CCTV cameras

San Francisco installs surveillance cameras to deter crime

SAN FRANCISCO Work crews have installed two surveillance cameras outside a public housing project in San Francisco's troubled Western Addition neighborhood.

Mayor Gavin Newsom says more surveillance cameras could go up in other high-crime areas if the 90-day pilot project is shown in reduce crime and residents are willing to give up some privacy in return for safer streets.

The San Francisco mayor had a chance to see surveillance cameras in operation during a trip to Chicago last month. Chicago officials have reported a significant reduction in crime in areas where cameras have been deployed and other anti-crime initiatives put in place.

New York, Baltimore, New Orleans and Detroit have also installed surveillance cameras.

(AP Credit: San Francisco Chronicle)

Source[/color]

UK: Londoners Don't Mind Living Under Eye Of Surveillance Cameras

By Jan Jun

Pictures of the faces of the terrorists who attacked London's transport system -- first on 7 July and then again on 21 July -- circled the world almost immediately. They were taken by closed-circuit television cameras, or CCTVs, at London's subway and railway stations. CCTV cameras have proved a vital tool in the fight against terrorism. And in London, they seem to be everywhere. According to a recent survey, London is under greater camera surveillance than any other city in the world. Some Londoners complain they feel they are constantly being watched like a character out of George Orwell's novel "1984." But most city residents say that under the current circumstances, it's probably the lesser of two evils.
------------------------------------------------------------------

London, 25 July 2005 (RFE/RL) -- CCTVs can be seen virtually everywhere in London -- at subway and railway stations, on double-decker buses, and at many other public places.

The closed-circuit television cameras have enabled the police to identify the faces of the men involved in the terror attack of 7 July as well as the failed subsequent attack on 21 July. They have also helped emergency services to deal with the attacks.

Security experts say the CCTV system has played a more important role in the aftermath of the attacks than police might care to admit.

"I think that's fairly obvious, isn't it, really," said Peter Conway, editor of the security magazine "Risk UK". "Because the only identification they've got of them is images caught from cameras. So, you can't really argue that without them they would know who they were."

Conway explained that the pictures that have circled the world in the days since the bombings seem grainy and inconclusive. But the original digital footage, he said, may have been of much better quality.

"Those images were never intended to be printed on the front page of a newspaper," Conway said. "When you do that, they look like rubbish. But if you actually look at them on digital equipment, and they compress the images and decompress properly, and they're transmitted properly, you get something very, very different."

Conway added that there is no doubt that CCTV cameras can be an "extremely powerful asset " for security operations.

A spokesman for London's Metropolitan Police explained: "Obviously, the security-alert state is much higher since the 7th of July. And the CCTV camera, of course, is one of the security measures we have a whole range of, some of which are obvious to the traveling public, and some of which aren't. And we keep those measures under constant review."

Conway said the police are understandably wary of showing how much help the CCTV cameras have provided in the recent terror hunt. But the rising role of CCTV is undeniable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cameras are used to monitor traffic flow and record the number plates of speeding cars. They are also used to protect office buildings and factories, and cameras in shopping centers watch the flow of shoppers and guard shops against theft.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conway, however, added that the cameras will only do what they are programmed for. In most cases, those are very specific activities. Sometimes they can only be activated by movement within the monitored area. Most cameras can monitor the general flow of people or cars, but cannot distinguish faces or car number plates.

Some Londoners say they are uneasy about the multitude of cameras being used in the city. Fred, a 38-year-old postal worker, said he has the constant sensation of being watched.The cameras are used to monitor traffic flow and record the number plates of speeding cars. They are also used to protect office buildings and factories, and cameras in shopping centers watch the flow of shoppers and guard shops against theft.

"I think they're going a bit over the top, actually," Fred said. "You've got the CCTV cameras looking at the people."

Conway laughs these worries off. Yet he agreed that many people may be truly apprehensive about the cameras, and have an uncomfortable sense that Orwell's "Big Brother" is observing their every move.

"The problem is, if people see a camera, they believe it's watching them," Conway said. "But what they don't realize is that the camera may be set up to do a certain job. So, a camera on the building, it might be that only when the gate to the building is opened that the camera is active. So, a lot of people who say that it's invasive, it's invading their privacy, that they're being watched all the time -- they're making their statement from the position of ignorance."

Conway claimed that only one out of every 10 Londoners fear the eye of the CCTV cameras. Jane, a 37-year-old secretary on a shopping trip with her teenage son, said she feels no worries.

