The Metro reports. Don't worry: Homeland Security paid for the upgrade.
Waaaah invasion of privacy, waaah.
I think that the cameras are a good thing, and not an invasion of privacy, you can't be much more in public than at an MBTA station, I don't think there is any reasonable expectation of privacy there. And there is plenty of crime committed there. BUT we (those of us who pay taxes) are still paying for it. It always sounds like if it is Federal grant money, it doesn't cost us. BUT it does.
is that everyone will now know about my Mike's Donut habit. I can't help it. The glazed and honey dip are so good.
P.S. What's the over-under on the number of cameras shorted out when the roof leaks all over them? Let's set the bar at 35.
How about misuse of tax money?
WTF does homeland security give a quarter of a damn about forest hills?
And how does a camera prevent anything?
Most people who commit crimes, from small ones like smoking on the platform to larger ones like assault and murder, do so repeatedly. And they get away with them repeatedly. If the cameras can help demonstrate that a person has committed a crime, they may lead to prosecution, which may tend to deter further crimes by the same individual. Further, increasing the likelihood that a crime will have consequences will deter any rational actor from committing that crime.
At the least, the crimes will be pushed into the video dead spots, which will be easier to avoid.
More like a false sense of security.These cameras will not deter anything.
It may not deter, but could definitely help in apprehending and convicting people responsible for whatever crime
Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city's surveillance network has claimed.
I didn't know that homeland security was concerned with vandals tagging MBTA trains in the yards or school kids acting out like the latest version of clockwork orange. Maybe Best Buy will put back those kiosks that lasted about a week before they were plundered.
The T could start its own reality cop show starring the cigarette nazi who works at night and demands "Your Papers Please" from cigarette smoking lawbreakers, I wish they were as all dedicated as he is.
What happens when they yield footage of the cop? Isn't that illegal in Massachusetts?
I'm in favor of DHS money being used like this, but not really for the reasons DHS probably thinks I should be.
Number of terror attacks on the MBTA: 0
Number of criminal acts on the T from property crime through murder: too many to count
So if "anti-terror" tax money is being spent in ways that make it easier to ID and catch criminals (who pose a much greater threat to people like me who ride the T, and who generally create more terror in Boston than Al Quaeda) then that's great. For once I get my money back.
...makes on a "nazi", according to the anonymous coward.
If the T cops cited/fined everyone who smokes on T property, they'd have half the T debt paid off in a year.
When I was pregnant the only time I had any nausea was when I walked by the people smoking on the commuter rail platform at Back Bay (right under the no smoking signs of course). I spent the ride home each night trying not hurl on my fellow passengers. I wish the Transit Police do a big campaign and hand out tons of tickets.
Harvard Station, Fall 1995:
Me. "There's no smoking here and your smoking is making me nauseous"
Self Important Styleboy Ass "So what bitch, just move over there ..."
Sorry dude, I warned you, but I couldn't stop it. Not so sorry about your shoes, or the T cop and your girlfriend laughing at your prissy hissy indignation.
This really isnt news. WBZ had a report about it a while back (see below). I'm sure the Metro just figured this out (or the installation was completed recently at Forest Hills), plus that's a lot of cameras in general (and I'm sure the T put extra ones due many problems that station has with crime.)
Many stations already have new additional cameras due to previous DHS grants. This was prompted after the subway bombings in London a few years ago. Its a system wide thing, more are coming.
Look around and you can see both the old and new cameras. The new ones look like domes, while the old ones look like your typical bank camera (in a boxy enclosure). The Dome ones are motor controlled, so they can zoom and move the camera from a remote location. Plus its all digital video now, and not time lapse video tape. I am sure the T has video going back months now... (scary huh? But mpeg compression is a wonderful thing)
Every time there's a video clip in the media from the T (i.e. the stoner falling on the Red Line) is all from this new video system provided by the new DHS-funded camera system. The T's old system was antiquated, and very outdated. (No Surprise there!) 7-11 had better cameras than the T's old system
Is it a waste of money? Yes and no. I mean if they aren't there, and something happens, then is a waste? Probably not, but will it 'curb terrorism'? Probably not. Its all in how you spin it.
PS - I do agree that there needs to be more transit cops around. Camera's are great but if you can't get there in time, they do no good, except later on in court as evidence, if you happen to catch the guy.
But people have a right to know you gets to watch these videos, who records them, where the recordings get sent, etc, etc.
And your tax dollars are going to pay for this no matter what. If Boston said no to the money, it isn't like the Feds are going to just send you a refund in the mail or something. The money would just go to some other city who wants the cameras.