Cameras, Cameras, Everywhere!

mmm, take a big whiff of the fascism...it's to protect your freedom and safety.

Cameras, Cameras, Everywhere!
Tricia Shore | September 26 2005

Leviathan loves a flattering self-portrait.

Some people envision Leviathan as a big hairy slightly benevolent monster, the kind that you feared was hiding under your bed when you were four, scary but a monster that your parents would have been able to handle. Itâ??s the kind of monster that youâ??d notice if he were standing outside your front door. If we go back a bit further than Hobbes and look at what Job in the Old Testament says about this monster, weâ??d see that it has "mighty strength" and that "round about his teeth is terror. His back is made of rows of shields." Things certainly calmed down a bit for Leviathanâ??s image after the Old Testament. In the illustration of a currently published Hobbes paperback, Leviathan is merely a slightly-befuddled-looking giant, protecting the masses that are contained inside. It is this version of Leviathan that we want to believe, the slightly helpful, slightly befuddled monster of government that is here to help us. Leviathan must love this more flattering image of itself. Its existence depends on our believing this latter version.

How else do we explain Leviathanâ??s latest coup, a $400,000 federal government grant, followed closely by another $300,000 federal grant, followed by a generous donation by Motorola of $1,000,000 in equipment. What modern government miracle does all this money grant us? Why, placing security cameras in the Jordan Downs housing project in Watts, of course! What a splendid idea for the police force there, ah, well, or what used to be the police force. Councilwoman Janice Hahn actually said, after claiming that she was "cautious about endorsing the cameras," and while apparently bearing a straight face, that a loss of funding for the "housing police department" prompted the Los Angeles Police Departmentâ??s claim that "they donâ??t have the officers to patrol properly."

I donâ??t claim to be an economist â?? ask my husband, heâ??ll definitely agree. But it does seem as though $1,700,000, adding together the corporate and government generosity mentioned in the previous paragraph, would hire quite a few officers--possibly enough for a housing projectâ??s security. Maybe Councilman Hahn doesnâ??t know about the grants â?? doubtful â?? or maybe she just doesnâ??t put two and two, or in this case, one million and seven hundred thousand, together. I can relate â?? a lot of us were trained in government school mathematics, the unstated purpose of which is to produce people like Councilman Hahn, people who merely want to be "cautious" about Big Brotherâ??s moves and who donâ??t connect enough numbers and dots to say: Hey, if youâ??re going to spend that much money, why donâ??t you just hire more police officers?!?

And I donâ??t mean only to place the blame on Ms. Hahn. Sheâ??s probably got enough going on in her life, trying to rationalize irrational behavior such as spying on citizens with cameras. Anyway, sheâ??s not the only one to be merely "cautious" about this camera thing. In fact, she pales in comparison to such governmental luminaries as Assistant Chief George Gascon, head of daily LAPD operations, "Cameras are as much a part of policing now as handcuffs."

I canâ??t help but think of my husband here who, as young boy, opened his Santa Claus presents before his parents woke up one Christmas, and, finding a pair of toy handcuffs from Santa under the tree, accidentally handcuffed his own hands behind his back, forcing his parents out of bed way too early to fetch the key and unlock him. Iâ??m proud to say that my husband has learned a few things since that time, things that apparently Chief Gascon has not. My husband no longer plays with handcuffs.

As with my husband, some people in the housing project have actually grown up. A few residents have much better sense than those whom Leviathan has chosen to protect them. While LAPD Cmdr. Charlie Beck is telling us that "Itâ??s the criminals, not residents, weâ??re targeting," and admonishing that the "residents will grow to understand this is there to protect them," the residents, whom Leviathan has so generously helped with their housing needs, have defiantly taken to thinking for themselves: "How do you think theyâ??d feel if I put a camera outside their homes?" asks Robert Lopez. Robert obviously did not have enough public schooling. He sees Leviathan for its sneaky monster self and is actually standing up to this devious beast. Never fear, Leviathan is working behind the scenes to make sure that people like Robert "grow to understand."

Sneaky is as sneaky does; and this time, I must admire the craftiness with which Leviathan has bundled this little security package. You see, some of the grant money will actually be used to conduct computer classes because, along with a little extra added governmental security via surveillance, the residents will receive "free wireless Internet access." Hooray! Now itâ??s all okay, isnâ??t it? Our friend Robert, way too smart for Leviathan, has this one figured out too. He knows of "few residents who have computers to take advantage of the Internet access."

