The sky over Baltimore city was the color of a dull nickel...
August 24, 2016 6:54 AM Subscribe
‘OK, this is it,’ ” Stanley recalls. “I said to myself, ‘This is where the rubber hits the road. The technology has finally arrived, and Big Brother, which everyone has always talked about, is finally here.’Monte Reel at Bloomberg in his article "Secret Cameras Record Baltimore's Every Move from Above" about how Persistent Surveillance Systems Inc. brought an air force surveillance system from Fallujah to Balitmore.
Bloomberg Businessweek's photographer helpfully included PSS's Cessna's tail number (N73266) in one of their shots.
posted by indubitable at 7:22 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 7:22 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
"30 to 40 group... take your places please. Right! Let's see which one of us can touch his toes. Right over from the hips brothers and sisters please. One... two... one... two..."
posted by prepmonkey at 7:22 AM on August 24, 2016
posted by prepmonkey at 7:22 AM on August 24, 2016
I'm not necesarilly opposed to the idea of greater surveillance capacity for the police, as long as they are behaving correctly with that technology
Well that's the rub, innit? What do you think the chances are that this technology will be abused and/or hacked?
posted by gwint at 7:25 AM on August 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Well that's the rub, innit? What do you think the chances are that this technology will be abused and/or hacked?
posted by gwint at 7:25 AM on August 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
I like the part where the hedge fund billionaire and former Enron trader provides the "charitable" funding for a surveillance system for a city he doesn't even live in. 2016 seems to be the year of the meddling asshole billionaires.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:27 AM on August 24, 2016 [42 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:27 AM on August 24, 2016 [42 favorites]
Radio Lab did an interesting piece about this technology last year that explained how it worked as well as covering the issues that it raises.
posted by mmascolino at 7:31 AM on August 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by mmascolino at 7:31 AM on August 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think McNutt's apparent inclination to seek out opportunities for debate and accountability about his company's operations, which may actually just be a side effect of needed publicity to drum up business, is interesting. It doesn't seem like it's necessarily an aspect of his company's culture (anonymous pilot, anodyne temporary sign) but as noted above, the publication of the plane's tail number and some interesting bits of detail about the business ($10-15/hr video-game analyst) suggest that there were no PR people trying to spin the story.
Beyond the story's interest from a public policy standpoint, it's a pretty decent character study. As I began reading I wondered if Reel originally had the sky described as the color of television, tuned to dead television channel. I doubt that now - the craft in the piece is evident and I don't think a Gibson reference was necessarily among the writer's goals, although I wouldn't say he chose to avoid the gesture entirely.
posted by mwhybark at 7:51 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Beyond the story's interest from a public policy standpoint, it's a pretty decent character study. As I began reading I wondered if Reel originally had the sky described as the color of television, tuned to dead television channel. I doubt that now - the craft in the piece is evident and I don't think a Gibson reference was necessarily among the writer's goals, although I wouldn't say he chose to avoid the gesture entirely.
posted by mwhybark at 7:51 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
the color of television, tuned to dead television channel.
As has been pointed out here in the past, this turn of phrase ironically now describes a clear blue sky.
posted by explosion at 8:33 AM on August 24, 2016 [10 favorites]
As has been pointed out here in the past, this turn of phrase ironically now describes a clear blue sky.
posted by explosion at 8:33 AM on August 24, 2016 [10 favorites]
I just posted something about safe zones for Internet purchase exchanges three posts up on the main page, and now I feel silly.
posted by Shepherd at 8:34 AM on August 24, 2016
posted by Shepherd at 8:34 AM on August 24, 2016
I predict anew fashion trend of giant mortarboards with rude slogans painted on top. A bonus is that it also cuts down on the need for sunblock.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:43 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:43 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
The police needs to be transparent and to be regulated, but I'm not necesarilly opposed to the idea of greater surveillance capacity for the police, as long as they are behaving correctly with that technology.
