Eyes In The Elmwood Skies

Eyes In The Elmwood Skies

Story Options

This week many of the city surveillance cameras were installed on the lamp posts up and down Elmwood Avenue. These things are easy to spot during the day, and they're even easier to spot at night. The cameras look like an appendage of the Sony dancing robots, complete with blinking blue light to notify troublemakers of their existence. When I stopped to take a photo of one, I was stopped by Luanne diBernardo (photo) who seemed to be very keen on the whole idea. "I had to change a tire when it was dark last night," she told me. "I know that Elmwood is not dangerous, but the whole time that I was working on the tire (in the Spot Coffee parking lot) I was very aware that the camera was there."

Just talking to Luanne gave me the impression that the cameras were doing a good job. According to Dan Leonard of the Elmwood Village Association having the cameras hitting the street is a good thing. “We were never actually told how many we would get,” he told me. “So far it looks like there are three out there… one at Bidwell, one at Auburn and one on the 500 block. I think that these will help when it comes to people loitering and will curb public drinking.”

The other day I was checking out some street graffiti tags downtown and when I mentioned the work to someone the first thing they did was ask me whether there was a surveillance camera around. At that point I didn't even think to look... now I might actually head back to see if there is one. And if there is one, what sort of system is there to report incidents? These blinking blue eyes have been spotted all over the city. Some people may think that they infringe on our privacy. Me? I'd like to head down to master control and find out what sort of interesting actions have been caught on video.

Rock Harbor

What Others Have To Say

  1. WholeLottaJibbaJabbah

    8 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 16:56

    Sorry, I still think this is something you see happen in Non-Democratic Countries, like Oh-say Communist China, where it is well know that you are most likely being recorded through video, phone or internet. Incase of a Police State, Revolution!!!

  2. UrbanBody

    5 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 17:23

    I counter with ...bring 'em on. The more the better. If we can't have a cop on every block to nab thugs, vandals, litter bugs, etc., then I'll settle for eyes in the skies. If you've ever been to Singapore the place is totally safe and spotless. Like a dream. If you're not doing anything illegal, what's to fear.

    While we're at it: Why can't we have cameras on most busy intersections (i.e., Elmwood/Forest, Delaware/Amherst, Hertel/Colvin, etc.) to spot red light runners? They're in use in many states. Another tool in the quality of life arsenal. Once you get nailed for fines approaching $250, you won't do it again. It acts to calm traffic and reckless behavior.

  3. hodgepodge

    4 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 17:25

    Geez; has it really gotten so bad that right minded people actually want and accept this?

  4. dpbflo

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 17:30

    Alright all in all im not sure how I feel about the cameras- at first cool, it will scare the trouble makers away, but really we are just pushing them to the more residential streets where its darker and there are no cameras.

    One problem I have is who decides the placement of these cameras. Seems like politics are involved. I was driving down Cazenovia one day and I saw the blinking blue light at the corner of Caz and Abbott Road, thought to myself no, that cant be one of the new cameras, why would it be on that corner- sure enough it was. I could think of 100 other corners in this city there should have been a camera installed way before that corner say... i dont know.. seneca and babcock where there is constant loitering and drugs? Same deal with elmwood,, great that they are going in to ensure safety, however are'nt there other corners and streets that need it more?

    When the cameras first went up on Chippewa I had a younger lady friend that was outside stepped a few feet off the patio of 67 west to talk to a friend walking by and was stopped by a police officer and given a ticket. I asked the officer if he thought that was a little rediculous and he told me, whether it is or not, its an open container I have to write it because the cameras are watching. So then I proceeded to ask about the homeless with open containers covered in brown paper bags about 40 feet from us and I was threatened to be arrested. So pick on the young girl who works in the bar and restaurant industry and is spending lots of money downtown (up until that point, when she said screw this- grab her friends and left) instead of cleaning up the loitering and bums who supposedly you cant do much about because they have no IDs and no homes. Point is already I see poor use of the system, hopefully they will be better utilized and the police will use them for what the cameras are really for.

  5. WholeLottaJibbaJabbah

    5 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 18:23

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

    The camera's a wrong and a waist of money, if they are so worried, use the money to hire more cops = more jobs = safer community.

  6. NorthBuff

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 18:35

    Yes, but would Ben still be saying that if he were to see what America has turned into?

  7. urbansoul

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 18:39

    Very bad idea - makes suburbanites feel like they're entering enemy territory.

  8. demersus

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 19:06

    This isn't any different than every corporation / large building everywhere across America having security cameras on every corner and every door. At least in theory these ones are being monitored by people who would actually do something if something bad is seen on camera. The private video systems don't care about anything that isn't on their property. I'm sure everywhere in the business areas of Buffalo you go you are seen on at least one video camera at any time.

  9. sbrof

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 19:38

    "these ones are being monitored by people who would actually do something" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are talking about the Buffalo Police... did you read dpbflo's comment. The only thing this is going to do is ingrain the idea that the city is a dangerous place. It gives people one more reason to look down upon the city. I can see the comments already.. " ohh our Amherst streets don't have camera's, just proves that the city is actually the dangerous place I have been saying."

    The problem I see is these are but yet another REACTIONARY measure.. they don't fight crime.. we help prosecute it. The criminals and people who would do bag things are still out there, and still going to do them just outside the range of these cameras and that means on someone's front lawn.. REAL SAFE.

    The real crime problems stemm from poor education, upbrinigng and poverty... fix any one of those and you can watch the crimes disapear. This is nothing more than a huge WASTE of taxpayer money. The whole concept that "if you don't break the law, then you have nothing to worry about" is the wrong attitude to take on this or any case.

    Who decides what is against the law? It is easy to change the laws without anyone knowing. It is already LEGAL to get arrested put in jail indefinitely without and hope of release or a trial.. just because someone claimed you were an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist." Well those words will change depending on who is in power and could easily be construed and used against innocent people because once the doors close the reasons why you were put in there are inconsequential.

    I could go put some anthrax and bombing plans in someone mailbox pay someone to turn them in and watch them disappear..Yea land of the free my a$$. But that is ok as long as it happens to 'other' people. But thats ok because life on the cul-de-sac is good...

  10. RPreskop

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 20:12

    This is another outstanding example of big brother government intruding into every aspect of our daily lives and the increasing loss of freedom in this country. American government on all levels has become so paranoid that it will not feel safe until there is a surveillance camera on every street corner in every public and private building watching every move we the people make in our daily life. I say it is none of the government's damn business. This fight against terror and crime has gone too far and it is failing to address the serious problems that cause the crime in the first place. I don't see any legitimate need for a surveillance camera at the southeast corner of Elmwood and Bidwell Pkwy in front of Cafe Aroma and Talking Leaves Books. That is not a crime infested corner. As for the suburbs lack of surveillance cameras, think again. They are installing surveillance equipment inside the traffic lights in many suburban areas. This is a terrible disgrace.

  11. RisingDamp666

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 20:47

    All you people should be watched by 24 hr. surveillance cameras. We know you're up to something.

  12. al-alo

    4 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 20:52

    give me a break. everybody is already on security cameras. at the store. at the bank. when you get your coffee. in parking lots.

    that said, they are obnoxious blinking lighthouses that blend into streetscapes like a 20' foot tall eggplant.

    my question is: why the hell is the mayors name on a blinking box in the sky?

  13. urbanesque

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 20:58

    These are a poor substitute for 'feet on the street' police patrols and community policing. I am guessing that these will be used more to collect evidence after a crime than to actually stop crimes in progress. After all, if someone was monitoring these cameras they might have sent a patrol to ensure that Luanne was alright and didn't need help.

    Why does the Mayor feel compelled to put his name on these cameras. We are going to have to go around the city and pay a city worker to replace these stickers when the next administration takes control. I think that there are better ways to spend our tax dollars.

  14. urbanesque

    7 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 21:26

    There is a tremendous difference between private security cameras and government controlled policing cameras.

