I have to wonder too. That camera is right at the big lot used for Aragon parking which usually has one police car in it with cops doing whatever when they aren't actually patroling. If they can legitimately see up and down the whole street, fine. But I sincerely doubt they can see into the JJ Peppers parking lot from there. I'm glad to see the camera, but can it be moved over to Sheridan and Lawrence?
jack - conversely, maybe having the camera at this particular corner frees up the cops to not worry about that parking lot as much, but rather spend time at lawrence/sheridan instead? it's all speculation at this point - we really need the cops or caps people to weigh in.
I don't think cops are patroling this parking lot when they are sitting there. Maybe they are doing paperwork, waiting for a signal to move into another area, etc., but I can assure you they aren't there because that empty parking lot is some big crime zone.
As for the cameras and whether they work, it depends on your definition of "work". Sure, I doubt they lead to any increase in arrests. But they have made a difference in the areas surrounding the cameras. When the camera went up at Sheridan and Wilson, crime shifted north on Sheridan. I know it is a gamble on where it would shift next, but like chip I'm of the view right now the more cameras the better
Two, is anyone other than me more than a bit troubled at how accepting we are becoming of constant surveillance by a local government that most people on this site don't trust all that much?
I'm thinking the camera is there because there've been several shootings this summer at Lawrence and Winthrop. On that corner, it can see north to the 4800 and 4900 blocks of Winthrop (where there's been a lot of crime lately), east to Sheridan (S&L Pantry, one side of JJP's, and REST Shelter), and west to Broadway and Lawrence. Plus the Aragon, which doesn't generate a lot of crime, but nuisances.
I'm still hoping for one at Sheridan and Lawrence, but I'm thinking Winthrop and Lawrence is a pretty good spot for it.
As I've commented before, I've heard from police that the city is more interested in 'stop-light' cameras, than cameras that capture crime. Traffic revenue is more important, unfortunately.
If anyone knows about the extensive camera network, in London, it does make a huge difference.
Hmmm... I will agree with you to a certain extent. However, when the Police Chief is appointed by our beloved Emperor Daley, it's just a fact that politicians and the operation of the CPD are inexorably linked.
Cameras have been in airports, office buildings, and various businesses for years. I lived in a high rise that installed them in the early 90's. As the price goes down and the technology goes up, it's a given that we'll see more throughout the entire U.S.
I agree that they can become too invasive but we're talking about installing cameras in known hot spots. When the Wilson/Magnolia camera was first put up, I sensed some trepidation among a number of residents. When the camera was moved to a new location, many of those same residents were begging to have the camera returned.
Ald. Mary Ann Smith was the first alderman in the city to use menu money to help purchase a camera. Since that time, other aldermen have used various avenues to get more cameras in their wards. The decision for the camera at Winthrop/Lawrence was ultimately made by the 20th Police District and I am aware there are ongoing discussions about placing a camera at Lawrence/Sheridan. I would imagine it's just a matter of time at this point.
Given the recent murder, it can't be soon enough for me.
Yes, we are debating whether or not they are too intrusive. That's kind of why we're all here blogging.
I'm not saying there aren't occasional benefits. I'm just not 100% comfortable with more appearing every day.
I think surveillance cameras are like taxes in that once you've got 'em, they'll never go away. That just doesn't jive with my feelings about personal liberty. But hey, that's me. Maybe that's not you.
I don't really like the cameras either, but most of that opposition is rooted in the presumed intrusiveness of the cameras.
Do I want to be recorded walking down the street? No.
Is it practical to think law enforcement and residents alone can prevent crime from occurring? No.
There's a balance here that can be met. The camera is more or less an independent observer. It's a robot. It can only do what people tell it to do. Tell it to record a hot spot corner and known criminal activity and that traffic may just move somewhere else or it may get picked up on tape leading to investigations which could lead to arrests. Either way, the primary objective is to move dangerous activity away from public areas.
Criminals already have an expectation for a short life. Pedestrians do not.
I think the cameras in the UK take things a bit too far, maybe.
Well, I don't know about this. There was a show on PBS late on a sunday night about surveillence cameras around the world. They spent a lot of time talking about the system in London and while I'm sure they only featured the good stories, there were incidence of the cameras helping to not only catch criminals (the kids beating up the sleeping drunk, the pickpockets, the drunk guy starting trouble in bars), there were a couple of instances of cameras PREVENTING crime, such as the one camera that caught a shot of a young girl walking home late in the evening and the guy who was following her. The camera operator spotting this and alerted a car to the potential danger. They were able to scare the guy away just as he grabbed the girl and dragged her to the bushes.