"If you're not guilty, why should you feel nervous?" Jane said. "They should put [up] more cameras, as far as I'm concerned."

Jane's son, 17-year-old Tony, said the cameras haven't meant the end of crime in the city, but that he doesn't mind being watched if they help more than hurt.

"People are still getting away," Tony said. "It's not making much difference, I don't think, in a way. But, I don't [worry]. No. It doesn't bother me. No."

Both Tony and his mother say they hope the new, clearer CCTV camera pictures of two terrorist suspects released by the Metropolitan Police on last night may prove to be the key in securing their capture.

Source[/color]

Pressure Builds For U.S. To Use More Surveillance Cameras
The calls have come over the last few weeks as British investigators released surveillance footage of the bombers in the deadly July 7 attacks and then put out frames of suspects in Thursday's failed attacks.

By Robert Tanner, The Associated Press
July 25, 2005

NEW YORK - Pressure is building for greater use of video cameras to keep watch over the nation's cities -- particularly in transportation systems and other spots vulnerable to terrorism -- after the bombings in London.

The calls have come over the last few weeks as British investigators released surveillance footage of the bombers in the deadly July 7 attacks and then put out frames of suspects in Thursday's failed attacks.

"I do not think that cameras are the big mortal threat to civil liberties that people are painting them to be," Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony A. Williams said Friday.

He's not alone. While privacy advocates question their effectiveness, Sen. Hillary Clinton called for New York City subway officials to install more cameras, even though officials said some 5,000 cameras are already in use across all modes of city travel. In Stamford, Conn., Mayor Dan Malloy said it's time to revisit a 1999 ordinance that limited cameras to watching traffic.

In many other spots around the country, cameras already are in place.

"In general, I think we're getting used to cameras. Hey, that's just the way the world is," said Roy Bordes, who runs an Orlando, Fla.-based security design consultant firm.

Consider these recent developments:

- Chicago now has at least 2,000 surveillance cameras across its neighborhoods, after leaders last year launched an ambitious project at a cost of roughly $5 million. Law enforcement says they've helped drive crime rates to the lowest they've seen in 40 years.

- In Philadelphia, where the city has increasingly relied on video surveillance, cameras caught an early morning murder which ultimately led to the capture of a suspect. Police say the accused is now a suspect in an unsolved murder from 1998.

- Homeland Security officials last week announced they would install hundreds of surveillance cameras and sensors on a rail line near the Capitol at a cost of $9.8 million, months after an effort by local officials to ban hazardous shipments on the line.

In most cases prior to the last few years, street crime -- not terrorism -- was the driving factor behind the cameras. There has also been a boom in traffic-monitoring cameras, and huge reliance on surveillance cameras in private business, especially in retail establishments like convenience and department stores.

Security experts say that technology hasn't yet caught up with hopes for the equipment, however.

They point out that despite London's huge network of cameras, the bombings weren't prevented. In those two cases, the cameras have only helped in the investigations.

One significant weakness is that the images caught by camera can't automatically link to a list of known terrorist suspects -- not that that would have helped in London, as men identified as bombers weren't on any watch lists.

"I haven't heard of anything being successful that allows us to prevent something by flashing up on a screen somewhere a positive identification of someone on a terrorist database," said Jack Lichtenstein with ASIS international, a Washington-based organization of security officials. Still, "that's where we're headed," he said.

Privacy advocates say the London bombings should persuade policymakers to stay away from surveillance rather than invest in it. It doesn't prevent terrorism, and at best only encourages terrorists to shift their target, they argue.

"Let's say we put cameras on all the subways in New York City, and terrorists bomb movie theaters instead. Then it's a total waste of money," said Bruce Schneier, author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World."

It's not much more likely to catch a terrorist than the random searches that New York officials have begun conducting on subways, he said. Better to spend money on intelligence resources to prevent attacks and emergency training to respond to them, he said.

But in Stamford, Conn., a city on a train line that runs to New York, Mayor Malloy said potential targets like trains, hospitals and water reservoirs should all be monitored, with regulations to guard against snooping on private homes, parks and other unlikely targets.

Source[/color]

Say cheese: McBain residents may soon see surveillance cameras around town

By Tanya Berkebile, Cadillac News

MCBAIN (Michigan) - Local business leaders are focusing on stopping crime on the streets of McBain with a new project involving the installation of surveillance cameras around the city.