    I do not trust our government to look out for the best interest of all citizens, they are too self-serving and focused on political interest groups and lobbyists to care about the common residents. These cameras have the potential of taking away more rights and freedoms for the American people, in much the same way that the Patriot Act is more about monitoring monetary transactions than it is about stopping terrorism. Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism has netted us one philandering Governor and a couple of illegal immigration arrests. Such a small benefit from a tremendous abuse of power!

    These cameras are just one more example of the "modest and incremental', as John Ashcroft would put it, changes in the law that expand the government's power to unlawful surveillance and intrusion on citizens basic rights. I am sure that at some point in time the government will introduce voice monitoring of conversations on the street under the guise of protecting residents from people who may be conspiring to commit crimes. Maybe they will start to monitor all internet activity in the same way that they monitor your use of the public library. After all, we may pull in a few pedophiles or anarchists, we are all willing to give up our rights to personal privacy to bring in these "evil doers".

    I can't wait until one of these cameras catches a local politician doing something wrong. Maybe we should make the video accessible to the public so we can monitor the streets in much the same way that some people monitor police scanners. Maybe we could add GPS systems to all municipal vehicles so we can track where our politicians and workers are going and what they are doing. I doubt that they would allow this level of introspection into their lives, but they see nothing wrong with it in ours.

  15. RisingDamp666

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 21:34

    "Pedophiles and anarchists"? In Elmwood? Obviously there aren't enough cameras in that disreputable part of town.

  16. al-alo

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 21:40

    i do believe these little boxes are more than cameras. they can triangulate gunshot and give exact location. they can identify hostile movements like a fight. if i understand, the original spec called them out to be high speed wifi points.

    and as far as the cop saying the camera is watching him, that sounds like the line: "ive already started writing the ticket"

  17. gaustad

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 21:51

    Too many crack heads and crack dealers lurking in the dark on Elmwood, espcially for the size of our city.

    Elmwood and city need to be safer for people to come in to shop for the day and spend money.....

  18. Hoss

    4 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 21:56

    The cameras at Canisius weren't effective (initially) in apprehending the culprit that stole and crashed Mayor Browns vehicle late one night last year. I recall him saying, "My son doesn't walk like that" in response to the footage. Probably never seen him walking around wasted I guess.

    This is some scary tuna people. Total Big Brother, Bush inspired fear, Patriot act BS. I hope the local ACLU chapter is preparing a lawsuit.

    SBROF & Urbanesque are bang on. As are the majority of posters before me. Thank God for that. Because here is yet another reason I'm not so proud to be an American these days. And that makes me really sad.

    Urbanesque. Read this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558597&in_page_id=1770 Scary.

  19. Biniszkiewicz

    5 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 22:24

    As to the argument that these don't prevent crime but rather help prosecute it: That's exactly the same case with all video surveillance. Banks still find it useful. Nobody's throwing away their surveillance equipment because it didn't prevent a crime in the first place. They keep them in place to help solve crimes after the fact.

    The fear of big brother in this case is far overblown. Big brother doesn't have the money nor time nor manpower to worry about what you're doing most of the time. At least this way there is a record after the fact which will help apprehend the bad guys, just the same as private security cameras do. I applaud their installation.

    I found myself driving down Smith Street between William and Broadway a few nights ago after 11pm (dropping off taxes at the William Street post office). I happen to drive this route often, but seldom after dark. Saw the blue flashing light from a camera box. Have to say, it made me feel much more comfortable driving down that particular street at that time.

  20. Colin

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 23:11

    1. I'm not a constitutional scholar or anything, but I don't think that there is such a thing as privacy on a public street. The cameras are a bit creepy, but I don't think they violate anyone's privacy.

    2. At some point, we're gonna have to wake up when it comes to crime. If crime keeps falling year after year, and yet our fear of it and obsession with it remains the same or even grows, then I think there's a problem.

  21. heather_b

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 23:23

    We should have cameras to watch the welfare cases and disability deadbeats. Put 'em up in the projects and the west side where we need them the most because having them there would probably get a lot of people off the dole and in to work. I want to see a direct camera feed into the DSS office so the case workers can monitor their welfare cases directly. This would save a lot of money and taxes.

  22. dpbflo

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 23:41

    demersus- Im sure you know someone that its a buffalo police officer, or at least know someone thats knows one. Ask them about the camera monitoring and they will laugh. The city is in over their heads and runninng a half assed operation. They are installing 100+ more cameras and do not even have a staff monitoring the ones that have been in place. I know many with the BPD and was told on the busier nights there are 2 people monitoring all of these cameras- do the math "slow nights" the monitoring room lays empty- waste of money

    as urbanesque stated "These are a poor substitute for 'feet on the street' police patrols and community policing. " that about sums it up

    Back in the day when my parents and grandparents could sleep tight with their doors wide open on a summer night the police were walking the beat- now your lucky if you find that on a busy friday on chippewa give the effin police their raises when due, hire more and have them on our streets. It would still cost less then these lame cameras

  23. gaustad

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 23:43

    Heather, great point !!!

    While we're at it, the mayor should put a camera on every floor of city hall and one right in his office....maybe that way the citizens of Buffalo can monitor corruption

  24. jamesbflo

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 18th 2008, 23:48

    maybe when the video is used as the crucial piece of evidence to convict a criminal in a high profile case this paranoia will subside.

    as if they could even sit and watch every feed 24/7.

  25. 300miles

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 00:09

    The city has never described any protections on how the cameras are used, or abused. These cameras have incredibly far range and quality. What would prevent someone from aiming the camera into the window of an apartment bedroom?

  26. al-alo

    4 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 00:33

    have any one of you read about how these cameras work? these are not just cameras.

    they AUTOMATICALLY zoom in on suspicious actions. they then alert the monitor. they detect gunfire and focus in on it.

    and 300miles, the city DID describe the limits have controls that prohibit zooming in on windows. I bet that sweaty neighbor kid has been looking in your windows more than these cameras will.

    im not real pleased that we have cameras everywhere. but the cameras the city has installed are a tiny fraction of the total cameras that watch you. you should be more afraid of the cameras that watch you at work for 8 hours a day.

  27. 300miles

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 00:57

    "the city DID describe the limits have controls that prohibit zooming in on windows"

    Which are?

  28. 300miles

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 01:07

    Searching the City Of Buffalo's own website for more information I found this little tidbit:

    ""Video surveillance technology has led to a tremendous number of abuses," said John A. Curr III. "There have been all kinds of problems in New York City."

    There's a possibility that police might use the cameras for purposes other than catching reckless drivers, Curr said. For example, he said there's nothing that would stop them from using cameras to film people during demonstrations. The scope and purpose of surveillance cameras in public places must be spelled out, along with training and monitoring policies, Curr said."

  29. Silversport72

    4 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 01:14

    Guess what people, we live in a different world...anyone remember people using planes as weapons?! Needless to say, I'm a left wing Democrat & if you've got nothing to hide, then an "eye in the sky" really shouldn't bother you!!! Jesus H Christ, get over it & onto more important things...

  30. Einstein

    7 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 01:38

    if you've got nothing to hide, then an "eye in the sky" really shouldn't bother you

    I guess you are right, if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't mind the police stopping by your house for a random inspection of your belongings just to make sure that everything is above board. You wouldn't mind the police pulling you over just to check your license or to search your car just to make sure that you don't have anything to hide. You shouldn't be bothered by the random wiretap when you are calling out of country or to certain people on their list. You shouldn't mind a review of your credit card receipts to ensure that you are paying all the appropriate taxes on out of state purchases. You shouldn't mind the random drug test just to ensure that you aren't using any illegal drugs or unprescribed medications. You probably shouldn't mind a random search of your computer files or mail, just to make sure that everything is above board. I know you won't mind being recorded as you exercise your rights to free speech and assembly. What do you have to lose if you aren't doing anything wrong, after all you have nothing to be afraid of if everything is kosher and above board.

