The Glade 4.0

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/nyreg ... .html?_r=2


Surveillance Will Expand To Midtown, Mayor Says

Published: October 4, 2009
A network of private and public surveillance cameras, license plate readers and weapons sensors already established in Lower Manhattan as an electronic bulwark against terrorist attacks will soon expand to a large patch of Midtown Manhattan, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said Sunday as they announced the allocation of $24 million in Homeland Security grants toward the effort.

Mr. Bloomberg said the expanded monitoring network would cover the areas between 30th and 60th Streets, from the Hudson to the East River.

“We cannot afford to be complacent,” he said, noting that Midtown includes landmarks like Grand Central Terminal, the Empire State Building and the United Nations.

Like the system downtown, the expanded surveillance network would feed streams of data for analysis to a coordination center at 55 Broadway. Mr. Bloomberg, who made the announcement at the center with Mr. Kelly, said work on the Midtown system would begin next year and be completed in 2011.

Behind the mayor, a 40-foot video wall displayed maps, incoming data from a police precinct and more than a dozen video streams, many of them showing tourists taking photographs on a sunny day.

The plan devised to protect downtown Manhattan, known as the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, was introduced by Mr. Kelly in 2005. That raised concern among civil liberties groups, which have called for more public discussion as the police peer, with greater intensity, at more corners of the city.

Asked Sunday about criticism of the increased surveillance, Mr. Bloomberg said: “We live in a world where we have to have a balance. We can’t just say everybody can go everyplace and do anything they want.”

He added, “Do you really want to work in a building that doesn’t have security?”

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Yes I do.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Depends on the job.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

How would you address the security risks of high rise buildings and dense population like NYC?

Don't have a corporate policy that denies the legal carry of weapons for individuals to protect themselves.

More people die from drowning in their own pools than die of terrorist attack in the US. The fear is overblown but thats because it is presented to be feared so people overreact and sacrifice their own and other's liberty.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So you believe that guns in the hands of citizens would prevent a bombing?

Further, you want to infringe on the rights of that company to restrict firearms in their building?

And last, how do you reconcile that with the responsibility of the police and city to keep it's citizenry minimally safe? (i.e. the WTC going down affected the welfare of tons of people and property around it, not just the 5k or so who died there.)

Obviously not Elmo, but a quick stab...


Does removing guns from the general populace prevent bombings? You are asking a very narrow question to a very broad response from Elmo. Security is not just bomb prevention.


I believe he said "not have a policy", not make it illegal. It would still be up to the company to set the policies for their employees, and it would be your option to work there or not.


Didn't police and the City exist prior to Sept. 11? Wasn't there a previous attack on the exact same building that caused an increase in the supposed "security" of the building, by those same groups you just mentioned?

Besides, you are asking a question with the assumption that none of what Elmo suggests increases security. That may or may not be the case, but from his position, if those changes increase the security of the building, then there is less risk inherent to the rest of the population than a building that does not.

Moving the goalposts.



A valid issue. I'm relatively sure that in a society that depended more on the individual for security and less on the police state, how companies treated carry rights would have a greater impact upon hiring/job selection.

In the existing society, however, those individuals forego their right to carry in the workplace in large part because the state itself has already banned them from carrying at large.




Irrelevant, as terrorism is no where mentioned in the OP, most particularly the WTC.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Firearms might prevent a bombing - they might not. The slight chance of a bombing is not worth the constraint placed on individuals.

I never said anything I desired should have the force of law behind it now have I?

Police do not have that responsibility. For perhaps the twentieh time the responsibility of police is to arrest criminals after the comission of a crime.

Oppressing the many because of what might happen to the few is illogical and counter to everything the United States stands for thus it is our quickest course to self-defeat and an homage to wisdom of our enemies strategy.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Interesting answers from everyone.

Yes, the bomb question is a subset of the overall initial idea. However, what I'm questioning is the extent to which Elmo thinks that everyone having guns fixes the problem. Or how having a gun somehow makes him safer from things like 9/11 or OKC, etc.

Thanks for clarifying about the force of law on that policy. The issue then is that the company that owns the sky scraper can implement a policy to prevent carrying firearms (in today's legal world) so you can't assume that the normal citizens have firearms. How do you deal with that in the real world today?

I believe the last point is relevant, as Elmo was the one who brought up terrorism. While you may feel Elmo, that police don't have a responsibility to keep the citizenry safe, you are in a VERY small minority in that viewpoint. It doesn't say "To Serve & Protect" on the side of squad cars for nothing. So if I understand you correctly, you feel the police shouldn't spend any resources attempting to try and prevent something like a bombing of a building, but only arrive afterwards to arrest the person who did it? Presumably the same should be said for any other criminals?

There will always be things that can't be countered by any reasonable, or practical, or even possible, means. You might be able to mitigate the potential, but those actions will always be reactionary, and at that level, some items that provide security will be completely ineffective whether they exist or not. I would attribute the OKC to that level... everyone having a firearm or not would not have changed that outcome. However, you could make a reasonable argument that everyone on the plane had guns, the outcome would have been far different, if the situation existed at all, from what occurred to the Towers.


Then you are again back to the same position. The building owner might be able to make that policy (barring a ruling by the USSC about carry in public areas as a right), but its no different than at the company level. The company is free to decide to lease that space or not depending on the lease policies of the building owner.


