Submitted by Beezlegrunk t3_zmdttp in RhodeIsland
Comments
degggendorf t1_j0bmgvx wrote
> UK-style public surveillance
These cameras are pointed at the road to capture still images of cars, while CCTV in the UK is largely video footage focused on people (though they do have license plate recognition as well).
Providence has 85 cameras; 1 for every 2,200 people. London has half a million government-operated cameras; one for every 18 people. In the UK as a whole, it's 1 camera for every 32 people.
In the UK, the average person on a typical day will be captured on camera 70 times. In Providence you would be captured 0 times (unless you're sticking your head out the back of the car by the plate as you pass a camera, I guess).
These cameras delete their images after 30 days. There is no time limit in the UK.
I don't think it's helpful to use misrepresentation as a tool for criticism...how about we criticize them for what they actually are?
> in the final two weeks of eight years in office
Are you wishing he did it sooner? I'm not sure I follow your intention.
Flock Safety didn't even exist as a corporation when Elorza was originally elected, so I'm not sure what you would have wanted him to do...create his own tech startup to get cameras on streets earlier?
Besides, this all started with a pilot program turned on in September and kicked off six months earlier, so it's not like he just up and decided to install these yesterday.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j0bvqy9 wrote
I think there's plenty of concerns about abuse, will they actually stick to the limits on use/retention that are supposed to be in place, how this relatively new company will safeguard the data, whether any long term pattern tracking is included (i.e. they could easily be deleting every photo after 30 days like they claim, but the information from the photo is retained elsewhere)
Plenty of people have plenty of reason to neither trust the police, nor the private company being given a tremendous amount of information. There's also a question of national organizations having access not subject to the same regulations as local police. No Such Agency and what not.
All that being said, I really don't care. I also think privacy is a dead concept and, while I love the heck out of the ACLU and send them money every year, they're like those Japanese soldiers on islands in the Pacific who don't realize they lost the war years ago. I admire their moxie, but the bell can't be un-rung and I think there's enough probable and likely benefits where this isn't the thing worth getting upset about with policing.
degggendorf t1_j0bxpr2 wrote
> I think there's plenty of concerns about abuse, will they actually stick to the limits on use/retention that are supposed to be in place, how this relatively new company will safeguard the data, whether any long term pattern tracking is included (i.e. they could easily be deleting every photo after 30 days like they claim, but the information from the photo is retained elsewhere)
Oh for sure, absolutely...that's my point. Handwaving "it's like the UK so it's bad" is inaccurate and pointless. Let's talk specifics about how the system in our state works, how it should work, and what risks there are.
> Plenty of people have plenty of reason to neither trust the police, nor the private company being given a tremendous amount of information.
100%
Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0c5t4x wrote
>"It’s like the UK so and it’s bad”
Fixed that for you. Nice try, though …
Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0bwrms wrote
Jorge, is that you …?
degggendorf t1_j0bxbx5 wrote
Why would the outgoing mayor be urging you to criticize their program?
Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0c5bc3 wrote
There was no criticism — just the usual defense of the status quo …
degggendorf t1_j0c6rlj wrote
Where do you see me defending anything? Or are you saying that you're not criticizing, you're just defending the status quo?
All I did was call out your nonsense comparison, and question your logic with the timing comment.
I didn't present an opinion on the matter at all here, unless you count my allusion to it deserving criticism for what it actually is.
Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0c7k26 wrote
>”urging you to criticize”
>”I didn't present an opinion on the matter at all”
Pick one (we don’t care which) — but being mealy-mouthed isn’t helping anyone but you …
degggendorf t1_j0c7ucu wrote
Those are compatible statements.
I didn't give an opinion, but want you to give your opinion based on facts.
[deleted] t1_j0cbrqe wrote
[removed]
degggendorf t1_j0ce7nf wrote
> And the most important “fact” about a huge increase in public surveillance in Providence is exactly how closely it replicates the system in the UK …?
Idk, is it? That seemed to be your main point, which is what I was calling out.
>Here’s a fact for you: When people describe you as being “on the spectrum,” they’re not talking about wavelengths of light …
Yep, there's your trademark move...resorting to name-calling instead of simply explaining your opinions.
[deleted] t1_j0chnva wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ckrnj wrote
[removed]
Hellion102792 t1_j0cimei wrote
Cranston's shitty mayor has done the same thing. I don't even think they announced it, just one day these blacked out solar powered cameras started appearing and eventually someone reached out to a news outlet to find out. Police basically said "we need them to uh...solve crimes".
Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0cm13k wrote
If Cranston's mayor is anything like Fung, he's not progressive. Meanwhile, Elorza is a darling of some on the left, who advocates hiring more police and putting license-plate readers everywhere — which are right out of the Republican policy playbook.
He's clearly studied Bill Clinton's "politics of gesture" and knows how to pander to different segments of the city, but in a cynical and contradictory way. I assume the mayor of Cranston doesn't act like a liberal to some constituents while being a conservative with others ...
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j0djw8v wrote
Cranston definitely announced them before they showed up. They've also got a portal listing how much they've been used, which organizations have access, etc.
GhostOpera406 t1_j0amom9 wrote
With how cheap solar panels, webcams, and a data plan are nowadays, there's absolutely no reason we can't combine the three to make surveillance cameras that people can put on their own property to track down cop cars and government employees instead.
A raspberry pi in a weather proofed enclosure, powered by a mounted solar panel, with a Coral AI accelerator to allow on-board machine learning. Within a few seconds you'll be able to process license plates and store it in a database. Save on data costs by only transmitting when each license plate was seen as well as a low resolution image of the plate to verify.