    I am not sure that there are more important issues to deal with than the loss of the freedoms that founded this country. I am not sure that all left wing Democrats believe that the rights of the government should prevail over the rights of the individual, but it sounds like you are leaning further to the left than most. Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it!

  31. Einstein

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 01:49

    So where are the 100 new cops that the city just hired? Why aren't we seeing an increased presence on the street or faster response times to 911 calls? The only place that I have seen an increased Police presence is at 74 Franklin Street. Let's get these police out of their cars and on to the streets so that they may meet the residents and work with the community. I was hit-up for change and money at least 7 times while walking to the Allen / Main subway station from Roswell Park today. There wasn't a police car anywhere to be found and the panhandlers know it. You want a medical corridor and new residents downtown? Then work on improving the quality of life by removing these nuisances from the streets. While your at it, put someone on patrol near the University parking lot because there have been about a dozen car break-ins this year, and there is a transit cop that sits just a couple yards away from where the cars are parked. He sits there every day and does nothing. We need to hold the police more accountable, not the people.

  32. al-alo

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 01:51

    cameras are a TOOL. just like a cops firearms, car, or a warrant.

    it is the user, the institution that can abuse. these cameras can only do what they are programed and told to do. in that respect, they are more accountable. you dont know what a pair of binoculars has been trained on. but you will have a record of where these cameras have been pointed.

    and the news has been reporting about the checks that these cameras will have. is that an excuse for the city's websites failings? nope. but there it was published. the cameras automatically blur and limit the field of view away from private windows. can it be overridden? id guess probably.

    and lets face it, if you think you were at a protest and didnt think you were being filmed, you are just being nieve.

  33. al-alo

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 02:01

    Einstein,

    i couldnt agree more about beat cops. nothing can replace a cop on the beat. or on a bike. or on a horse.

    i believe the police academy has already graduated its first class. i dont know how the second class is coming.

    and it isnt just the BPD. where are the state police, the campus police, the sheriffs, or the NFTA police? the city of Buffalo is the largest entity in the region - it seems we get a proportionally lesser amount of resources from many of these agencies.

  34. 300miles

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 02:23

    Would I expect to be filmed at a protest. Sure. Filmed walking down the street with an icecream? Maybe. Filmed picking up my mail, or answering the door when friends visit, or flipping channels on my TV, or getting dressed for bed? No.

    The "protections" you think are there is how you are being naive, not me. If a gun goes off you know it. If a permanent silent camera behind smoked glass is filming your house or not... you would never know.

    Can the protections be overridden by staff? I'm positive they can. What's even more worrisome... can they be hacked? Can someone control them remotely from outsite the city police? And where is the data being stored and for how long? Who has access to the archives?

    Would I trust the city govt of Buffalo to have actually thought of all these possible concerns and proactively addressed them? That's not even worth an answer...

  35. BlindeSeher

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 03:22

    I'm completely against the use of public surveillance cameras. They completely destroy whatever organic feeling a street or a neighborhood might have, and they are tools of passive aggression to boot. The proliferation of private surveillance is bad enough, the last thing we need is the bumbling public hand in this business.

    300miles had a good thought: "Would I trust the city govt of Buffalo to have actually thought of all these possible concerns and proactively addressed them? That's not even worth an answer..."

  36. cojo

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 08:19

    They installed these over here on the East Side a couple of months ago. Frankly, I'm a VERY STRONG privacy advocate and do not mind these cameras, because they are at intersections and their primary purpose is to deter crime. They are not monitoring which stores you enter or ID'ing your face using the cameras - they are just making sure shiat don't go down! I completely agree that privacy is a slippery slope but a few cameras at high-risk intersections create more benefits for me than concerns. England has installed these cameras, and I feel they have taken it too far, since in some cities there is nowhere you can go without being filmed! When we hit that point, you will definitely hear from me.

    That said, you do not have privacy on a city street by definition, because it is a public place. It would be as though they had a police officer on each corner, and they do not have those resources.

    I have read that other police departments have removed the red-light cameras because they found that awareness of the cameras almost completely prevented running red lights and actually lowered their revenues from tickets. (Says a lot about what the purpose of tickets is, huh??)

  37. ArkoWillie

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 08:25

    I think I'm in love with Luanne DiBernardo. She's pretty, she likes cameras, and knows how to change a tire!

  38. Einstein

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 09:39

    ...since in some cities there is nowhere you can go without being filmed! When we hit that point, you will definitely hear from me.

    Cojo - It will probably be too late when we hit this point.

    The police already have the ability to scan large groups of people to identify individuals by matching certain facial characteristics. This technology was used at the Superbowl to supposedly catch terrorists and other people of interest. What would keep the government from profiling a person and then searching and tracking them via passive video surveillance. Please don't get me wrong, I can see many positive aspects of this type of surveillance, but the unchecked power and scale that they have is what concerns me. Research the 'surveillance veil' in London as an example of what can and probably shouldn't be done. Manhattan is looking at adding a similarly linked surveillance system to monitor buildings, crowds, crosswalks, intersections, and some restaurants. The London system has not proven to deter crime or even increase the apprehension rate of criminals, except in some very high profile cases. What it has been good for is the sale of video and photo captures of celebrities and politicians to the paparazzi, even though this is expressly forbidden, just like the sale of 911 calls and crime scene photos. The risk of abuse and intrusion outweigh the benefits to me, I could see more value if they change the way that the cameras and the service was used, be I know that this isn't going to happen.

  39. demersus

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 10:06

    dpbflo - I specifically made a point of saying "in theory" in prefix to my statement about the cameras being monitored by people who might actually do something, because I am fully aware that it is likely no one will actually do something. And of course there are not enough people monitoring the cameras, they didn't plan this through very well.. A real solution is to actually fix the issues that cause the crime in the first place, which I'm not going to get into, because that is about as likely as someone watching the "security" cameras and doing something about the footage they observe.

  40. completelyoverplayed

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 10:11

    Not an article about career opportunities for young people in Buffalo. How can Buffalo claim to be rising if it can't absorb its college graduates?

  41. onestarmartin

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 11:34

    one at the corner of allen and main would be great

  42. UrbanBody

    6 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 11:56

    To Einstein and all the other libertarians....

    The next time you, your grandmother, little sister...have a gun pointed up their nose by a thug demanding money...or worse...let me know how you feel about personal instrusion on public streets.

    I would really prefer no crime at all...and smiling faces on everyone....but neither is going to happen. So while you generate hyperbole about cops coming unnannounced into a house or other tabloid fear...just know that I would welcome the cops over to my house. In fact, I'd give 'em a doughnut as "thanks" and ask them to stop by ....anytime.

    If you're so worried about losing your civil rights by a camera on a public street, I suggest you also worry about my inability to go out on the street without probability of being mugged.

  43. becker

    4 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 12:03

    Urbanbody - This is why we need police on the streets instead of cameras. The camera won't stop the criminal from pointing a gun and creating a victim out of anyone in my family. A police officer will.

  44. sbrof

    5 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 12:07

    "Guess what people, we live in a different world..."

    We live in the world we create.. We are doing nothing to solve problems but instead fuel the fear flame. Instead of hiding in out ticky tacky homes maybe if we actually meet more neighbors, got involved in the community and stood up to people half the shit wouldn't happen. Instead of killing and overthrowing countries causing all sorts of civil unrest maybe if we focused on the actual perpetrators of the crime. We have created and filled the ranks of the Anti-American movement. How is that solving anything? 911 was a tragedy, but turning us into a police state without the freedoms to protest wars, and speak out against the administration while at the same time causing dissent and more hatred of our country are NOT what we are fighting and dying for.

  45. sbrof

    4 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 12:12

    Also what is the point if people do get caught after the fact. They already caused fear and their victims will be that much less likely to return or stay in the city afterwards. There is no justice in someone getting caught by the police because everyone knows, especially the criminals, that the system is broken and they will be back out on the streets in a couple months. Great...