The saying on the side of the patrol cars is nothing but feel good PR for the police department. Legally, regardless of what "majority" feel, the police are not responsible for the prevention of crime.

Where do you get the idea that I believe that"everyone having guns fixes the problem" or makes me safer form things like 9-11 or OKC? You're attributing a belief to me I don't have and have never expressed.

Yes it actually says Serve and Protect for a reason - to give people a false sense of security and to give the Police more trust and leeway in their operations. The Supreme Court multiple times stated the police have no such duty no matter how many people in the US believe they do. Multiple state courts have also reached this conclusion. Individual officers may also believe that they have a duty however they are only acting based on their moral position of society - not anything implicit in their office. Also when did I say that this was what I thought should be so?

You seem very eager to attribute statements I make about reality when answering your questions to beliefs about how reality should be. Why do you do this? It gets us no farther in discourse.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Actually I'm really just attempting to understand your position. Your language appears to indicate to me that you support the things I'm asking. But please note that each of those are questions, seeking clarification from you on your stance.

Well if by responsible you mean that they can't be sued because they didn't stop someone ahead of time, of course.

However, what you guys seem to be indicating is that because they don't have a legal responsiblity, they should not make any attempts to prevent further crime or keep people safe. If indeed that is your position, I find it ludicrous as well as not what reality today.

Police spend a very large amount of their time on trying to prevent crime. Everything from education outreach to announced heavier enforcement around holidays, etc.

I don't mind question asking however this phrase seems to include an assumption "However, what I'm questioning is the extent to which Elmo thinks that everyone having guns fixes the problem. Or how having a gun somehow makes him safer from things like 9/11 or OKC, etc." wouldn't you agree?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yes they should act to prevent crime up to the point of infringing on rights. However when police see someone acting suspicious they cannot act until something illegal actually happens. Their presence may discourage such acts for fear of being caught but that is about it. In order to act to actually prevent the infringement of rights they would require the ability to infringe on rights such as premptively detain a person who has not comitted a crime and that they have no RAS for. I am sure the police could prevent a lot of crime by picking up suspicious characters - I am also sure they would violate a lot of rights in the process (as in more than they do now).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

In regards to this discussion, that is all that matters. If "security" is the prevention of crime, which is certainly the implication of the article in the OP, then the exercise crosses into the realm outside of the jurisdiction of the police, and quite frankly, there is nothing the proposed system can do to actually prevent crime. It might provide a tool by which to catch the criminal later, but that is it.

A metal detector at a school doesn't prevent bringing a gun onto campus, it detects the crime. A traffic camera doesn't prevent running the light, it detects the crime.

Now, you might take the position that the existence of these "security" measures prevent crime by acting as a deterrent. However, that reasoning relies on the assumption that the crime won't merely be relocated, assumptions of static methods to perpetuating the crime, assumes that the motive is to not get caught, or the criminal cares or in a mental state to consider such.

I would call that a false position.


I'm not sure how you get that impression from my post. What I disagree with, since you asked, is giving carte-blanche power to the police or imposing on the rights of the public in the name of keeping people safe. Primarily, because it is an impossible goal, and seeking such leads to increased erosion of the rights of innocent people.


I'm sure you have some examples in your head, but aside from something like Stranger Danger or DARE, most of the programs are targeted to mitigate the effects of the crime, not prevent it.

I completely agree.

Do you think that these cameras and detectors are crossing a line? I can understand why there might be support for them in NYC given 9/11.

What is done with the information once it's collected? Where does my picture taken outside a Times Square diner end up after I've already gone home? While the agency collecting the information might do nothing, who guards the guards? How do I know whats collected isn't being used in a manner inconsistant with the stated goals of those who are collecting it?

It gives people power who very well do not deserve to be custodians of said power.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

The answer is: "it depends."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Then there are those of you who would limit the rights of the business owners to observe the people in their businesses? You do not want business owners to be able to observe theft, pilfering, vandalism, or identify those that commit these crimes on their premises? Where do the business owner's rights end and the 'right to privacy' begin?

In the same vein, in a high crime area, or even a moderate crime area, what constitutional guarantees exist that a citizen has a right to escape observation?

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

The answer to all of your questions, Michael: "It depends."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Micheal:

Actually, you have no right to physical privacy on some one else's property, particularly in a place of business. While you do retain the right to deny them personal informational, they still retain the right to remove you from the premises at will. They can observe you through cameras, floor surveillance, or most any other means while on their property; and you can choose not to shop there.

_________________

I haven't seen anyone suggest any such thing, and to the contrary, my posts (if I am one of "those of you") clearly state is it up to the business to decide their policy. Other than that, Khross provide a good response to your comment.


There is none, and no one suggested any such thing.


Metal detectors are a pain the *** and provide little return compared to the imposition placed on most people, and I think there are some problems when it comes to using something with such a wide scope of "positive" return to then search areas considered private, such as purses. If you think about it, using metal detectors is not that different in terms of scope as racial profiling. Most people are willing to trade convenience for security though, so it doesn't really become an issue.

Traffic cameras I only have a problem with because the systems are scam, and based upon evidence so far, lead to increased legal issues with the City, decrease the effectiveness of the police force, and don't provide the returns promised. Its not that I have a problem with the concept, its the implementation and the reaction to the system that I dislike.

Exactly. What I'm trying to get beyond is the "OMG Oppression!" reaction that usually happens with this kind of news here, and understand where folks think that line is or should be drawn.