In principle, I think this is a technology and approach that can have value in certain communities facing unusually extreme problems, like the drug cartel violence described in Juarez, when operated openly and transparently by a police force composed of members of the community being policed and operating with the consent of the community. Even then I think it is a dangerous tool that must be monitored closely and subject to strong restrictions on when, where, and how it can be used. But the reality is that the culture of policing in many municipalities in the U.S. does not meet these criteria, Baltimore being a particularly notable example. I have little confidence that these departments are capable of using this technology in a way that appropriately balances public safety with personal privacy, and certainly not when it is being used as a covert tool with no public scrutiny at all. The fact that suspects are apparently being identified and arrested solely on this basis of this technology, when the police apparently have no intention to reveal that this is the source of evidence against them, also seems a clear violation of due process to me, but IANAL.
posted by biogeo at 8:45 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
In principle, I think this is a technology and approach that can have value in certain communities facing unusually extreme problems, like the drug cartel violence described in Juarez, when operated openly and transparently by a police force composed of members of the community being policed and operating with the consent of the community. Even then I think it is a dangerous tool that must be monitored closely and subject to strong restrictions on when, where, and how it can be used. But the reality is that the culture of policing in many municipalities in the U.S. does not meet these criteria, Baltimore being a particularly notable example. I have little confidence that these departments are capable of using this technology in a way that appropriately balances public safety with personal privacy, and certainly not when it is being used as a covert tool with no public scrutiny at all. The fact that suspects are apparently being identified and arrested solely on this basis of this technology, when the police apparently have no intention to reveal that this is the source of evidence against them, also seems a clear violation of due process to me, but IANAL.
posted by biogeo at 8:45 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
A few years ago I would almost certainly have been opposed to this on principle. Living in Baltimore for several years has changed my perspective to some extent. The benefit side of the cost/benefit analysis feels much more real to me today than it would have in the past.
Baltimore has a dire clearance rate for many crimes, in part because people (understandably) won't talk to cops. The city has argued that much of the violent crime in the city is committed by a small number of people, but many of those crimes have proven unsolvable without witnesses. Look at the city's appalling 30ish% murder clearance last year. It's true that many people won't talk out because they have a moral commitment to not snitching, but witness intimidation in this city is out of control. I'm not sure that intimidation is a problem that will be solved by overhauling the department to make it less racist. With standard police procedures, crime clearance rates will remain low as long as nobody will talk.
This surveillance system seems like a practical, relatively non-invasive way of addressing that problem. Is there a potential that it will be abused? Of course. But the other Baltimore PD scandal, one not addressed by the Justice Department report, is that they've done a terrible job putting a lid on crime in this city. The crime spike during last year's unofficial police strike showed that their (appalling) current tactics have some deterrent effect, but it's clear that the police have not done an adequate job preventing heinous crimes in this city. I will gladly accept this system's current level of intrusion in exchange for a higher clearance rate on various violent crimes, which would presumably both act as a deterrent and reduce the number of serial offenders on the street. It's presumably conducive to more targeted policing as well, which could help address the truly intrusive policing that currently goes on in Baltimore's black neighborhoods.
It's probably easier to look abstractly at the way this surveillance could impact privacy when you don't live somewhere where crime is as rampant as Baltimore. To me, a lot of hand-wringing about this looks like support for a status quo that's clearly not working here over a system that, Big Brotherish though it may be, has potential to make policing more effective and targeted. There are good reasons to be afraid of encroaching police powers, but the tendency to treat new kinds of surveillance enabled by modern technology as inherently dystopic seems like a deeply privileged standpoint that can be comfortably held by people least affected by violence, since refusing surveillance on principle doesn't actually involve any trade off for them. I don't believe that there could possibly be a system that perfectly balances the ability to track crime with robust personal privacy, but even if there were one coming down the pipes, people are dying now. I'm willing to trade some of my privacy for a few lives.