    Until we solve the causes of crime, poverty, education, inequality (real or perceived) then cameras on the street do nothing more than drain the city's coffers faster than before.

  46. Rez

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 12:34

    In London, England steet cameras are everywhere. This democratric country has adjusted to these surveillance tools for police work. Like all devices made by humans they can either be used correctly or to harm others. How well the City of Buffalo uses these cameras is yet to be seen and proven. If these cameras help to catch more criminals in our community they will be welcomed. If these cameras end up being used to spy on peaceful demonstrations or to spy on people because of their politics then they won't last for long. That is a viable issue. However there are now a lot of cameras for a very few people to watch. They can't be watching them every moment of the day. It's impossible. However if a citizen or business is wrongfully harmed there is a trial of evidence for the police to follow on the video tape. Time will tell. The court of public opionion can and will shift on the use of these cameras depending on how well they are used within the boundaries of the law. This is an interesting experiment being done by the City of Buffalo. Let's hope that this tool brings down the chaos in the city. We have suffered much from violent crime in Buffalo. Those who kill others must be removed from circulating amongst us and from harming others. There are also cameras in the sky that most of the time we are unaware that they exist. They have excellent resolution. My point is that technology continues to expand and we as a society continue to adapt to it. The City of Buffalo cannot have police everywhere when crimes are commited but cameras are a permanent watch dog or a tool to back track when someone is harmed. The fight to preserve retail areas of Buffalo is crucial to our cities financial health and stability. Elmwood is now the Main Street of Buffalo. Let's wait and see how cameras work out.

  47. Rez

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 12:50

    sbrf I also agree with your comments that education and poverty need to be worked on a lot more. The Harvard professor who came to town this week said something I totally concur with. The City of Buffalo needs to get out of the Bass Pro free lunch program. At least small business owners on Elmwood are engaging in free market trade without government subsidies. Building large structures for big business is a misappropriation of our tax dollars. Yes more money should be invested in better educating and training the citizens of Buffalo for the future. It is important to beat swords into plow shares and put people in jobs instead of jail. There are some people that for our own safety that must be removed from our streets for our safety. Crime is everywhere from the city to the suburban streets to the country side. Everything that is in the City of Buffalo is outside of Buffalo. We need to build the City of Buffalo for the people who live here and place more focus on them instead of on trying to lure outsiders inward. Make Buffalo better for the people who live here. The camera is a tool but a better educated person is somebody that is more likely to want a better community for themselves and their family.

  48. Rez

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 13:13

    One more thought at lot of public money has been appropriately invested in Buffalo and the U.S. into medical research and development but hardly any money has been invested in green technology r & d. If Buffalo and the U.S. wants to lead it needs to use other tools such as our great higher learning institutions in conjunction with investment into green research and development. How about investment in solar installations on private homes in Buffalo and making sure all buildings and structures become more green? One camera led to many cameras. Lets see one dollar invested into greening Buffalo become millions of dollars. The more self sufficient we become the more we become stronger. We have energy opportunities all around us. We lag behind the rest of the world because of lack of vision.

    In New York City planting of trees is becoming mandatory to clean the air and reduce global warming. There needs to be reforestation of the back streets of Buffalo. Home owners should not determine if a tree gets planted on city property in front of their homes. This decision for the greater common good is something that needs to be pushed forword again. The Common Council members should not plant chestnut trees on streets where residents lack driveways and they shouldn't say that the owners of homes should have the right to determine if they want a tree on city property in front of their homes. Just like Buffalo has many more vacant lots where homes once stood it also has empty places where a forest once stood. Perhaps tree plantings should be a way to honor children in Buffalo who have gone onto college or a job. Tree plantings should honor fallen police officers and firefighters. Keep advancement moving forward.

  49. Super8

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 16:09

    Buffalo Police are a joke! Anyone who lives here can tell them where they can go to catch criminals. We all know the delis and the street corners and the projects and the houses and the buildings were it is happening. Why won't the Police do nothing about it? Someone should send them the story about the deli and let them see how worthless they really are. People are scared here because the Police won't do anything here. They let crime go on until something major happens or one of their own get shot and then there are cops coming out of the wood works. These movie cameras won't do nothing if the Police don't care about what is happening. Someone should get the Police to visit the streets like they did when they were writing all those parking tickets a few years ago. Maybe then people won't be afraid to walk to the corner or to leave their car parked overnight and maybe then people will stop moving away.

  50. jon

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 17:30

    BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

    I can't wait to get one installed in my home.

  51. Colin

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 19:06

    1. Crime continues to drop pretty consistently, so the whole "we're in a war zone" argument doesn't hold, imo.

    2. At the same time, the arguments against the cameras are shoddy, too. As I mentioned above, there is no such thing as privacy in public. When you step outside, you open yourself up to being photographed, looked at, talked to, etc.

    3. These cameras might make it easier for the police to violate people's rights. But the same thing is true of handcuffs, or nightsticks, or any number of their tools.

  52. AtwaterLouse

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 19:36

    Colin - You keep saying crime is decreasing in Buffalo, but if something is very high and it decreases that doesn't mean it's not still very high. The federal deficit has decreased the past few years but many would say it's still very high. Global temperatures decreased in 2007 but again many would say still very high. etc.

    As of Oct 2006, Buffalo was ranked by the FBI as #340 out of the 371 biggest U.S. cities (where #1 is lowest violent crime city and #371 is highest). That put Buffalo within the 10% most dangerous cities for violent crime as of a year and a half ago. Hopefully it's decreased since then but it doesn't mean it's not very high.

    http://www.caller.com/news/2006/Oct/30/rankings-name-st-louis-as-the-most-dangerous-us

  53. Einstein

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 19:42

    Atwater - What are your thoughts on the cameras?

  54. tommyBluez

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 19:52

    I'm 1/2 & 1/2 ---- I think the camera's can work...

    But are they really necessary in areas like Auburn in Elmwood Village?

    I was not at all surprised to see them on Niagara Street -- but was shocked when I noticed the one on the corner of my street and Elmwood (Auburn) -- I have lived here for a year now (in this neighborhood) and have never not felt safe walking around at night.

    *shrugs* oh well, they're going to do what they're going to do....

    On a side note... my friend that lives in Chicago - lives in Wicker park -- kind of our west side to downtown --- albeit on a larger scale.

    The cameras have been in his area for 4-5 years and the years I've been going there; i've seen no marked improvement...

  55. dpbflo

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 20:42

    completelyoverplayed your comments are overplayed, Buffalo is Rising it doesnt happen with the flip of a switch we will still lose people until we are completely back and even then if people have other interests. These people work hard to cover all things positive in buffalo and promote local business maybe you would be better off reading something else, business first ?

    You posting the same comment on every story will not change anything

  56. completelyoverplayed

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 22:40

    No worries, I'm done. I'm just trying raise awareness and encourage some out of the box thinking. I have a couple of younger cousins in the area and I want them to be able to stay there, if they want to. I had another cousin who was a really good person but borderline employable (trade-school graduate but constantly underemployed) and he ended up committing suicide.

    The subject of a good business climate and growing small businesses is something I care deeply about and I think if BuffaloRising is about the revitalization of Buffalo it has should try to spend some more time on small business concerns and career opportunities for young people (national and international companies) in Buffalo. BuffaloRising has a bully pulpit and they can actually do some good to spotlight those struggling start ups or those companies with a national and international market. The rest of this stuff is nice but it's like luxury before necessities or like feeding a malnurished kid nothing but fancy desserts. First things first.

    But you're probably right about Business First. I'd love to see an equivalent blog to Buffalo Rising, that's truly business-oriented and economic-growth oriented but equally cutting edge. Thanks for the feedback.