I realize the whole "invasion of privacy" thing, but most of my private acts take place in my apartment where they are no cameras (yet!), but if I'm just walking down the street, I'm out in public and I don't really expect any "privacy". I've got nothing to hide. But if the cameras catch car passing by that has been suspected of being used in a drive-by or a group gathering in an alley or some guy passing by the front of a convenience store 9 or 10 times and they can prevent something from occuring, by all means, put up the cameras.
I think if we had talking cameras some of the crazy bastards up here would start talking to them thinking it's God. Maybe that'd help....plenty of people having conversations with themselves all over this neighborhood. At least a talking camera might give the kooks some good advice for a change- that's a car, not a urinal; if you must must bear your weapon to shoot at a rival, please go to the range and improve your aim; drive-bys are a waste of bullets-a steady aimed arm hits the proper target. idk. either way, move the cam to Lawrence & Sheridan. that prob. the hottest corner around here.
I personally don't see what good the cameras do if they are so obvious; if you want to catch criminals, you need a hidden camera. So it would seem that the purpose of the blue light cameras would be to move the crime to another location, not actually catch criminals (ok, maybe some dumb criminals).
This will be a nice way to catch some of the craziness that can happen after a show at the Aragon lets out.
ReplyDeleteSuper. Watch people fight in alleyways. Why isn't there a cam at Sheridan & Lawrence where people shoot???
ReplyDeleteI agree... this camera is off by about 2 blocks.
ReplyDeleteThe police say Cameras don't really do much for crime at least according to Second City Cops blog.
ReplyDeleteWe need more officers on bikes/foot and in cars on patrol
I have to wonder too. That camera is right at the big lot used for Aragon parking which usually has one police car in it with cops doing whatever when they aren't actually patroling. If they can legitimately see up and down the whole street, fine. But I sincerely doubt they can see into the JJ Peppers parking lot from there. I'm glad to see the camera, but can it be moved over to Sheridan and Lawrence?
ReplyDeletejack - conversely, maybe having the camera at this particular corner frees up the cops to not worry about that parking lot as much, but rather spend time at lawrence/sheridan instead? it's all speculation at this point - we really need the cops or caps people to weigh in.
ReplyDeleteThe police say Cameras don't really do much for crime at least according to Second City Cops blog.
ReplyDeleteyeah, because I'm pretty sure that all the criminals do is move their operations to where there are no cameras
Sure helped the corner of Magnolia and Wilson when the camera was there. I relly don't care if they move as long as they move out of Uptown. Fast.
ReplyDeleteltn318:
ReplyDeleteI don't think cops are patroling this parking lot when they are sitting there. Maybe they are doing paperwork, waiting for a signal to move into another area, etc., but I can assure you they aren't there because that empty parking lot is some big crime zone.
As for the cameras and whether they work, it depends on your definition of "work". Sure, I doubt they lead to any increase in arrests. But they have made a difference in the areas surrounding the cameras. When the camera went up at Sheridan and Wilson, crime shifted north on Sheridan. I know it is a gamble on where it would shift next, but like chip I'm of the view right now the more cameras the better
ReplyDeleteOne, this is the wrong corner for a camera.
ReplyDeleteTwo, is anyone other than me more than a bit troubled at how accepting we are becoming of constant surveillance by a local government that most people on this site don't trust all that much?
Big Brother is watching you.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking the camera is there because there've been several shootings this summer at Lawrence and Winthrop. On that corner, it can see north to the 4800 and 4900 blocks of Winthrop (where there's been a lot of crime lately), east to Sheridan (S&L Pantry, one side of JJP's, and REST Shelter), and west to Broadway and Lawrence. Plus the Aragon, which doesn't generate a lot of crime, but nuisances.
ReplyDeleteI'm still hoping for one at Sheridan and Lawrence, but I'm thinking Winthrop and Lawrence is a pretty good spot for it.
Confused:
ReplyDeleteDon't lump the 13,000 men and women of the Chicago Police in with the politicians.
As I've commented before, I've heard from police that
ReplyDeletethe city is more interested in 'stop-light' cameras, than cameras that capture crime.
Traffic revenue is more important, unfortunately.
If anyone knows about the extensive camera network, in London, it does make a huge difference.