A surveillance committee is working together with the McBain City Council to install surveillance cameras around McBain. The 20-some cameras will be placed strategically throughout the area.

Bob Jones, a member of the Tax Increment Finance Authority, said the project has been in the works for a number of years.

"We have been researching (the project) for about four years and it has been in the TIFA plan for about five years," he said. "We talked about it for a long time and we feel confident we've done enough research to justify the project."

With McBain being a small community, it is difficult to hire law enforcement officers to cover the area 24 hours a day. Jones said if a technical system can do the job, it could be just as effective as hiring people.

Pat Smith, head of the surveillance committee, has been on the committee for three and one-half years. The committee involves people from various segments of the city including TIFA, the Downtown Development Association (DDA), manufacturing and downtown businesses.

"The committee was brought together with different sectors representing the city," Smith said. "We got together so the city could get an impression on how the people would feel about this project."

After meeting and talking about the issues, they decided to move forward because the committee had positive feedback from those involved.

"They all felt, without reservation, that this was a good idea," Smith said. "Everyone thought it was a great concept and proactive."

When asked how they felt about having cameras in the city, most residents said they hadn't heard about the project. After finding out the details, they were overall receptive to the project. Marianne Meekhof of McBain is a little weary of having the cameras around town, but said as long as they are used as intended, she doesn't have a problem with it.

"If a person broke into a business and the cameras are used for that or some other criminal activity, then I am OK with it," she said. "If it's being used for general observation of day-to-day stuff, then I think it is invasion of privacy."

Neil Schaaf, who lives right outside of McBain, agrees.

"I think it's a good idea, although I haven't heard about much crime happening lately," he said. "I remember we used to have a lot of kids from not only McBain but surrounding areas - they would tear up the streets and stuff like that. I think they'd think twice about doing that if they know they could get caught on film."

John Netz of McBain said he was surprised but agrees it is good for the city.

"I don't have a problem with it - I am just curious how visual the objects will be on camera," he said. "I hope the cameras won't give out blurry pictures. I think as a trial basis, we should try it and see how it goes."

As part of researching the project, committee members searched for cities similar to McBain who had cameras in place. Smith said they weren't able to find an exact match.

"We looked at other cities with similar situations but weren't able to pinpoint a city of our size that has something like this," he said. "Detroit has cameras around, but we can't compare to them. Grand Haven is also talking about cameras, but again, they are bigger than us."

As for where the cameras will be located, Smith said they are going to focus on businesses in the community, the industrial park, near the city well and lift buildings and possibly near the school.

"The city also has a brand new fire truck and a second new vehicle that we would like to keep an eye on," he said. "These areas (where we plan to set up cameras) aren't set in stone, but it is what we are looking at for now."

The intent of the cameras is to curb any type of vandalism and crime. Since McBain doesn't have any police in the area, they thought this might help prevent crime in the area.

"Anytime you have cameras anywhere, you usually deter people from doing something bad," Smith said. "This will also help police find people, since a camera could witness the event if no one else is around."

Although the McBain City Council and surveillance committee are in charge of the project, only members of the law enforcement will have access to the video footage.

"These cameras aren't going to be installed so we can see what's going on in town," Smith said. "If a break-in or vandalism happens, then the law enforcement officers will look at it. No one is just going to be watching it throughout the day."

If it weren't for the businesses in McBain, Jones said the cameras probably wouldn't be placed in the community. Most of the money being used to pay for the surveillance cameras will come from a technology fund through TIFA. TIFA is a legal entity that has been in existence since the 1980s. It is mainly funded through taxes from businesses in the city.

"Industry is paying a lot of the bills and if crime is committed against them, it affects the tax base of the community," Jones said. "Because of the number of jobs and businesses generating growth, then you can logically put in this project that will be used to help the safety of companies."

Smith said they will not know an estimate on the project until they get the bids back, which are due in mid-August. He said they originally had estimates, but since then things have changed.

Jones said he expects the project will start soon after a bid is chosen.

"It is something new and we are just excited that residents will be able to feel safer living in this community," he said. "We believe this will be a good thing. Technology is far enough along that it should be very effective."

Source[/color]

Surveillance Cameras to Keep an Eye on Istanbul

Zaman Online
4 Aug 2005

Istanbul Bus Terminal has been included into the surveillance system that covers the city. The identity of everyone arriving in Istanbul will be detected through surveillance cameras.

"Five million cameras are used in London for security. Istanbul has for the time being 570 cameras. We have now have included the Bus Terminal into the system.