That said, the rollout on this is some bullshit. You'd think the police would have learned something from the Stingray fiasco. I also think it would appropriate to put the question of whether to use this system in the long term to a vote.
posted by vathek at 9:06 AM on August 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
Baltimore has a dire clearance rate for many crimes, in part because people (understandably) won't talk to cops. The city has argued that much of the violent crime in the city is committed by a small number of people, but many of those crimes have proven unsolvable without witnesses. Look at the city's appalling 30ish% murder clearance last year. It's true that many people won't talk out because they have a moral commitment to not snitching, but witness intimidation in this city is out of control. I'm not sure that intimidation is a problem that will be solved by overhauling the department to make it less racist. With standard police procedures, crime clearance rates will remain low as long as nobody will talk.
This surveillance system seems like a practical, relatively non-invasive way of addressing that problem. Is there a potential that it will be abused? Of course. But the other Baltimore PD scandal, one not addressed by the Justice Department report, is that they've done a terrible job putting a lid on crime in this city. The crime spike during last year's unofficial police strike showed that their (appalling) current tactics have some deterrent effect, but it's clear that the police have not done an adequate job preventing heinous crimes in this city. I will gladly accept this system's current level of intrusion in exchange for a higher clearance rate on various violent crimes, which would presumably both act as a deterrent and reduce the number of serial offenders on the street. It's presumably conducive to more targeted policing as well, which could help address the truly intrusive policing that currently goes on in Baltimore's black neighborhoods.
It's probably easier to look abstractly at the way this surveillance could impact privacy when you don't live somewhere where crime is as rampant as Baltimore. To me, a lot of hand-wringing about this looks like support for a status quo that's clearly not working here over a system that, Big Brotherish though it may be, has potential to make policing more effective and targeted. There are good reasons to be afraid of encroaching police powers, but the tendency to treat new kinds of surveillance enabled by modern technology as inherently dystopic seems like a deeply privileged standpoint that can be comfortably held by people least affected by violence, since refusing surveillance on principle doesn't actually involve any trade off for them. I don't believe that there could possibly be a system that perfectly balances the ability to track crime with robust personal privacy, but even if there were one coming down the pipes, people are dying now. I'm willing to trade some of my privacy for a few lives.
That said, the rollout on this is some bullshit. You'd think the police would have learned something from the Stingray fiasco. I also think it would appropriate to put the question of whether to use this system in the long term to a vote.
posted by vathek at 9:06 AM on August 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
Really not loving season six of The Wire.
posted by donatella at 9:10 AM on August 24, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by donatella at 9:10 AM on August 24, 2016 [13 favorites]
Next step is to plug the data into an algorithm that determines the speed of all of those little dots. It then relays the information to the CCTVs on intersections to snap a picture of the offenders license plate. Instant city wide speed cameras.
posted by mayonnaises at 9:18 AM on August 24, 2016
posted by mayonnaises at 9:18 AM on August 24, 2016
The old open source/free culture mantra was "Information wants to be free." But the reality is becoming, Information wants to be collected and stored. Because of the amazing cost reductions in data storage, and the growing technological ability to sift through oceans of data, the natural impulse is to keep everything, even if it's currently unclear what it might be useful for.
Without laws regulating data storage, this will continue at all levels. Even with robust regulation, it's likely that the government will get national security exemptions from most restrictions, and will probably launder their material down to the other agencies.
Barring a complete collapse of technological civilization, I can't visualize a solution to this. It seems pretty much inevitable.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 9:29 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Without laws regulating data storage, this will continue at all levels. Even with robust regulation, it's likely that the government will get national security exemptions from most restrictions, and will probably launder their material down to the other agencies.