  57. LightoftheMoon

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 22:55

    I believe there is more to the quote posted by WholeLottaJibbaJabbah ("Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin). I've heard it as "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither and lose both."

    it is of the utmost importance to at least question things that may infringe on our civil liberties... I think it's great that people are doing just that. I haven't quite decided how I feel about these cameras yet, but I do agree that it is essential to examine the potential impact on our rights as citizens. It is a slippery slope and, as Einstein posted above, "It will probably be too late" to finally try to fight back after so many rights have been lost. The cameras may be helpful in deterring crime, but at what cost? And when considering everything else involved (including monitoring the footage, abuses, the decrease of actual police officers, archiving, etc.) it makes me wonder if they really are such a great idea.

  58. pegger

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 23:15

    I think Whole LJJ Is correct. For a border city, we are awfully s-l-o-w! It is happening at all levels of government. Look at all the civil rights we have suspended in the name of protection (AKA fear). Are the changes regarding passports really completely about protecting us? As I see it, we are building the infrastructure to keep us all in! Installing cameras to catch speeders can capyure other images. Look at the 1700 mile fence on the southern border. Food for thought!

  59. Mariner

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 19th 2008, 23:21

    I AM FOR THE EXTRA SET OF EYES. Too many panhandling low lifes hang on Elmwood. If this helps clean it up a bit then I am for it. We need one of these on Elmwood and Allen. Maybe we could get rid of the guy in the bright yellow jacket who attacks cars, sleeps on the corner, and I saw him taking a sh** on the side walk. He needs to be removed from that corner. I can't understand why the police let him hang here 24/7.

  60. 300miles

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 01:27

    Mariner - the cameras will do nothing to stop panhandlers.

    Colin - these cameras have a huge range. I'm not just talking about it filming your street... I'm talking about if filming your yard and driveway and windows... places that ARE private.. Some of these cameras have been installed right next to people's homes, and their zoom range puts many more homes within potential abuse.

  61. gaustad

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 01:32

    Maybe we can get some police to arrest these panhandlers or at least clear them off the streets......doesn't take much more than parking a police car in frot of Sunoco or KFC for a few hours.....or in front of Avenue pizza.

    How about having police on horses walk up and down Elmwood in the summer time. OR SET UP A TRAIGE/trailer to arrest and process these people.

    OR pay a security guard in front of your business/bar/restaurant to clear out the bumbs so they are not so intrusive to your customers.

    anyone been to Newbury St in Boston lately. You could walk up and down that street and feel totally comfortable. Why?

  62. AtwaterLouse

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 01:56

    completelyoverplayed - I agree with the idea that Business First would be a better home than BR for what you envision.

    Or an independent blogger could try starting something, but to do it well (not just rewording company web pages) it'd be a lot of time and effort - with probably not much ad revenue resulting as a pay off.

    Business First already employs journalists with contacts and expertise - so they'd just have to decide to direct some of their resources into blogging and allowing two-way discussions with comments. Now that I think of it, I'm surprised they haven't already. Another possibility is the Buffalo News which has a business blog, but it's pretty weak - as are most of their blogs so far. But maybe they'll improve with time.

  63. AtwaterLouse

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 02:02

    The cams on balance sound like a small net positive.

    It's difficult to weigh pros and cons because it's so hard to predict how much benefit the cams will provide. But I expect it's a safe bet there'll be some criminal convictions that wouldn't happen otherwise, especially after a year or two learning curve with the tool. Hard to attach a value to some extra convictions per year even if we knew how many.

    I don't predict much upside for deterring crime. A criminal who's smart enough to be deterred will find a place away from cam view for the same kind of crime - maybe to a different victim but it'll still happen. An unintended side effect of the cams might be to move some crimes onto side streets, which might make them even more violent with less chance of witnesses. Many criminals will be oblivious to the cams however, so that's where the convictions will come. Muggings, street attacks, get aways from hold-ups, etc.

    No doubt these cams will be misused sometimes. But if they didn't exist, that doesn't mean the person doing the misusing wouldn't be able to accomplish the same thing - and that will get only easier over the years as technology keeps marching. I just Googled outdoor wireless spy cam price, and it returned 117,000 web site results. So even today, there's many easy ways to spy on a political or personal enemy if somebody wants to.

  64. AtwaterLouse

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 02:10

    Longer term say in 20 years, advances in processing and video software will open up more gray areas of use and more ways to misuse these. Software will be capable of scanning each day's video from across the city and automatically mining the interesting camera shots. Maybe sooner than 20 years - who knows.

    But there's probably no way to stop all that. Even if cams aren't placed on the street like this, by that time every police car will have small cams pointing different directions, each cop's uniform might have an embedded cam, and so on. They'll be all around us, and potentially all video could be fed to central servers, merged, and extracted for Big Brother to surf at his pleasure. Only hope of controlling that risk is citizen vigilance in continually pushing for accountability and transparency. Yeah I know, not too likely that citizen power then will be any better than now.

    But I don't think nixing the street cam idea now will prevent any of that, so my thinking is we might as well get some of the benefit by being able to at least convict a few more violent people.

    Einstein - About the 100 cops being trained, I don't know if those are intended to expand the force or just replace those who have retired. My guess is the latter.

  65. Colin

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 09:02

    Atwater --

    Thanks for the statistic. And sure, crime is too high -- any amount is too much. But it's a cost/benefit question. At some point concern over crime becomes hysteria, and has a more debilitating effect than the crime itself. I'd like to see some crime statistics that removed crimes commited between those involved in the drug trade, and those committed in domestic situations. That would give a real idea of how much danger we face from random street crime. I suspect that it would be quite low.

    300 --

    Do you have a link for the specs on the cameras? I agree that they could be used to violate people's rights, but again, that's true of any tool in the cops arsenal. They can use their gun to unlawfully kill someone, their cuffs to make a bogus arrest, etc. In genral, I'm a lot more woried about the privacy implications of policies (PATRIOT ACT, warrantless wiretaps, etc.) than of new hardware.

  66. Rez

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 12:47

    Mr. Brown I'm ready for my close up.

    The panhandlers on Elmwood or on Allan streets are not going away via these cameras. It will take police walking on the pavement to do that. Get a grant from Hillary or Schumer to specifically fund this program to make our best, small, retail area in Buffalo safer. Put walking police officers on these two streets. Get some police permanently assigned to rid Elmwood and Allan of panhandlers and criminals who harm business and citizens out to shop or for a stroll. If there was a permanent assigned detail of police on these streets they would have the ability to get to know the business owners and the problem pan handlers. I'm not talking about a detail to suppress the mental patients who collect bottles or talk nonsense. These people need medical help and understanding. It's the person who is on crack or alcohol who needs to be prevented from carrying on an activity that is bringing down the City of Buffalo.

    As I said the camera is a tool to gather evidence if a crime has been committed. It also is a psychological deterence against crime. Why do you think they have lights on them that blink? There are some people who will pay no attention to those cameras such as the addicted panhandler or the hardened criminal. However if they committ a crime the camera is watching.

    Incidently there are cameras everywhere now and not just on poles.

  67. AtwaterLouse

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 13:33

    Colin - I agree with this too as a separate category, along with the whole stats. Both would be good to know.

    I'd like to see some crime statistics that removed crimes commited between those involved in the drug trade, and those committed in domestic situations.

    People should have free and full web-based access to up-to-date public crime data that City Hall keeps. Some cites (Chicago and many others) make that kind of info much more open, full, and easier too access than does Buffalo. www.chicagocrime.org for one example.

    That would give a real idea of how much danger we face from random street crime. I suspect that it would be quite low.

    I agree it would would add useful context, but there's still a lot of good reasons some people would want to know about drug gang violence and to know recent data about which neighborhoods are having increases or decreases in that.

    Sometimes bullets hit the innocent people due to mistaken identity, bad aim, reckless firing, etc. That UB basketball player's dad outside his west side home, the two teens leaving the Delavan St store, the young man getting off the bus on Niagara, the McKinley girl paralyzed, ... on and on. There's a lot of innocent victims of street gangs, and many others living in justified fear nearby where those things have happened.

