Home » Police State, Rochester News

Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

23 June 2008 Comments Written by: Andrew Slominski

From the Democrat and Chronicle - June 21, 2008

Police Officer Daouda Kamagate zooms in on a scene caught by one of the new surveillance cameras around Rochester. Twelve of the cameras were operating on Friday, and 38 more will be ready later this summer.

Police Officer Daouda Kamagate [LIE - an astute commenter on democratandchronicle.com noticed that the man pictured IS NOT A POLICE OFFICER, rather he is an unsworn security guard. Technicality? I think not] zooms in on a scene caught by one of the new surveillance cameras around Rochester. Twelve of the cameras were operating on Friday, and 38 more will be ready later this summer. (VICTORIA FREILE staff photographer)

Locations - Cameras are operating already at the following spots in Rochester: 

  • Avenue D and Baumann Street.
  • Redwing Plaza at 
    1415 N. Clinton Ave.
  • Jefferson Avenue and Champlain Street.
  • Plymouth Avenue and Lorimer Street. 
  • South Plymouth Avenue and Violetta Street.
  • Woodward and Scio streets.
  • Chili and Post avenues.
  • North Clinton and 
    Scrantom streets.
  • North and Durnan streets.
  • Parsells Avenue and Greeley Street.
  • Charlotte Street.
  • Emerson Street.
    Two additional cameras were being installed Friday and were expected to be operational this weekend. Those are at Dewey Avenue and Driving Park and Dewey and Electric avenues.

    •  

    The political establishment in city after city is putting cameras in and the people are told that it is going to make us all safer. Now it’s Rochester’s turn to get cameras and they want us to buy the same lies. I don’t think that we the people are this gullible. The evidence that this is a farce is in London, UK, where not only have the millions of CCTV cameras not been able to stop a rise in crime, but they are also not able to solve crimes that occur under their watch. Here are a few articles for reading:

    CCTV boom has failed to slash crime, say police - guardian.co.uk

    Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe.

    Tens of Thousands of CCTV Cameras, Yet 80% of Crime Unsolved - thisislondon.co.uk

     

    London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million, figures show today.

    But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast doubt on its ability to help solve crime.

     

    Lonon: Panopticon Cracks - defensetech.org

    Londoners are seen on the city’s vast amalgam of surveillance cameras an average of 300 times a day. Which means that the terrorists behind yesterday’s bombings almost certainly knew they’d be caught on tape — and went ahead with their attacks anyway.

    Cameras ‘fail to reduce crime’ - Independent, The (London)

    Researchers at South Bank University have monitored the effect of introducing the cameras in Sutton, south London. Crime fell by 13 per cent in the area where the cameras were installed. However, it decreased by 30 per cent in the borough as a whole.

    More articles can be found, but the consensus is the same. The statistics are so overwhelming that the cameras aren’t doing anything to stop crime that it should be obvious what path we need to avoid here. Who really wants to feel like we’re living in a prison?

    And yet, only weeks into their operational duty, the Democrat and Chronicle has kissed butt and declared success for the cameras. The headline reads:

    Police cameras lead to 7 drug-related arrests in 3 weeks in Rochester

    Wow, really? Seven whole arrests? In only 3 weeks?!?! That’s about (52/3*7=121.333) drug arrests a year!

    Oh wait a minute….SO WHAT. Think about it. Most drug users and dealers are non-violent and criminalizing drugs and going after them in the so called ‘War on Drugs’ has only given further incentive to the remaining dealers to become more violent by increasing the money to be made in drugs. The scarcity causes the trade to become profitable causing gangs to rise up and territory to be fought after. If you want to see the whole story, then you need to see this movie:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5am_VXd2ik]

    (American Drug War - trailer)

    This movie exposes the American Drug War for the scam that it is. The government ships in the drugs, sells the drugs, busts you for drugs, puts you in private prisons owned by the banks and then the banks reinvest their money to do it all over again.

    Official website: americandrugwar.com

    This brings me to my next point. Even if the cameras around the city did lead to more ‘drug-related’ arrests, is this what we were promised? Weren’t we promised a reduction in violent crimes? How about property crimes? This was a classic bait and switch. Although we were promised that these cameras will reduce violent crime the Democrat and Chronicle is more than willing to sound the victory horn over a few drug arrests.

    Underlying all of this is my fundamental believe that a surveillance society cannot be a free society. If you truly want liberty then you must be opposed to police-state surveillance. Not because you’ve done anything wrong or are planning to, but because you have your human dignity. It is ultimately the social fabric of society, the bonds between neighbors in neighborhoods and a respect for life that will reduce crime in our city, not endless surveillance.

    I’ll end with a quote from Duffy himself:

    “It’s a great deterrent”… Some people have moved down the road, then out of the camera’s range, the mayor said.