I wonder how quick they'd make license plate readers illegal.
degggendorf t1_j0cf3g1 wrote
That actually seems to be a thing: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/new-open-source-license-plate-reader-software-lets-you-make-your-own-hot-list/
You might not need to even roll your own rasp pi with camera module; you can use an off-the-shelf outdoor camera streaming to a network location and do the processing inside.
It would be much more local network traffic, but only local where it doesn't cost anything. There are cameras with local (I think) AI for vehicle detection, which might be a good-enough improvement...transmit only frames containing vehicles which would be a broader set but still smaller than streaming everything.
Either way, what you're describing sounds like a fun project.
ruubduubins t1_j0ctqm3 wrote
Has it had an effect or pedestrian fatalities?
I think it's pointless. You're charging your population and paying a huge kickback to the company that operates them.
Locksmith-Pitiful t1_j0cherx wrote
So... I'm not sure what to think.
On one hand, we need more moderation of drivers in this city, we also need safer streets. The accidents, deaths, etc., need to be curbed. If this can also be used to bring lawbreakers to justice, that sounds like a positive. Potentially more money for the city as well.
On the other hand, where is this money going? Is the money used to implement safer streets? Where are the cameras going to be installed? How is it effecting minorities and poorer people? Is this a slippery slope to invasion of privacy? Can we trust police / whoever is in charge of this?
OutlandishnessNo7283 t1_j0e1irz wrote
1984 here we come. How about we put this money into public transportation instead? What is really needed is to minimize the amount of people that need to use their own cars to get to work. This will maximize safety and minimize stress for everyone. Traffic tickets generate millions of dollars and they want more, it’s always the lowest hanging fruit to accomplish that goal. Why are we allowing this? Driving in this state already sucks a big one!
[deleted] t1_j0dvfql wrote
[deleted]
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j0e2yje wrote
You realize the Massachusetts State Police installed their own version of the exact same thing in like 2015, right? And they did it without a private vendor that, at least on paper, had safeguards for data privacy, system access, retention, etc.
DownTownGangster t1_j0e6xpw wrote
I was not aware. I will look into it. I just remember hating driving in Pawtucket and providence. Even east providence is getting bad
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j0ei6ur wrote
These cameras also don’t issue tickets. There are ones for those. But there’s only like 15 in each in a couple cities.
Beezlegrunk OP t1_j12uqqi wrote
Leaving a place that you think is trash but then lurking on a sub for the people who still live there is pathetic …
fiddycixer t1_j0c6l8u wrote
Awe. How cute. A police state. Congratulations Rhode Island. You voted for this! Hurray!
EDIT: The downvotes are cute from those that must swallow the bitter pill they took willingly.
ACLU of Rhode Island says this:
"Indiscriminate and far-reaching surveillance efforts promote a police state, not community safety. We denounce the increase of this surveillance technology and urge the city to instead invest in robust housing, educational, and economic supports, all of which promote public safety and trust in the community rather than suspicion.”
degggendorf t1_j0cfdkl wrote
> You voted for this!
Well no, not really, which is part of the problem.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j0cgndp wrote
> urge the city to instead invest in robust housing, educational, and economic supports, all of which promote public safety and trust in the community rather than suspicion
We should totally do that. The camera system that costs about $160k isn't going to make a dent in any of those areas though.
fiddycixer t1_j0ci63i wrote
It's not about the startup cost for the city. Some of these politicians sneeze $160,000 into a Kleenex every day.
It's about them using violative methods to access millions of dollars (see east Providence) in revenue.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j0cj6qs wrote
You're not talking about the same type of camera. Speed cameras have to be in school zones only, operate limited hours/days and generate revenue.
These are not the same thing.
fiddycixer t1_j0cjj5n wrote
You know what. You're right. Not the same. Thanks for pointing that out.
I maintain this type of surveillance is unfavorable to the relationship between the community and the city. And that it's a step in the wrong direction.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j0cwj7n wrote
I think there's a ton of valid reasons to not like the cameras. I just question how much of an impact it will have.
It comes down to what happens first: a scandal that breaches public trust where the police misuse the cameras or a situation where the cameras can easily be pointed to as a part of the solution, i.e. "in the stolen car with kid(s) inside"
Beyond that? I'm not sure it really changes the public/police relationship much. Even with media coverage, most people aren't going to notice this shit since, unlike the speed/red light cameras, they aren't getting a ticket in the mail.
[deleted] t1_j0dkpfp wrote
[deleted]
Desperate_Expert_952 t1_j0d4ye1 wrote
Providence needs more cameras. One on every street!
HighPlainsDrifting t1_j0cdsg5 wrote
Between the mag ban and the new surveillance state Florida is starting to look reaaal nice. Keep it up assholes.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j0chgq9 wrote
If I tell you something, will you promise not to reconsider moving?
>!Florida cities have these cameras too and in less than a decade, every city and town in America will have this technology between scanners on cop cars and stationary cameras. !<
Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0ck567 wrote
I'm sure Gov. DeSantis will give you a relocation bonus ...
Of course, the surveillance down there is whether you've had an abortion, use cannabis, etc — but you're OK with that, right?
huron9000 t1_j0d2zkr wrote
Florida is super uptight about weed and probably won’t have legal recreational for a long time. That’s not a freedom-loving stance. At this point it’s basically Bible thumping.
It’s too bad because it’s beautiful down there in the winter.
[deleted] t1_j0eqrh6 wrote
[deleted]
Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0ajge4 wrote
UK-style public surveillance in Providence, courtesy of supposedly “progressive” lame-duck mayor Jorge Elorza — in the final two weeks of eight years in office. What a joke …