Barring a complete collapse of technological civilization, I can't visualize a solution to this. It seems pretty much inevitable.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 9:29 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
the tendency to treat new kinds of surveillance enabled by modern technology as inherently dystopic seems like a deeply privileged standpoint
Also privileged views:
* Not blinking an eye about treating an American city like just another a war-torn third-world battle zone
* Not questioning the use of military technology as a way to maintain (not fix, maintain) post-industrial cities
This technology isn't about reducing crime rates, not really. This is about 1) maintaining a population under the watchful eye of state surveillance, and 2) enriching whichever corporations win the various bids and sending the bill to taxpayers.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:02 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also privileged views:
* Not blinking an eye about treating an American city like just another a war-torn third-world battle zone
* Not questioning the use of military technology as a way to maintain (not fix, maintain) post-industrial cities
This technology isn't about reducing crime rates, not really. This is about 1) maintaining a population under the watchful eye of state surveillance, and 2) enriching whichever corporations win the various bids and sending the bill to taxpayers.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:02 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think this is a technology and approach that can have value in certain communities facing unusually extreme problems, like the drug cartel violence described in Juarez
The cartels are pretty savvy when it comes to technology. Better secure that system well or you've got a murder machine on your hands.
Baltimore already has 600+ CCTV cameras. I can't help but notice that the two crimes reported as successes were solved with the aid of ground-based cameras, and it's unclear whether this system was essential.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:12 AM on August 24, 2016
The cartels are pretty savvy when it comes to technology. Better secure that system well or you've got a murder machine on your hands.
Baltimore already has 600+ CCTV cameras. I can't help but notice that the two crimes reported as successes were solved with the aid of ground-based cameras, and it's unclear whether this system was essential.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:12 AM on August 24, 2016
This surveillance system seems like a practical, relatively non-invasive way of addressing that problem.
Perhaps, but another practical, relatively non-invasive way of addressing the problem of witnesses refusing to talk to police is to engage in community policing, earning the trust, cooperation, and partnership of the community as a whole. This is an approach that has a proven track record in communities like High Point, NC.
Surveillance is a technological solution to what is fundamentally a social problem. It may have its role, but ultimately it is treating a symptom rather than the root problem, which is that individuals in many communities have no trust that the established systems of government and policing are designed to serve them and their needs. (A lack of trust that is in many cases based on an accurate understanding these systems.)
posted by biogeo at 10:54 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Perhaps, but another practical, relatively non-invasive way of addressing the problem of witnesses refusing to talk to police is to engage in community policing, earning the trust, cooperation, and partnership of the community as a whole. This is an approach that has a proven track record in communities like High Point, NC.
Surveillance is a technological solution to what is fundamentally a social problem. It may have its role, but ultimately it is treating a symptom rather than the root problem, which is that individuals in many communities have no trust that the established systems of government and policing are designed to serve them and their needs. (A lack of trust that is in many cases based on an accurate understanding these systems.)
posted by biogeo at 10:54 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
The old open source/free culture mantra was "Information wants to be free." But the reality is becoming, Information wants to be collected and stored.
I know it's meant only metaphorically, but it's important to emphasize the reality that information doesn't want anything. Humans want things. Humans collect, share, and interpret information, and we can make decisions about how we do that, and how the information-processing systems (technological and social) that we design operate. There are facts about human psychology and group behavior that constrain what is possible, but that doesn't mean we're powerless to make choices to structure our societies in ways that reflect our values and aspirations.
posted by biogeo at 11:03 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know it's meant only metaphorically, but it's important to emphasize the reality that information doesn't want anything. Humans want things. Humans collect, share, and interpret information, and we can make decisions about how we do that, and how the information-processing systems (technological and social) that we design operate. There are facts about human psychology and group behavior that constrain what is possible, but that doesn't mean we're powerless to make choices to structure our societies in ways that reflect our values and aspirations.
posted by biogeo at 11:03 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have a problem with "philanthropists" who are "fund[ing] a variety of hot-button causes, including advocating for public pension rollbacks and charter schools"... and persistent public surveillance. I think that if your stated goal [as determined by your actions] is to ruin society for any persons not rich enough to afford privacy, education, and retirement, then you ought to at minimum be barred by law from calling yourself a "philanthropist" (dictionary definition: "a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes").
posted by caution live frogs at 11:12 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by caution live frogs at 11:12 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
has potential to make policing more effective and targeted.