Hmmm... I will agree with you to a certain extent. However, when the Police Chief is appointed by our beloved Emperor Daley, it's just a fact that politicians and the operation of the CPD are inexorably linked.
ReplyDeleteThen again, I am Confused...
I think the cameras in the UK take things a bit too far, maybe. They actually talk to you and criticize antisocial behavior.
ReplyDeleteAt the community meeting, people were begging for more cameras. Now we're debating whether or not they're too intrusive?
ReplyDeleteCameras have been in airports, office buildings, and various businesses for years. I lived in a high rise that installed them in the early 90's. As the price goes down and the technology goes up, it's a given that we'll see more throughout the entire U.S.
ReplyDeleteI agree that they can become too invasive but we're talking about installing cameras in known hot spots. When the Wilson/Magnolia camera was first put up, I sensed some trepidation among a number of residents. When the camera was moved to a new location, many of those same residents were begging to have the camera returned.
Ald. Mary Ann Smith was the first alderman in the city to use menu money to help purchase a camera. Since that time, other aldermen have used various avenues to get more cameras in their wards. The decision for the camera at Winthrop/Lawrence was ultimately made by the 20th Police District and I am aware there are ongoing discussions about placing a camera at Lawrence/Sheridan. I would imagine it's just a matter of time at this point.
Given the recent murder, it can't be soon enough for me.
Yes, we are debating whether or not they are too intrusive. That's kind of why we're all here blogging.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying there aren't occasional benefits. I'm just not 100% comfortable with more appearing every day.
I think surveillance cameras are like taxes in that once you've got 'em, they'll never go away. That just doesn't jive with my feelings about personal liberty. But hey, that's me. Maybe that's not you.
I don't really like the cameras either, but most of that opposition is rooted in the presumed intrusiveness of the cameras.
ReplyDeleteDo I want to be recorded walking down the street? No.
Is it practical to think law enforcement and residents alone can prevent crime from occurring? No.
There's a balance here that can be met. The camera is more or less an independent observer. It's a robot. It can only do what people tell it to do. Tell it to record a hot spot corner and known criminal activity and that traffic may just move somewhere else or it may get picked up on tape leading to investigations which could lead to arrests. Either way, the primary objective is to move dangerous activity away from public areas.
Criminals already have an expectation for a short life. Pedestrians do not.
I think the cameras in the UK take things a bit too far, maybe.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't know about this. There was a show on PBS late on a sunday night about surveillence cameras around the world. They spent a lot of time talking about the system in London and while I'm sure they only featured the good stories, there were incidence of the cameras helping to not only catch criminals (the kids beating up the sleeping drunk, the pickpockets, the drunk guy starting trouble in bars), there were a couple of instances of cameras PREVENTING crime, such as the one camera that caught a shot of a young girl walking home late in the evening and the guy who was following her. The camera operator spotting this and alerted a car to the potential danger. They were able to scare the guy away just as he grabbed the girl and dragged her to the bushes.
I realize the whole "invasion of privacy" thing, but most of my private acts take place in my apartment where they are no cameras (yet!), but if I'm just walking down the street, I'm out in public and I don't really expect any "privacy". I've got nothing to hide. But if the cameras catch car passing by that has been suspected of being used in a drive-by or a group gathering in an alley or some guy passing by the front of a convenience store 9 or 10 times and they can prevent something from occuring, by all means, put up the cameras.
How about Daley give some TIF money to condo and apartment buildings to help pay for cameras.
ReplyDelete[How about Daley give some TIF money to condo and apartment buildings to help pay for cameras.]
ReplyDeleteBetter solution: How about I keep more of my money through lower taxes and I spend that money the way I BEST SEE FIT.
Sorry for the edgy commentary(I'm wired), but I have eyes and ears and the TIF is one gigantic pile of deaf, dumb, and blind.
I think if we had talking cameras some of the crazy bastards up here would start talking to them thinking it's God. Maybe that'd help....plenty of people having conversations with themselves all over this neighborhood. At least a talking camera might give the kooks some good advice for a change- that's a car, not a urinal; if you must must bear your weapon to shoot at a rival, please go to the range and improve your aim; drive-bys are a waste of bullets-a steady aimed arm hits the proper target. idk. either way, move the cam to Lawrence & Sheridan. that prob. the hottest corner around here.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't see what good the cameras do if they are so obvious; if you want to catch criminals, you need a hidden camera. So it would seem that the purpose of the blue light cameras would be to move the crime to another location, not actually catch criminals (ok, maybe some dumb criminals).
ReplyDelete