Our objective is to install one million cameras," Istanbul Security Chief Celalettin Cerrah told.

The surveillance system by Mobile Electronic Systems Integration "MOBESE," recently implemented at Istanbul extended its scope with the inclusion of the city bus terminal into the system.

Cerrah and his entourage took a tour at the terminal and met with Bus Operators Federation (TOFED) chair Ahmet Yalamanoglu.

"Passengers coming from Anatolia arrive here first. Everybody arriving in our city meets in the bus terminal. This place is very important for us for security. We will be able to survey people more efficiently through this camera system," Cerrah said, noting the importance of the bus transportation in the country.

A high-level security will be ensured through the system that will be effective within a few months. The bus terminal will be watched around the clock through the cameras to be installed in various places in the terminal.

Yalamanoglu expressed readiness to cooperate with the security forces, saying they would solve the problems of the sector in which the provided a public transport service excelling in quality over the world standards together with the security forces.

Source[/color]

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Surveillance cameras on the TTC

TORONTO, Aug. 5 /CNW/ - In anticipation of a federal government
announcement today calling for the greater use of cameras on urban transit, the TTC has assembled the following facts:

Subway Stations
---------------

- The TTC currently has 800 cameras in its subway stations. These
cameras are used by Toronto Police Service in their investigations.
They are replaced on a 5-year life cycle.

- TTC staff have been working on a proposal for a $15 million 5-year
program to install 3000 more cameras at "choke" points and on
platforms in the subway. These are locations where the greatest
number of people can be viewed on a camera.

Vehicles
--------

- The TTC will be testing cameras this fall on 20 buses.

- Future installation on 1750 buses and streetcars would range from
$4 million to $19 million, depending on the quality of camera.

- Installation on 750 subway cars could cost up to an additional
$10 million.

Source[/color]

Put cameras on buses, SkyTrain: directors

Brad Badelt; with files from Fiona Anderson
Vancouver Sun
Saturday, August 06, 2005

Surveillance cameras should be considered for Lower Mainland buses and SkyTrain cars as part of what could be a sweeping federal plan for security upgrades in the wake of the recent London bombings, two TransLink directors said Friday.



Their comments echoed those of Federal Transport Minister Jean Lapierre, who announced Friday that Ottawa will introduce a no-fly list in 2006, similar to the one that has been used in the U.S. since 9/11, and will also review security on transportation systems across the country.

The security review is expected to include subways and buses in major cities, as well as ports, railways, and air travel.

TransLink director and Surrey city councillor Marvin Hunt said Friday that surveillance cameras were discussed by TransLink board members several years ago, but the idea was derailed by a transit strike.

"It sort of sat in limbo ... but with what has been happening in Britain, it's brought the issue back to the forefront," Hunt said.

Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie, who also sits on the TransLink board, agreed that surveillance cameras need to be looked at.

"I'd want to see some analysis, but I believe they're effective and generally would be a positive measure," Brodie said. "I think we've seen from the London experience just how effective they can be."

TransLink spokeswoman Susan Danard said TransLink officials will meet with Lapierre at the end of August to discuss existing security measures and whether more needs to be done.

But she noted that the review will not be completed until next spring.

"There's nothing happening independently of that, she said."

At this point, there is no estimate of how much surveillance cameras would cost or where they would be installed.

"We're interested in hearing more from the federal minister and seeing what comes out of that meeting," Danard said. "This has not gone to our board yet. We haven't even got a recommendation yet for our board.

Hunt, who hopes the issue will be tabled within the next couple of months, suggested cameras should be used to target high-crime areas.

"Every community in the Lower Mainland has certain areas that are a challenge," he said. "So I wouldn't think [cameras] would just be used on heavy-volume [routes]."

About 750 cameras are already in place in SkyTrain stations across the Lower Mainland, which Hunt says has curbed crime within those stations.

"Any violence that happens, usually it's happening outside the view of those cameras," he said.

BC Ferries has installed cameras on all vessels and inside terminals, spokeswoman Deborah Marshall said Friday.

"We've had them for several years, just with increased security since 9/11," she said.

Marshall would not say how many cameras have been installed -- or specifically what the cameras are used for -- but said there have been no complaints from passengers.

"In this day and age, I think people are reassured with improvements in security," she said.

The City of Vancouver also has public surveillance cameras -- estimated to be fewer than 100 -- that are monitored by security staff, said Jennifer Young, the city's assistant director of corporate communications. Most tend to be in public areas, such as City Hall or the Vancouver Public Library, Young said.