Is there any reason to think that oversight has been added here that would make "effective and targeted" mean something other than "equally intrusive or more intrusive policing of minority residents, but more impersonal, with less effort, and still unaccountable?" There are ways of using tools of surveillance - you know, like a phone! - to keep authorities honest, but does that seem to be promised here?
posted by atoxyl at 12:49 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is there any reason to think that oversight has been added here that would make "effective and targeted" mean something other than "equally intrusive or more intrusive policing of minority residents, but more impersonal, with less effort, and still unaccountable?" There are ways of using tools of surveillance - you know, like a phone! - to keep authorities honest, but does that seem to be promised here?
posted by atoxyl at 12:49 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ars has more information about how the black ops money is laundered through the Baltimore Community Foundation. “Recent payments from this fund have been used to purchase food for community events, trophies for sports teams, and items for the city police museum.”
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:25 PM on August 24, 2016
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:25 PM on August 24, 2016
Perhaps, but another practical, relatively non-invasive way of addressing the problem of witnesses refusing to talk to police is to engage in community policing, earning the trust, cooperation, and partnership of the community as a whole.
It doesn't seem to me like a choice needs to be made between this kind of surveillance and other types of reform. I see how community policing can weaken people's moral commitment to not talking to the police, but I don't really see how it can solve the problem of people not wanting to come forward for fear of retaliation.
Baltimore already has 600+ CCTV cameras. I can't help but notice that the two crimes reported as successes were solved with the aid of ground-based cameras, and it's unclear whether this system was essential.
In the double shooting of the two old people, it sounds like they were able to track the shooter's movement through the aerial surveillance. The blue-light camera footage was innocuous in itself. Obviously no one can know if the crime would have been solved by other means, but it sounds like the aerial system played an essential role.
Is there any reason to think that oversight has been added here that would make "effective and targeted" mean something other than "equally intrusive or more intrusive policing of minority residents, but more impersonal, with less effort, and still unaccountable?" There are ways of using tools of surveillance - you know, like a phone! - to keep authorities honest, but does that seem to be promised here?
It would have been game-changing to have aerial video of Freddie Gray's van ride. Of course, I don't think this is some sort of miracle technology that will make cops honest, but I don't follow why you think it would make things more intrusive. The current process for pursuing homicides is rounding up the victim's associates and leaning on them until you're out of associates or you get a lead. If instead you can do something like follow the killer from the crime scene to a CCTV camera that shows their face (as in the case cited in the article) or to the house they go to after the murder or the car they drive, that sounds more targeted and less intrusive to me.
This technology isn't about reducing crime rates, not really. This is about 1) maintaining a population under the watchful eye of state surveillance, and 2) enriching whichever corporations win the various bids and sending the bill to taxpayers.
You know, it'd be hard to come up with a better example of the sort of kneejerk privileged drivel I was talking about than this comment. I was talking about a specific form of privilege: people who live in relatively safe areas can easily afford to prioritize privacy over security and treat any increased surveillance like some sort of totalitarian horror. My hope was that it would cause people who live in safe areas to reflect on how their own experiences partially condition their response to surveillance. On the other hand, when you call me privileged, as far as I can tell, it just means you think I'm an asshole who has the wrong opinion on this issue, even though I'm speaking from my own experience of Baltimore about a form of surveillance that directly affects me. Instead of actually challenging anything I said about why I'm personally okay with this kind of technology, you toss a pile of dubious and objectionable assumptions about my beliefs and the motives of the people who administer the system, entirely disregarding any possible upside. It's totally obnoxious.
It's obviously true that some technology developed for military use has valid civilian purposes - GPS, duct tape, jet engines, etc. The issue is whether this is a valid civilian purpose. I think it probably is based on the information in the article. I get it, you disagree.
posted by vathek at 2:26 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
It doesn't seem to me like a choice needs to be made between this kind of surveillance and other types of reform. I see how community policing can weaken people's moral commitment to not talking to the police, but I don't really see how it can solve the problem of people not wanting to come forward for fear of retaliation.
Baltimore already has 600+ CCTV cameras. I can't help but notice that the two crimes reported as successes were solved with the aid of ground-based cameras, and it's unclear whether this system was essential.