    So what you’re saying is that it has deterred people from selling drugs on that corner, but now they’ve just moved down the road? Wow I bet a child could have seen that one coming.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Related posts

    Vote This Post DownVote This Post Up (+10 rating, 1 votes)
    Loading ... Loading ...

    Viewing 33 Comments

      • ^
      • v
      I have been pretty quiet for a while now but I might have a little bit to contribute to this discussion.

      I am a lifelong resident of the City of the Rochester and I feel uncomfortable with the idea of mass policing and surveillance cameras. Crimes do happen when people have the opportunity, but I really don't see any point in having police cameras everywhere since no one would ideally plan to kill someone in front of one. Perhaps there is some correlation to smaller crimes, but I don't know that these cameras will actually affect murders.

      I actually spoke with a city councilman not too long ago who conveyed to me a sense that people have agreed to these cameras as part of an initiative to deter crime, but they cannot be permanently funded and sustained. He agreed that the use of data was a potential problem, and that many people have expressed concern about it. We also discussed how a free society could not be watched 24 hours a day; people themselves have to decide not to take someone else's life. Governments can't stop people from killing one another, yet the social, economic and political climate of this country has been one cause leading to violence and other crime. Can we prove that these cameras catch the actual murderers?

      Is your reason for wanting police cameras, Ryan, that you personally want to be safe when you venture into the city to grab a hot dog or hang out in the East End? I suppose I understand that not feeling safe is a deterrent to hanging out in a city, but I don't feel my life is threatened...What do you think is the psychological impact on actual city residents, both "law abiding" and criminals?

      I don't know that more police around or cameras could have prevented that shooting at Mark's Hots either. I also don't feel any less safe going there, because I don't tie that crime (albeit horrible and senseless) to Mark's. It could happen anywhere. You could be standing in line at a bank and someone could come in and shoot everyone.

      However, I do think that police presence out on the streets in areas like Monroe and East Ave where there are bars is completely reasonable...there's probable cause that someone would get into trouble in that case.
      NPR had an interesting little segment regarding some of the pros and cons to surveillance cameras in London. I think I've read some stuff on how the crime rate in London hasn't really budged much despite the cameras and this brief clip mentions that

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...

      I just think that we are too willing to try and patch up problems instead of addressing the roots causes of most crime. That's why I'm against it.
      • ^
      • v
      I agree Alicia. We can't take a crime that is admitted to be a random act of violence and use it to justify radically altering our society. Your points about feeling safe hit on another point --- it's not the job of the RPD to make sure that the city is catering to the will of the suburbanites. Is it a consideration? Absolutely. But should the city compromise the will of it's residents to meet the will of people that feel that the city is just their spot to hang out? No.
      • ^
      • v
      All I can say is apparently I haven't learned my lesson. This past weekend I went to Mark's Texas Hots around 9pm with a friend. As we were finishing our meal my friend noticed a guy who at just come in standing by the counter with a handgun concealed on his person. We got out of there as fast as we could. I didn't see anything on the news about a shooting, but regardless it was quite disconcerting.

      If I feel unsafe grabbing a hot dog in the city, how safe would I feel living or working in the city? A lot of people I've talked to who worked in the city through the sixties claimed the violence associated with the race riots as a main reason for leaving the city. Crime isn't just deterring suburbanites, its deterring many people who would potentially want to live and work in the city. I for one would love to live in an area where I wouldn't need a car.

      Check out James Slater's case:

      http://www.rnews.com/print.cfm?id=60240

      Amazingly, they've convicted the two guys of robbing him at gunpoint, but they've both been acquitted of murder. WTF? The jury cited difficulties in the credibility of the main witness (who was the other guy in the robbery). If video had recorded this would there be any question? If the robbers knew they were being filmed, would the have shot and killed the guy over an ipod and two cell phones in the first place?
      • ^
      • v
      Believe it or not, carrying a concealed weapon isn't a crime. You do have to get a permit (which violates the 2nd Amendment - permits are for something that's otherwise illegal). So you're telling me you'll wet your pants when you see a citizen with a gun, but you just love it when it's some guy in uniform, be it black or blue? AGAIN Ryan, do I have to remind you that tyranny comes to your door in a uniform? Hell, I'd sure carry a gun to Mark's if I had a permit. The more these criminals know our city isn't a victim disarmament zone, the less they're going to pull this stuff.
      • ^
      • v
      Yep, I am telling you that. Our law has to presume innocence, but I don't. Should I have gone up and asked him if he had a permit? Maybe I could have asked him at the same time if he planned to rob the place, or shoot an innocent bystander or shoot me (hey I may have had my ipod on me)?

      Its a Felony to have an unregistered handgun, why? Registration is required to ensure that you haven't already committed violent crimes. I think we can both agree that selling firearms to convicts isn't a good idea.
      • ^
      • v
      Well, first if the gun wasn't registered then it proves the point that registration does not prevent criminals from possessing firearms. If I am going to commit a felony with a firearm why would I be concerned about committing a felony to obtain one?