  68. georgethomasapfel

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 14:04

    AtwaterLouse is correct that in the next 20 years enhancements in hardware and software will open up more grey areas of use and more ways to misuse these. And for those who come to play in Vegas, that technology is already here and being tested now. An article in the Washington Post it tells how "this city, famous for being America's playground, has also become its security lab."

    I also agree that the technology and ability to more effectively monitor everyone's actions is inevitable.  In my opinion what may make these intrusions into our privacy worth it would be in giving the legal system more hard evidence in prosecuting offenders, and lessen the chances of them going back out on the streets.  If you're caught on tape (or hard drive) in my thinking you increase the chances of convictions.  I would be curious to see what the effect has been of having more video cameras in patrol cars in prosecuting convictions.

  69. Rez

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 15:05

    In todays Buffalo News in the City section there is an article about a man being attacked at Connecticut and Prospect Avenues. This should be in full view of the D'Yoville College campus cameras. This intersection is directly in the vacinity of their new dorm. I wonder how safe D'Youville and their ubiquitous cameras have made this part of the west side? Perhaps the Buffalo Police are using this video footage?

  70. xbflo

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 15:06

    I live in San Francisco (moved here from Buffalo).

    The cameras are useless in deterring (or prosecuting) crime. We have some cameras here too; many of them don't work well enough to be of any use; and the drug dealers have learnt to move out of range. As far as I know, there hasn't been even 1 successful arrest/conviction because of the cameras.

    What the cameras _are_ good at is: 1. Scaring the law-abiding folks from committing minor infractions 2. Pretending as if the politicians are "doing something" about the crime 3. Diverting attention from the real crime-fighting that needs to be done.

    It is yet another step in the direction of an Orwellian society. Surely the Elmwood residents deserve better?

    PS: I still proudly wear my Elmwood t-shirts picked up at Pavlov's Togs 3 years ago.

  71. xbflo

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 15:11

    (sorry for the double post) I think the real reason why the cameras are being installed just occurred to me. It is based on a conversation I had with some business owners back in the day when the fight for the Atwater House was on. They basically wanted to tear down the House so that there could be more parking for the suburbanites. Which brings me to this camera show: they are designed to instill some (albeit false) sense of security to the rich suburbanites who are too scared to come and spend their money in Elmwood. The hope is that the presence of the cameras will make them feel safe enough to come (with their bulging wallets, of course).

    Here's a cheaper option: just install empty camera housings with blinking blue LEDs. It'll have the same effect, but for far cheaper.

  72. Rez

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 15:17

    xbfko who knows what they installed. What looks like cameras might just be empty boxes with blinking lights.

  73. fredrico

    4 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 18:44

    I am perplexed. I know the severe crime that happens around Grant and garner streets. The pizzeria next door to the deli on that corner has been robbed 4 times this year. The prostitutes use the pay phone outside the deli on that corner to coordinate their "activities". I found condoms and needles in a nearby backyard (which happens to be behind the fence of my yard) and I didn't even bother to pick them up this time. The have been a number of shootings on that block this year, etc, etc, etc. If I know about all this surely the police do too. Of course - I know that they know because this year I spoke to Officer Dijna, Chief of Police McCarthy Gibson, the mayors hotline and council member Joseph Golombeck about all of the above AND I requested that a camera be put there (as well as more officers). Now I read that 3 cameras were put on Elmwood? Well - yes- I sure hope this helps with the panhandlers!!(sarcasm!)

  74. Super8

    4 ratings12345
    Apr 20th 2008, 23:38

    Fredrico - Elmwood and Grant are a world apart when it comes to priority of services from the city. Everyone knows that the Elmwood "Village" is the one shining star in a cesspool of a city that we call home so we are going to pay extra attention to make sure that those privledged few feel safe while the rest of use fend for our lives. The equation works like this: More cops keep high priority areas safer while crime moves a few blocks away so we leave those areas alone until there is such an outcry from the people that the city offers to put more police on the street. The city can say that we have added jobs and stimulated the economy while the police are happy that they have more people to do less work. They add a focus area or two and take one off the list every few years to perpetuate the cycle. They know that the perception is that the city is unsafe so the bar is so low that if they show even a little improvement in a neighborhood or two then they look like heroes. In other words, there is probably no hope for your neighborhood unless someone important gets injured or killed. Your only hope for safety is to move to the EV with the rest of the ex-suburbanite wannabe urban dwellers who love the image of living in the city but can't put up with the less desirable people around them. Most of the people in the Elmwood "Village" rarely make it to the other side of Main Street for fear that their VW or Prius might break down and they will be forced to fend for themselves with the real people of the city. One incident like that and they are rent the next U-Haul to East Aurora. This is the same reason that Artspace isn't working as planned, it it too close to the rest of the city to catch on. I am sure that we will have cameras and police patrols stepped up along Utica and North Hampton and it probably won't be long until they start relocating people from there to make way for the arrogant and overeducated overflow from Elmwood. So lock yourself in tight at night and be careful!

  75. WholeLottaJibbaJabbah

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 21st 2008, 09:37

    every time i drive/ride past these blue blinking lights i flick off Byron Brown. Because that's where the camera's are linked to, right?

  76. ToughintheStreets

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 21st 2008, 12:29

    I'd like to offer an alternative point of view on these cameras...

    Many posts call for more police foot presence and more arrests/written tickets on Chippewa/Allen and other focal points and high crime areas. I agree with that call. But I'll also say this; I have heard that one of the reasons police are lax on these areas (especially Chipppewa) is because when arrests are made they end up in the papers and on the news. Surburbanites read these stories and assume Chippewa and other areas are dangerous and riddled with crime when that isn't neccessarily the case. These areas will quickly get a bad reputation, people will stop coming and the area will die. I still agree that poilce should still write more public drinking tickets an make more arrests. By cracking down on these crimes the street becomes cleaner (no more broken bottles, garbage, damaged property) and hopefully safer and more people migrate to these areas. The police would be able to do this if media outlets we're more gentle on reporting the crimes. It all starts tho with a stronger and more active police force (including people watching the cameras and reporting crimes in progress to the officers on patrol.) If thats not the case then hey, you don't have to worry about cameras looking into your home if no one is watching them. As for using them for traffic violations (red light runners) There was a study done in another town (I cant find the link) That found while reducing the number of red light runners, the cameras increased the number of rear -end collisions due to people stopping short to avoid running the red light.

    sorry for the long and late post.

  77. stardust

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 21st 2008, 13:30

    I believe the real issue here is how do we, as a society, eliminate Crime within our community? The installation of the Cameras has been as an attempt to reach those ends, though very mis-guided. The Cameras do Not work to stop Crime at its Core, but rather only the Effects (be it either to deterr a would-be criminals from committing a criminal act within a certain area, or aiding in the capture & prosecution after the fact). With that said, and as you can read for yourself in the threads above, it appears that the Benefit of installing the Cameras is to give the Cowards a false sense of security. No matter if I every intend to commit a crime or not, my Freedom is trampled by the Threat looming over head. The Cameras sit in public places (the Commons); our Gov't (local included) is supposed to be We the People, but there is a Seperate entitiy that is watching over us. THEY are watching US. Whether I am Committing a Crime or not, I am being watched. The Result is a form of Intimidation & Tyranny. This is Un-American. If you are Frightened & Afraid, (ps: we all get what "panhandlers & low lifes" is code for) then being watched over may make you feel all warm inside. Not me!! Rip the Cameras down!!

