from UC Berkeley.

Researchers found that nonviolent thefts dropped by 22 percent within 100 feet of the cameras, but the devices had no effect on burglaries or car theft. And they’ve had no effect on violent crime.

Mayor Gavin Newsom called the report “conclusively inconclusive” on Thursday but said he still wants to install more cameras around the city because they make residents feel safer.

“When I put the first cameras in, I said, ‘This may only move people around the corner,’ ” he said. “But the community there said, ‘We don’t care, we want our alleyway back.’ No one’s actually had a camera up that they wanted torn down in the community.”

But not all city officials think it’s wise to spend money on public safety measures if the best thing that can be said about them is they have a placebo effect for worried residents.”In their current configuration they are not useful, and they give people a false sense of security, which I think is bad,” said Police Commissioner Joe Alioto-Veronese. He added that previous studies of security cameras in other parts of the country have also shown that they do not deter violent crime.

I’m amazed such logic came out of a police commissioner. You don’t get that very often.

The cameras have contributed to only one arrest nearly two years ago in a city that saw 98 homicides last year, a 12-year high. The video is choppy, and police aren’t allowed to watch video in real-time or maneuver the cameras to get a better view of potential crimes.

The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected - except for homicides, which had an interesting pattern.

Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.

That stat about the murders is just wonderful. You can be sure that some pols are just going to twist that to push for 100% camera coverage.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who has long been a critic of the cameras, said the report is further proof they’re not improving public safety.

He said they’re no substitute for attacking the causes of crime and said money would be better invested in community-based policing, anti-violence projects in schools, and services that help ex-prisoners readjust to life in society so they don’t commit more crimes.

How about looking at why they commit crimes in the first place? How many of those crimes are a result of the black market and prohibitions?

I like some of the comments:

newcastle wrote:

Actually fatsengalla - they DO work - I have first hand experience of this from the UK…… BUT and it’s a big one… THEY HAVE TO BE USED PROPERLY, which appears to be the problem, and not have their use hampered by bogus claims about privacy and other such rubbish.

froggy_08 wrote:

The fact that the cameras are stopping crime in the areas in which they are located indicates that, contrary to the story’s headline, they are working. The big problem with the way SF is using the cameras is that they are much too visible, the police are not allowed to view them or change their direction which is idiotic and there aren’t enough of them. The idea that cameras that are in public places somehow violate ones right to privacy is madness. How about all the cameras in banks, stores and other public places?

I know… we should put cameras in newcastle’s home just in case he commits a crime. Those UK cameras worked so well in helping stop those guys who blew up those buses a few years back. Oh and catching that Brazilian terrorist plumber the London police decided needed bullets implanted in his skull. Same goes for froggy_08. Obviously since people come and go in their home it’s a “public” place. At least one pointed into the yard. It’s not like banks and stores are private property or anything and those in their are volunteering to be seen on camera and pay for their operation.

Really what we should do is a setup a network of cameras which cover every inch of land which a crime could be committed on. We link them all up to high powered computer farms which use facial and movement recognition software to track every single object in the cameras view. We feed that into a giant database which is analyzed in realtime for suspicious individuals and alert the police. It can watch what you get at the store or what food you’ve purchased and if anything bought could be used for malisious actions you will be flagged. If you have ingested too many calories or fatty foods the NHS will be alerted and you’ll receive a fine for possibly costing the government more than your share of healthcare costs.

At some point criminals will just start wearing clothing with surface mount IR LEDs on them which will blind the cameras.