In the double shooting of the two old people, it sounds like they were able to track the shooter's movement through the aerial surveillance. The blue-light camera footage was innocuous in itself. Obviously no one can know if the crime would have been solved by other means, but it sounds like the aerial system played an essential role.
Is there any reason to think that oversight has been added here that would make "effective and targeted" mean something other than "equally intrusive or more intrusive policing of minority residents, but more impersonal, with less effort, and still unaccountable?" There are ways of using tools of surveillance - you know, like a phone! - to keep authorities honest, but does that seem to be promised here?
It would have been game-changing to have aerial video of Freddie Gray's van ride. Of course, I don't think this is some sort of miracle technology that will make cops honest, but I don't follow why you think it would make things more intrusive. The current process for pursuing homicides is rounding up the victim's associates and leaning on them until you're out of associates or you get a lead. If instead you can do something like follow the killer from the crime scene to a CCTV camera that shows their face (as in the case cited in the article) or to the house they go to after the murder or the car they drive, that sounds more targeted and less intrusive to me.
This technology isn't about reducing crime rates, not really. This is about 1) maintaining a population under the watchful eye of state surveillance, and 2) enriching whichever corporations win the various bids and sending the bill to taxpayers.
You know, it'd be hard to come up with a better example of the sort of kneejerk privileged drivel I was talking about than this comment. I was talking about a specific form of privilege: people who live in relatively safe areas can easily afford to prioritize privacy over security and treat any increased surveillance like some sort of totalitarian horror. My hope was that it would cause people who live in safe areas to reflect on how their own experiences partially condition their response to surveillance. On the other hand, when you call me privileged, as far as I can tell, it just means you think I'm an asshole who has the wrong opinion on this issue, even though I'm speaking from my own experience of Baltimore about a form of surveillance that directly affects me. Instead of actually challenging anything I said about why I'm personally okay with this kind of technology, you toss a pile of dubious and objectionable assumptions about my beliefs and the motives of the people who administer the system, entirely disregarding any possible upside. It's totally obnoxious.
It's obviously true that some technology developed for military use has valid civilian purposes - GPS, duct tape, jet engines, etc. The issue is whether this is a valid civilian purpose. I think it probably is based on the information in the article. I get it, you disagree.
posted by vathek at 2:26 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
The issue is whether this is a valid civilian purpose.
Well, specifically, the issue is that it was deployed regardless of whether or not this was true, and with no way for anyone to know that purpose, how it would be implemented, or even that it existed.
If some of us want to have surveillance planes in the sky watching all the time, well then, that's a discussion we can all have as tax-paying citizens of this city/country. If we're not even consulted — as in the case of the use of Stingrays or NSA intrusion software — it's no longer a populace policing itself. That's a very important distinction.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 4:10 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, specifically, the issue is that it was deployed regardless of whether or not this was true, and with no way for anyone to know that purpose, how it would be implemented, or even that it existed.
If some of us want to have surveillance planes in the sky watching all the time, well then, that's a discussion we can all have as tax-paying citizens of this city/country. If we're not even consulted — as in the case of the use of Stingrays or NSA intrusion software — it's no longer a populace policing itself. That's a very important distinction.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 4:10 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
More on the funding from the Baltimore Sun. "It's not a secret ... it's just a surveillance program funded by an anonymous donor!" (the donor is no longer anonymous, although the police refuse to name names at the press conference)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:47 PM on August 24, 2016
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:47 PM on August 24, 2016
In the double shooting of the two old people, it sounds like they were able to track the shooter's movement through the aerial surveillance. The blue-light camera footage was innocuous in itself. Obviously no one can know if the crime would have been solved by other means, but it sounds like the aerial system played an essential role.
So now let's imagine that the blue-light footage was innocuous because the guy in the blue-light footage wasn't the shooter. Go a step beyond that, and imagine that there was doubt as to whether the man in the blue-light footage was the shooter, because there were two people that fit the time window in the blue-light footage, but only one person's image was introduced as evidence and the other footage was never even surfaced in discovery. Go a step beyond that, and imagine either set of surveillance footage undergoing date-time stamp manipulation.