  78. stardust

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 21st 2008, 13:33

    I believe the real issue here is how do we, as a society, eliminate Crime within our community? The installation of the Cameras has been as an attempt to reach those ends, though very mis-guided. The Cameras do Not work to stop Crime at its Core, but rather only the Effects (be it either to deterr a would-be criminals from committing a criminal act within a certain area, or aiding in the capture & prosecution after the fact). With that said, and as you can read for yourself in the threads above, it appears that the Benefit of installing the Cameras is to give the Cowards a false sense of security. No matter if I every intend to commit a crime or not, my Freedom is trampled by the Threat looming over head. The Cameras sit in public places (the Commons); our Gov't (local included) is supposed to be We the People, but there is a Seperate entitiy that is watching over us. THEY are watching US. Whether I am Committing a Crime or not, I am being watched. The Result is a form of Intimidation & Tyranny. This is Un-American. If you are Frightened & Afraid, (ps: we all get what "panhandlers & low lifes" is code for) then being watched over may make you feel all warm inside. Not me!! Rip the Cameras down!!

  79. AtwaterLouse

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 21st 2008, 13:58

    There's positives and negatives, but people who insist the street cams will accomplish nothing are going way too far. There's no reason to think that evidence captured by these cams shouldn't be a useful tool to help achieve some arrests and convictions that otherwise wouldn't happen. And they could also be used to help exonerate people falsely charged in some cases too.

    Here's a local situation over the weekend in which an arrest was made that probably would not have been made if not for a surveillance cam - not one of the street cams, but it's an example:

    http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/328191.html

    Police say boy, 15, dropped loaded gun 04/21/08 6:33 AM

    A 15-year-old Buffalo boy is facing weapons charges after police say he dropped a loaded gun on the escalator in the Metro Rail Utica Station.

    Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority police arrested the boy, an eighth-grader, who cannot be named as a juvenile.

    NFTA police said the boy was seen on a surveillance camera dropping the loaded Glock on the escalator at about 10:40 p.m. Saturday.

    Sounds like maybe someone reported finding a gun on the Metro escalator, reported it to the NFTA cops who then checked video to get a description of the suspect, and then were able to find and arrest him.

    Also think back to what happened with the mayor's son's hit-and-run of three cars. That never would've been solved/admitted if not for the video. Granted that was "just a property crime", but if it hadn't been solved at least those car owners would have had to pay a lot more in repair bills (deductible) instead of having the mayor's insurance co pay for the full repairs.

    I'm not saying there no potential negatives of having the cams, but to insist there won't be any positives is ridiculous.

  80. reflip

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 21st 2008, 14:49

    1. I have my doubts that all the cameras are truly operational and not just dummies with blinking lights. If no footage is being shot and we only think we're being watched, is this really compromising our freedom?

    2. A quick glance at the headlines in todays BN involves two stories about shootings that contain almost zero information beyond shots were fired at a house and a car. Things like this are terrible PR for the city. If I was considering buying or renting on 14th street, I'd certainly give it a second thought after someone fired a few rounds into a house on the 300 block with impugnity. However, there is another story about a man walking with a loaded gun in his pocket who was spotted and arrested by police. THAT is what makes people feel safe and empowered in their communities. That cops are on the street, looking out for the interests of the community, enforcing both laws and community standards. Namely, you can't walk around with a loaded weapon without consequences. It would be nice if we could also say, "You can't shoot up houses on 14th street without getting caught." But, alas, we can't say that. Perhaps cameras WOULD help in that regard - creating a general intolerance for criminal behavior in our communities.

  81. Biniszkiewicz

    3 ratings12345
    Apr 21st 2008, 15:32

    Atwater: exactly.

    Stardust: your rights are in NO way being trampled upon by these cameras. IF someone surreptitiously installs such equipment in a manner which invades privacy (say if a landlord installs one in your rented bedroom) then those offenses are prosecutable. IF government abuses privacy with these cameras, THAT is prosecutable. If you have such an aversion to being filmed, you'd better not go near any banks or supermarkets or any time soon.

    You yourself admit these cameras CAN deter crime in a particular area and also (and this is key) "aiding in the capture and prosecution after the fact" of a crime. Your own words! You dismiss the capture and prosecution of criminals after the fact of their crimes as trivial. What world do you live in??? If a criminal commits a crime without consequence, he or she will commit another and another and another. Convict someone and get them off the streets and you will have prevented at least SOME future crimes.

    Make criminals pay and you will get less crime. By your logic, we shouldn't capture and prosecute any criminals because, hey: the crimes they already committed are over and done with so I guess they don't matter.

    And just what the hell do you mean by the phrase: "we all get what 'panhandlers and lowlifes' is code for". What the hell are you talking about?!! It's not code in the least (what do YOU think it means???). Panhandlers are a huge deterrent to bringing in people (most particularly women) to any neighborhood. News flash: neighborhoods where women feel threatened are neighborhoods you won't be able to move your girlfriend or wife or daughter to. I feel safe walking most streets late at night because of my size. Most women I talk to are much more frightened. You may choose to dismiss them (as well as smaller or older or younger men and boys, I suppose) as 'cowards'. I don't.

    Panhandlers are one of the biggest obstacles to bringing more people downtown. They are lowlifes. They are (usually) drunks. They are scum. Sometimes they're black, sometimes they're white, sometimes they're native American or Hispanic or some other ethnicity, but they are significant deterrents to bringing more folks out onto the streets. I myself (and I'm 6'4" and 200lbs) have been physically threatened by bums (white bums, to be specific). What the hell do you think "panhandlers and lowlifes" is 'code' for anyway?? Do you imagine that if some 'undesirable' is witnessed (on camera or otherwise) walking the street peacefully they will be arrested? Under what pretense? Get real!

  82. stardust

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 21st 2008, 16:11

    Dear Biniszkiewicz,

    Sorry to anger you so, I gather that my post has personally insulted you. That was not my intent.

    Referring to your paragraph where you elegantly point out that I "dismiss the capture and prosecution of criminals after the fact of their crimes as trivial". This is not so, and I did not write this. I take this very seriously. However, the premise of my post was this: If we want to actually eliminate crime, then we need to attack it at its roots. Putting Cameras on street corners does not. Criminals are, & have been, arrested & prosectued w/o Cameras on Street Corners. Surely you are aware of this in your world?? Your condemnation of my post is absurd!

    I am sorry that panhandlers have given you a hard time, that is not fair for anyone to deal with; not for women or big guys like yourself. How do you suggest we "remove" them from the city? How do we get enough resources to them to lift them off the streets so they may live a regular life??

  83. Biniszkiewicz

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 21st 2008, 23:31

    stardust: I was pissed. Shouldn't take it personally, but I did. When you called people in favor of the cameras Cowards with the capital C I did take it personally.

    And it does suck to get physically threatened, though I'm not terrified of a fight--I got into a fistfight as late as my middle thirties (tenant). The panhandler who came after me was a patron of Friends of Night People on his way to dinner. White guy, maybe 30-35, lean, tall, fairly muscular, claimed he was a war vet (no reason to doubt), scraggly red hair, alcoholic looking skin (off color--not healthy looking), unshaven, tatoos, loud, aggressive, attitude like the world f-ed him over and owed him big time, especially anyone doing well (I was in a suit). I owned a place on Allen, he was panhandling by, I told him to move away from my building and responded 'not a chance' when he asked for money. He was pissed. He came after me. I ran across the street, threatening that I was calling 911 and I did. I reported the a-hole, giving an accurate description of him physically as I was looking right at him, describing when he lunged at me (twice). He could see I was really on the phone to 911 and he moved on. The police did, in fact, come. They came to me first, then they stopped him closer to Night People, took a report, got his name and read him the riot act (and even reported back to me). They did a great job. Now, if I'd have needed to, I would have been able to fight him. He'd probably have won, but I'd have gotten some licks in (I did win the fight with my tenant--he challenged--but that was over after a few punches and nobody got hurt except his pride. Every fight I've ever been in, really, was over after a couple of punches or a short choke hold or something very quick. Most of the time guys threaten they want to fight you, they really don't. They're really surprised when you fight back. They usually want it over as quickly as can be if you actually hit them. They usually want to intimidate, not actually fight. It's just like those nature shows, where all the testosterone males do all this posing and threatening to fight, and sometimes there really is a fight, but most of the time it's just posturing. Most of the time, the bully is actually scared of a fight).