      Second, perhaps you should obtain a firearm in the event that you need to protect yourself. Unless you imagine that you would instantly be transformed into an outlaw. Imagine if that man did come in with the intent to rob the place and murder the cashier and perhaps you. If you had a weapon you could have been the good citizen to stop this violent act. As it happens you were unprepared and that man was most likely the one who would have defended you.
    • Comment removed.
      • ^
      • v
      What would you do? Wait for the police to save you? Too late, you would already be dead. If you have no desire to protect yourself it is not my problem.

      I cannot understand people's fear of guns. Yes they can kill you, but they can also save your life. If even 10% of the city of Rochester had hand guns how many armed robberies or any violent crimes do you think would happen? I would guess very few. Put yourself in the mind of a criminal. Would you rob a liquor store knowing that the cashier or the customers are probably armed? Most criminals would prefer to keep living, I think.

      I am not talking about vigilante justice, I am talking about self preservation. The day that I am confronted with an armed criminal I don't want to be left in the street with wet pants like Ryan.

      I would actually feel safer knowing that the citizens of Rochester were armed. Despite what you may think, most gun owners are law abiding citizens and I would welcome their protection. I know it is just my opinion but I enjoy life. Good luck to you Daisy.
    • Comment removed.
      • ^
      • v
      • ^
      • v
      Free speech may not be dead in America, but it sure is on riseupRochester.org. My comments on the board that is lamenting the death of free speech are being censored for being different than that of the moderator. I'm going to submit my thoughts on this subject (and on what is clearly a sham of a website in general) to the D&C, and get their opinion...
      • ^
      • v
      I don't think they were removed for being different than that of the moderator. I believe they were removed for the violence they were advocating. Not that what I think matters anyway, but your comments distract from real debate as well.
      • ^
      • v
      I'm sure when they see your comment about the Boston Creme Pie and wiping up someone's blood off the floor they will thoroughly understand.

      The arguments against your opinion were clear and consise, then your comments became sick and twisted - there is no need to continue a debate with someone who, once unable to continue their side of the argument, responds with nasty semantics. It appears all the contributors welcome debates, just not the kind of childish debates you want to have.
      • ^
      • v
      Your argument completely falls apart, don't most corner type stores in the city have armed cashiers? I'd argue you'd have to be a pretty stupid proprietor to not have some sort of protection. Surprisingly, these places still somehow get robbed.

      Your argument for arming the general population falls apart too. While I can be fairly certain a store owner won't shoot me (if he wants me to buy his goods) I can't be certain delinquent or mentally unstable people would. How many times have you seen a bar fight by stupid people who are drunk or overly emotional? Now imagine if each time this happened they brought out guns instead of pummeling each other with their fists? This isn't the society I want to live in.
      • ^
      • v
      Ryan,

      I'm trying to understand you; is it your belief that we should not have the right to own firearms?

      I can assure you that if our right to firearms is taken away, those committing crimes with these firearms will still have firearms; it will be those of us who are law abiding citizens that will no longer have the option to protect ourselves. One of the first things that Hitler did when he rose to power was take away the people's right to own firearms. Therefore, he took away the people's right to protect themselves. They had to rely on the Nazi regime to protect them, and as history shows us, that did not work out well for a lot of people. This is definitely not the direction I want our society to go in.

      Why do you believe that most store owners are armed? I am a social worker within the community of Rochester and can say with much confidence that most store owners are not armed.

      It appears that your mentality is of the "guns kill people" belief. I, on the other hand, am of the "people kill people" belief. There are a variety of ways that a "delinquent or mentally unstable" person could hurt someone, having the right to firearms as a society does make that any more likely.
      • ^
      • v
      Thank you, Nicole. That's all I've ever been trying to say here.
      • ^
      • v
      So you're positing that in the unlikely even the US Army were to start persecuting American citizens, that you think American citizens would be able to defend themselves and win?

      Our country has the second largest active military in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...) and is probably the best funded, best trained army in the world. No offense, but do you really think average citizens, armed with whatever would stand a chance?

      I fully support gun ownership by small at risk businesses. If smaller, vulnerable stores aren't armed I think they should be. Why? I only really endorse gun ownership for those who have strong incentives to keep me alive: police, store owners, military personnel. None of these people could benefit by killing me.
      • ^
      • v
      You should acknowledge that you disagree with the founding fathers. They were clear with their intentions. No one doubted why the 2nd Amendment was included at the time.

      http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm

      http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

      http://www.fdrs.org/founding_fathers_and_gun_co...

      There really is no debate here as their intentions are well documented. George Washington even stated that sports were a waste of time and young men should be taught how to shoot a gun instead.
      • ^
      • v
      Also, the police, store owners and military did a great job of protecting the "people" in WWII Germany, USSR, US, etc.
      • ^
      • v