Police Commission Vice President Alan Skobin, however, has people like Robert all figured out: "This isnâ??t about Big Brother," says Skobin, apparently without a hint of irony, "It is about protecting and serving the public." So there, Robert! And let Skobinâ??s quote also be noted to everyone else who hasnâ??t been so desensitized by the reality show sporting Orwellâ??s governmental name that they have forgotten the 1984 allusion. Oh, and then thereâ??s James Foreman, another thinking resident, who ponders: "Do you think people around here are going to trust the LAPD to use their Internet connect?" With so many thinking people around, itâ??s easy to see why the government wants to monitor things. "Maybe it will catch someone," another resident ponders. Maybe indeed. If Leviathan and its corporate pal are doling out almost two million dollars, you can bet thereâ??ll be some catching going on.

And is Motorola merely being a good corporate citizen here? Or is it hoping that this little camera snooping thing will catch on, so that its investment in this housing community will yield more contracts across the country? All in the name of security and protection, of course.

Nothing much surprises me about this Leviathan move, or about its sneakiness on the "underprivileged," as Bushâ??s loving mother calls those who are evidently not privileged. Iâ??m assuming here that she would apply the same word to the people in this housing project as she did to the people who were unlucky enough to be caught in Katrinaâ??s subsequent Superdome fiasco. Lest we be as smug as Mama Bush â?? compared to the Bush family, most of us are indeed underprivileged.

The supposedly underprivileged, though, have been guinea pigs for Leviathanâ??s creeping paws for quite a while. While Rob Reiner and his posse are telling Californians that we should allow Leviathan to take away our children and educate them by age 3--using the term educate ever so loosely here â?? the coalition for universal preschool in California is citing studies that show how taking away students from their parents all day helps to improve their academic performance, at least until theyâ??re in second grade or so. Diane Flynn Keith has information on this ploy.

Never mind that the studies were mostly done using that wonderful Leviathan helper, Head Start, a program of the mid-1960s that resulted in some of the very people that Mama Bush now calls underprivileged. Leviathan was so successful with these guinea pigs that its ideas spread to the more privileged. One theory of marketing shows that it is much easier to take a product initially designed for higher-income folks and market it to those of us nearer the bottom of the income chain. Think Guess jeans in the 80s here.

But in Leviathanâ??s topsy-turvy world, things initially marketed to the lower-income folks eventually become the desire of the middle and upper classes. How else does one explain the recent campaign telling those of us whose children watch PBS that we better make sure our children attend the right preschool as early as possible, or else they wonâ??t be attending the right college. Reiner and his ilk have taken Head Start statistics, which show that children benefit from early education programs, and applied them to all children. The ploy is working and mothers everywhere now believe they are not smart enough to teach their own children the alphabet and such. As with many people born in the mid-1960s or later, I assumed that preschool had been around for most of our countryâ??s existence. Ah, the sneakiness of Leviathan, educating us masses to believe that things have always been some particular way!

Ms. Keith informed me that preschool is a relatively new invention. I was indeed surprised to learn that prior to Head Start, most moms stayed home with their children until the compulsory school age of six or seven â?? that children learned at home and became "school-ready," whatever that vague phrase means. Tell that to the moms I know, most of whom are scrambling to place their child into a preschool of some sort â?? all the better if there can be some kind of developmental disorder with which to diagnose Junior so that he can go to a special preschool program on Leviathanâ??s dime.

But I digress. Or do I? Is it implausible that Leviathan is playing another sneaky trick, this time with the Watts housing residents? While we comfortably sleep, currently unwatched, in our middle-class suburbs, supposedly free from the gang activity that Leviathan is blaming for its candid camera experiment, we are tempted to believe that Leviathan has a point this time. Maybe Leviathan is helping the poor people to stay safe!

It must have been easy for people in my Los Angeles neighborhood to watch Head Start in the 1960s and say, Isnâ??t that nice that theyâ??re doing something good for the poor children? And here we are, 40 years later, with my being an anomaly because I keep my children at home with me instead of having them diagnosed with some supposed disability and sending them to a government preschool. Never fear â?? through such programs as the sneaky camera project, Leviathan is trying hard to condition my own children that cameras are there for our protection. If you doubt me, go to your local intersection with a camera that snaps your picture and license plate if you do something it doesnâ??t like.

