Here’s lookin’ at you, kid.
Closed-circuit security cameras are already everywhere in New York City. I can count upwards of 30 of them between 8th Ave. at 16th St. and the elevator to my office building in the heart of Chelsea Market. But if the city officials have their way, more and more cameras will be on the way to spy on New Yorkers keep the city safer.
A few months ago, in March, I wrote about plans to install security cameras in the subways. While at the time, I was a bit opposed to that deal, I think that, if the cameras are used correctly, they can enhance the safety of late-night train rides and the general feelings of security on the subways. I’m not the only one.
Over in London this week, Mayor Bloomberg spoke a length about surveillance cameras in the city. London, a city with many more CCTV cameras than New York City, is an apt stage for Bloomberg’s talk. Much like New York will, London uses security cameras to enforce their own successful congestion fee, and Transport for London has equipped the Tube cars with cameras.
Looking to shore up support for more cameras in the city, Bloomberg opined on the roles of cameras in a post-9/11 world:
Bloomberg, holding talks with his London counterpart Ken Livingstone, said such measures as London’s “ring of steel” — a network of closed-circuit cameras that monitors the city center_ were a necessary protection in a dangerous world. “In this day and age, if you think that cameras aren’t watching you all the time, you are very naive,” Bloomberg told reporters at London’s City Hall.”
“We are under surveillance all the time” from cameras in shops and office buildings, “and in London they have multiple cameras on every bus and in every subway car,” he added. “The people of London not only support it, but if Ken Livingstone didn’t do it they would try to run him out of town on a rail. We live in a dangerous world, and people want to have security cameras.”
New Yorkers seem resigned to a city of security cameras. While many of Rudy Giuliani’s draconian police tactics came under fire during the 1990s and the NYPD’s responses to the RNC protests in 2004 were highly scrutinized, cameras have become a part of New York City life with nary a peep for civil rights advocates worried about government intrusion into private life.
Really, in the end, there are few if any downsides to lining subway cars with cameras. People will be less likely to harass or threaten passengers. They’ll be less likely to deface cars and seats. Maybe they’ll even be less likely to litter and seat hog (I can dream, right?). So as Bloomberg continues European adventure, we can only wonder what other ideas he’ll try to bring back to the states. Socialized medicine, anyone?
5 comments
nary a peep from civil libertarians? time to read something besides subway blogs. i’m not too opposed to cameras in subway cars, as they may deter crime by those who know they can be identified on tape later, BUT i have an option of NOT riding the subway should i feel my privacy is too precious to bear it. being monitored on every public street corner is different.
and the ‘ring of steel’ (ooh – that sounds MACHO) does NOT PREVENT major crime. cameras are good for reviewing afterwards. sure, small crimes like having sex or urinating in public get you a ticket in england, but seeing someone shagging in a park is not the same league as stopping a subway bomber (who very likely will NOT strap on his bomb belt in the middle of the street). what the cameras will be good for is exactly what the UK is doing with them now: command and control of the civilian populace. the UK has mounted speakers on many cameras, and hectors people over their behavior. if rudy 9/11 is elected, expect to see that here.
‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! ‘
anything to prevent a seat hog for sure, i think the camera should take pictures of the people that uses the seats for their bags to rest on and post them in the newspaper
The security cameras were one of my favorite things about the London tube. No, it probably won’t stop a terrorist attack, but I definitely think it cuts back on crime and really helps out with safety issues. People are generally on better behavior when they know they’re being watched.
As the London bombings in July 2006, a city full of cameras does not deter people from doing crime and or acts of terrorism.
Maybe we could install all these cameras with the clapper, this way if we feel unsafe we can just clap to turn the camera on, and then just hope that someone will send the police…
Right… except that England has the second highest crime rate in the developed world. In every crime category except homicide, England and Wales has about twice the crime rate of the US.