It's certainly transparent how this technology can increase arrests, charges, clearances, and convictions. It's not so clear how it increases the likelihood of justice. It may well offer a deterrent effect, which would reduce crime. But higher rates of arrest, charging, and conviction are not necessarily correlated with justice.
posted by mwhybark at 5:05 PM on August 24, 2016
So now let's imagine that the blue-light footage was innocuous because the guy in the blue-light footage wasn't the shooter. Go a step beyond that, and imagine that there was doubt as to whether the man in the blue-light footage was the shooter, because there were two people that fit the time window in the blue-light footage, but only one person's image was introduced as evidence and the other footage was never even surfaced in discovery. Go a step beyond that, and imagine either set of surveillance footage undergoing date-time stamp manipulation.
It's certainly transparent how this technology can increase arrests, charges, clearances, and convictions. It's not so clear how it increases the likelihood of justice. It may well offer a deterrent effect, which would reduce crime. But higher rates of arrest, charging, and conviction are not necessarily correlated with justice.
posted by mwhybark at 5:05 PM on August 24, 2016
Coincidentally I just watched 12 O'Clock Boys last night. There was a ton of this helicoptering going on.
posted by unliteral at 11:04 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by unliteral at 11:04 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, when you call me privileged, as far as I can tell, it just means you think I'm an asshole who has the wrong opinion on this issue
You are not the only one living in an American city where setting up unaccountable surveillance apparatus is an issue. We also both live in cities where police have a history of killing innocent people. So I called your views privileged because they come from a place of privilege: your comments show you are okay with this apparatus being installed without independent oversight, where that kind of free rein has already had fatal consequences for people unlucky enough to have a run-in with bad cops.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:26 PM on August 24, 2016
You are not the only one living in an American city where setting up unaccountable surveillance apparatus is an issue. We also both live in cities where police have a history of killing innocent people. So I called your views privileged because they come from a place of privilege: your comments show you are okay with this apparatus being installed without independent oversight, where that kind of free rein has already had fatal consequences for people unlucky enough to have a run-in with bad cops.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:26 PM on August 24, 2016
"..Rain is when the earth is television.
It has the property of making colours darker...In homes, a haunted apparatus sleeps,
that snores when you pick it up.
If the ghost cries, they carry it
to their lips and soothe it to sleep
with sounds. And yet, they wake it up
deliberately, by tickling with a finger.
Only the young are allowed to suffer
openly. Adults go to a punishment room
with water but nothing to eat.
They lock the door and suffer the noises alone.
No one is exempt
and everyone’s pain has a different smell.
At night, when all the colours die,
they hide in pairs
and read about themselves –
in colour, with their eyelids shut."
-Craig Raine
posted by clavdivs at 7:44 AM on August 25, 2016
It has the property of making colours darker...In homes, a haunted apparatus sleeps,
that snores when you pick it up.
If the ghost cries, they carry it
to their lips and soothe it to sleep
with sounds. And yet, they wake it up
deliberately, by tickling with a finger.
Only the young are allowed to suffer
openly. Adults go to a punishment room
with water but nothing to eat.
They lock the door and suffer the noises alone.
No one is exempt
and everyone’s pain has a different smell.
At night, when all the colours die,
they hide in pairs
and read about themselves –
in colour, with their eyelids shut."
-Craig Raine
posted by clavdivs at 7:44 AM on August 25, 2016
Use of local foundation allowed Baltimore police surveillance project to remain secret (annoying audio warning)
posted by jeffburdges at 10:15 AM on August 26, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 10:15 AM on August 26, 2016
Radiolab just posted an update on their piece about the technology in question.
posted by mmascolino at 8:49 AM on September 13, 2016
posted by mmascolino at 8:49 AM on September 13, 2016
« Older Bandcamp Daily | Sega Digitizes What Nintendon't Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by food_colourist at 7:18 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]