There's no use in believing that Leviathan is the boogeyman or that its biblical description is at all relevant to us today. Leviathan is merely that nice police officer whoâ??s protecting you. And now itâ??s becoming the police officerâ??s benevolent tool: the camera â?? just watching. And patiently waiting.

Cincy to expand crime cameras

Associated Press | September 26 2005

CINCINNATI | The city wants to expand its use of high-resolution neighborhood cameras because police say the technology has improved investigations of drug deals, assaults and prostitution in just three months.

Mounted on buildings and bridges and often mistaken for lights, the cameras have been used since June in four neighborhoods, with both police and volunteers monitoring them.

Cincinnati City Council is considering a plan to buy 117 more cameras and install them in 16 more neighborhoods. The panel's public safety committee recommended the expansion last week.

Because they're so new, data on camera-assisted arrests is limited. In June and July, arrests on one street in the city's Over-the-Rhine neighborhood doubled to 70.

The cameras cost about $5,000 each, and neighborhoods pay monthly upkeep of $49 to $99 per unit.

The cameras transmit by wireless signal to police facilities and a center at the Cincinnati-based manufacturer, CityWatcher.com.

The company is trying to sell its cameras to Cleveland next week, and Toledo and East St. Louis, Ill., are trying them out. Chicago police use cameras citywide.

Cincinnati police say the new cameras fared much better than a failed experiment with $20,000 units that were hard to move and too far apart, letting drug dealers and other criminals step out of range once locations were known.

Now someone can step out of one camera's view, right into another's.

"The technology is just so good," said Lt. Col. James Whalen, commander for the district including Over-the-Rhine. "The pictures are very, very clear. You can count the pieces of crack in somebody's hand. You can see the denominations of money."

Jim Bodmer, a community activist, is convinced of the cameras' value and wants them in his neighborhood â?? not because crime is out of hand there, but to keep it from getting that way.

Getting requests from neighborhoods and relying on volunteers helps reduce "Big Brother" concerns that many people raise about using the cameras, said police and Sean Darks, CityWatcher.com's chief executive.

About 150 officers and 40 residents are trained to monitor the cameras.

Mayor Charlie Luken is among those still not sold on the idea.

In June, he vetoed a council-approved plan to use cameras to catch speeders and red-light runners, saying budget crunches were motivating the plan.

Luken said he also had privacy concerns.

10 more spots getting cameras

Daily Southtown/Fran Spielman | September 27 2005

Ten more accident-prone Chicago intersections have been chosen for a Big Brother experiment that has already raked in $13.9 million: digital cameras to snare motorists running red lights.

Once again, the new intersections were chosen after a review of accident statistics. They have a history of "right-angle" crashes most commonly linked to red-light running.

The new locations are Ashland and Cortland; 63rd and State; Diversey and California; State and Roosevelt; 99th and Halsted; 111th and Halsted; 79th and Kedzie; Fullerton and Cicero; Fullerton and Kedzie; and Fullerton and Damen.

The 10 new locations will bring to 30 the number of intersections under camera surveillance. The new cameras are expected to be in place by year's end, following through on a promise Mayor Richard Daley made a year ago when he unveiled the city's 2005 budget.

Although cameras were never intended to be a moneymaker, that's precisely what has happened.

Approaching the second anniversary of red-light cameras in Chicago, city hall already has issued 250,128 tickets at $90 a pop. That has generated $13.9 million â?? not counting the cost of the cameras themselves â?? prompting Daley to promise even more cameras to help erase a $104 million shortfall in his 2006 budget.

Even more important is the fear factor: how the threat of being caught on camera has apparently modified drivers' behavior. Overall, there has been a 35 percent reduction in the number of violations since the camera experiment began in November 2003.

At 71st and Ashland, there's been a 69 percent drop since October 2004, when cameras were installed at that intersection. That's followed by: La Salle and Kinzie (a 67 percent drop); Foster and Nagle (64 percent) and 31st and California (59 percent).

Transportation Committee Chairman Tom Allen (38th) was the driving force behind red-light cameras in Chicago and he's been prodding Daley to broaden the umbrella by installing mobile speed vans to crack down on chronic speeding along residential streets.

On Monday, Allen said he's not surprised by the crackdown's success. "We sit here in these ward offices day in and day out and hear as our No. 1 complaint people blowing stop signs and speeding," Allen said.

"The famous quote is, 'Are we going to have to wait until somebody gets killed?' If I had a dollar for every time a constituent posed that question to me, I'd be a rich person."