Joe Wilson, who operates a local franchise of Sonitrol Corp., which provides video surveillance equipment for the RCMP's bait car program, said installing a wireless video surveillance system on a TransLink bus would cost about $6,000. Monitoring would add $70 a month, or could be done by Translink directly, Wilson said.

Wilson, whose business has about 4,000 customers, said video monitoring has increased since 9-11, but not in B.C.

"In the West Coast we have a naivete about our risk," he said.

But Sean Hier, a University of Victoria sociologist who researches the effectiveness of surveillance, said public cameras have little effect on violent crimes.

"Closed-circuit cameras do not deter violent crime," Hier said. "At best, what video surveillance does is deter, or more likely displace, vehicle theft."

The Vancouver Police Department recently abandoned its plan to install 23 surveillance cameras downtown, citing research done in Britain that showed the cameras to be ineffective.

Hier said surveillance cameras are now considered more as a tool for capturing offenders, rather than for crime prevention.

There is also a risk of using sensational events, such as the London bombings, to justify the use of cameras, Hier said.

"The image that's being created is often very different from the day-to-day application," he said.

In Britain, where public cameras are widely used, Heir said some people have taken to wearing hooded clothing to conceal their identity in surveilled areas.

"It's become such an issue that it's become legislated that you can't put up a hood on a public street in Britain," he said. "If you do and it interferes with daily policing activities ... you can get an Anti-Social Behaviour Order that restricts you from circulating in that space."

Closed-circuit cameras might be warranted on public transit, Hier said, but privacy rights needs to be carefully considered.

"It could turn out that [surveillance cameras] are a useful technology to put in the SkyTrain, but that's an issue that needs to be looked at from a variety of different angles."

Source[/color]

How do you feel about CCTV cameras on public transit systems? Would you feel safer?

Keeping watch on track

Whittier Daily News

Saturday, August 06, 2005 - AS much as we don't like Big Brother eyeing our every move, the use of TV surveillance cameras on subways, trains and in major transportation hubs could prove an invaluable deterrent to terrorists.

As we witnessed in the rapid arrests of would-be bombers in London, those unblinking eyes also have become an important law enforcement tool. Authorities have arrested all four suspects in the failed July 21 attempt to again disrupt London's transit system.

But how far should the United States go in implementing the technology in the public arena?

Certainly we had accepted surveillance cameras in retail outlets and the workplace even before 9/11. They have long been used to deter theft and identify criminals.

The carnage July 7 in London where suicide bombers killed 56 and wounded more than 700 once again drove home the point that we cannot be completely safe. Nor were we ever.

Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph have proved that insanity comes homegrown. That there are "jihadists' of all stripes willing to kill and be killed for a cause. But today's violent acts by Muslim extremists have become the Damocles sword poised over the Western World, and it could push Americans to voluntarily relinquish still more freedoms in a blind attempt at safety.

Having said that, however, we believe it is time to follow England's lead and place cameras aboard our own buses, commuter trains and light-rail cars as well as in the stations that serve the system.

Again, as witnessed in the bungled attempts at a second bombing in London, cameras can help in identifying likely suspects. If not bombers, then graffiti artists who turn our public transportation into gangland walls of shame.

Even that small step toward better security isn't likely to happen on a nationwide basis, however, as the Senate approved only $100 million in rail- security funds under the pending Homeland Security spending bill, expected to be voted on next month. Congress should revisit the issue.

Unlike Londoners, however, we don't believe Americans are ready to allow cameras to intrude on their daily lives as they walk city streets or spend time in such public areas as city squares and parks. These seem unlikely terrorist targets at any rate.

And the old saw that if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from government just doesn't wash. Especially not in these times when that very government has moved to make permanent invasive provisions enacted as emergency measures under the USA Patriot Act.

The legislation is expected to be reauthorized after the August congressional break.

The act gives unprecedented access to personal records and private homes, overturning more than 200 years of guarantees against illegal search and seizure and the idea that Americans be secure in their homes and persons as delineated in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps, this is the threat laid at the feet of terrorists that we should fear most.

Certainly most Americans are willing to forgo some freedom in the face of terrorism, but it should make sense, such as surveillance cameras in our transportation system, not every intersection and neighborhood.

Source[/color]

Closed circuit cameras capture Britons hundreds of times each daySource[/color]