    Anyway, I did let my anger get hold of me reading your earlier post. All the capitalized letters, I felt you were shouting at me. I do like your last post's tone better, despite the dripping sarcasm. You sound more intelligent.

    But my condemnation of your post is hardly absurd. You do indeed dismiss the value of apprehending and prosecuting the perpetrators. In your earlier post you argue that we ought to "rip the cameras down" because they represent "Tyranny". However the structure of your argument begins with dismissing the value of the cameras because they do not attack the problem of crime at it's root, in your estimation. You do not spell out whatever vague notion of the 'roots' of crime you hold, but you dismiss the cameras as inadequate in this respect and despite admitting that the cameras may have an effect, you go off like a Timothy McVeigh about how big brother is coming after us.

    I do, however, like your last post better and you ask a good question: how do we remove these undesirables from the street?

    I answer that we do not remove them so much as we so discourage their obnoxious behavior that they are no threat to the rest of us. Fine and if need be arrest those who panhandle, intimidate and harass. Make them more responsible for their own actions.

    If I were king of the world, I'd free up a lot of prison space, court time and police manpower by legalizing and regulating most drugs (which I maintain would have a beneficial affect on our foreign policy, particularly vis a vis central america. But I digress). Freeing up three quarters of our prison space and similar levels of court time would provide more than enough funds for intervention, psychological counseling, rehab, etc.

    But irrespective of that, we should target policing action against these kinds of infractions (harassment, panhandling, etc.). We may well find that other crimes subside as well. Consider the 'broken window' strategy. In NYC, Rudy Giulliani instituted the 'broken window' policy. The idea was that by going after the little crimes, many bigger crimes would get thwarted. It gets it name by the idea that if a window gets broken in a building and is not fixed, the next thing you know all the windows will get broken. Whoever broke the window will know there are no consequences and will break more and be joined by others. The thinking was also that whoever commits big crimes will not think twice about committing little crimes. The theory was proven correct.

    Shortly after instituting this policy, NYC transit police arrested a man for jumping over a subway gate. He didn't pay his $1.25 fair and jumped the turnstile. Instead of warning the guy or ignoring the guy or giving him a ticket, they arrested him, took him to the police station, took his fingerprints and got him on record. The man had never before been arrested. A month earlier, a dry cleaner was brutally murdered in a robbery. Turns out this turnstile jumper left his fingerprints at the scene. Police had no record of this guy until the subway arrest. But then again, someone who robs and murders someone isn't going to think much of skipping a fair. So he got caught.

    I say prosecute even small offenses. Get people to take responsibility for their predicaments. Maybe they'll actually avail themselves of opportunities offered them in life. We get them 'lifted' off the streets by getting them to do their own share of the lifting. In cases where rehab and psychological assistance are needed, give it.

    Pray tell: what's your solution?

  84. Biniszkiewicz

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 22nd 2008, 00:17

    By the way, Stardust, what really set me off earlier was your offhand remark about all of us knowing what 'panhandlers and lowlifes' was "code" for. That's the statement that really got my goat. If you look at my earlier response you'll see it's pretty measured until I address that issue.

    You still did not answer the question. Just what do you mean to imply by your remark? What do you believe the phrase 'panhandlers and low lifes' is "code" for? Please illuminate.

  85. WholeLottaJibbaJabbah

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 22nd 2008, 11:15

    you know how you stop crime. I've got the answer to the crime problems, I invented it and it comes in a fancy shiny box. I call it the J-O-B, if there were more of em, we wouldn't need camera's to sooth our post 9.11 fears.

  86. AtwaterLouse

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 22nd 2008, 12:39

    On buffalonews.com today -

    http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/329243.html

    Buffalo launches crime cam program with 43 cameras doing surveillance By Brian Meyer Updated: 04/22/08 12:09 PM 04/22/08

    ... City officials cut the ceremonial ribbon today on a surveillance monitoring room in Police Headquarters, a high-tech center that allows law enforcers to scrutinize activities in dozens of neighborhoods. Thus far, 43 cameras have been installed throughout the city. By the end of the year, more than 100 surveillance devices will be documenting activities in high crime areas, business districts and spots where homeland security is a potential concern.

    When the installations are finished, Police Commissioner H. McCarthy Gipson said, Buffalo's surveillance capabilities will be substantial. "We will be one of the elite camera systems in the United States of America," he told reporters today.

    The cameras can zoom in up to 400 yards to read license plates or provide close-ups of individuals. During today's demonstration, one officer who was monitoring cameras used a joystick to zoom in on a street corner. The shot was so clear that small pieces of litter could be pinpointed. Mayor Byron W. Brown said the cameras have been making a difference even during the test phases. "Crime in neighborhoods around these cameras seems to be drying up," he said.

    Gipson said the cameras have already helped officers make numerous arrests, including some drug-related arrests. ....

  87. DJB

    4 ratings12345
    Apr 22nd 2008, 12:58

    I understand the 'big brother' feelings, but isn't it time that we use modern technology to our advantage to fight crime? Many complaints have been registered here about the effectiveness of the Buffalo police, yet those same people denounce their attempts to use technology to improve their effectiveness? Criminals use modern technology to find new ways to sell drugs, rob people, seduce children, etc., but the police aren't allowed to use this same technology to fight crime? These are in PUBLIC places, not in your bedroom. Somehow, I don't believe people from the suburbs will all of a sudden feel LESS safe and welcome in the city due to cameras. If anything, the opposite is true. Most arguments against these cameras are fueled by cynicism and paranoia. But, to test that premise, let's take a poll of business owners in these districts and see how they feel. Are their businesses negatively affected? Do people feel more or less secure? Have people from the suburbs stopped coming to shop at their store? I predict nearly 100% of businesses are in support of these cameras and will see positive benefits. Now, let's take a poll of drug dealers, thieves, gangs, etc. They will most likely be 100% against the cameras. Who do you want to listen to?

  88. RisingDamp666

    2 ratings12345
    Apr 22nd 2008, 13:48

    There was a Supreme Court ruling on a privacy issue some thirty years ago wherein the justices wrote in their opinion that your right of privacy essentially ends when you step outside your front door. It is not an unlawful search and seizure for a camera to record you walking down the street. So get over it, and put out that cigarette butt, and stop spitting, and throw that wrapper in the garbage...

  89. Rez

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 23rd 2008, 09:05

    What the television media is showing is that the cameras can zoom in tight for a close up of a face and a license plate. The audio can pick up conversations far away on the street too.

  90. WholeLottaJibbaJabbah

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 23rd 2008, 10:19

    Yeah I totally agree with you DJB, where the hell is Robo Cop?

  91. Rez

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 26th 2008, 13:49

    A suggestion for making WNY and Buffalo safer is to place cameras along our bike paths, waterfront trials, and in our parks.

  92. Rez

    0 ratings12345
    Apr 26th 2008, 13:58

    A suggestion for making WNY and Buffalo safer is to place cameras along our bike paths, waterfront trials, and in our parks.

  93. suburbed

    1 ratings12345
    Apr 26th 2008, 15:00

    Great suggestion! We should go a step farther by putting a camera on every street corner and public place. Monitor the cameras 24x7 and dispatch a cop as soon as anything out of the ordinary happens. Police the hell out of Buffalo until the criminals are too scared to do anything but stay home. Maybe after 5 or 10 years suburbanites will feel safe again and then they might take more than two trips a year to the city. We had the chance to hang out with our neighbors due to the nice weather and I found it sad that many of them visit Orlando more often than they visit Buffalo. Most visit the Splash park in Erie at least three times a year, yet only visit Buffalo once a year for a show or sabers game. I ask why and they all say the same thing, because of the crime. Maybe they would feel safer if they thought that someone was watching them? I know I would.

Would you like to subscribe to this conversation?

Enter your email below, and you will receive an alert each time someone leaves a comment on this post.

What Do You Think?

Text Links