July 20, 2006
Morning Roundup: Curfew Edition
As we detail below, the D.C. Council has taken a step towards making us safer. Well, making us feel safer, at least...
Council Passes Anti-Crime Measures: The D.C. Council passed a series of measures aimed at curbing the recent uptick in violent crime, handing D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams a victory while upsetting civil liberties and youth activists, reports the Post. The legislation would move the existing juvenile curfew up to 10 p.m. from midnight, require the courts to tell police when a juvenile with multiple violent offenses on his record is released, and install surveillance cameras (which the Washington Times calls "spy cameras") in various neighborhoods. The only dissenting vote came from councilmember and mayoral candidate Adrian Fenty (D-Ward 4). We still think something better could have been done in response the recent crimes.
Security Programs Take a Hit: The recent cuts in federal funds for anti-terrorism programs have forced the region's governments to scale back on certain plans, writes WJLA. The cut -- from $77 million last year to $46 million this year -- will primarily affect a high-tech regional communication system and the purchase of extra beds for area hospitals.
Maryland Wal-Mart Law Struck Down: A Maryland law that would have forced Wal-Mart to pay more in health insurance for its employees was struck down by a federal court, notes the Post. The law, which would require that companies in Maryland with more than 10,000 employees put more money into health insurance policies, was passed in January after Governor Robert Ehrlich's veto was overridden. The federal judge that overturned the law claimed that it ran afoul of a federal statute protecting corporations from state-to-state differences in health and benefits.
Briefly Noted: U.S. evacuees from Lebanon arrive in Baltimore ... Virginia inmate opts for electric chair ... Rep. Tom Davis' plan for Metro still not a sure bet ... Politics and crab cakes mix in Maryland ... Big toll hike expected on Dulles Greenway.
This Day in DCist: On this day last year, we observed the upside-down world of school politics in Maryland and Virginia, created some of Dino's crostini, reported on the links between Chief Justice John Roberts and an illegal french fry, and scoped out the area's best moving companies.
Picture snapped by Grundlepuck
|
These cameras are a very slippery slope and I, for one, am terrified it is being traversed. I hope the council comes to their senses at the end of 90 days or that the courts see this for what it is--a severe erosion of civil liberties.
I wish they would keep the curfew forever and ever.
Keep the thugs off the streets.
Tape their every move.
This would probably be too much in any other town, but DC is worse than Baghdad.
Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Um, you know of course the slope's been slipping since, say, 1958. Walk into any bank, convenience store, grocery, or alley downtown and you're under constant video surveillance. And SCOTUS has consistently affirmed that you have NO right to privacy outside of your residence.
But it's a moot point anyway. The cameras do little to deter crime, and at best provide some evidence after a crime is committed. But that hasn't stopped the council from declaring victory and going on vacation. When the only tool they have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Tim - I hate to tell you this, but if you live or work in DC you probably have your picture taken at least a couple of times every day.
The council voted unanimously to provide $8 million to pay overtime to put 300 more officers on the streets for the next six weeks.
That's $26,666.66 per officer over the course of six weeks!!! WTF?
Do curfews really work? Wasn't the guy in Georgetown killed by some kids out after curfew?
As for cameras, I'd be worried more if they went to a London-style set up where police do monitor in real time. More chance for mischief.
DCist, it's frustating to read your criticism of the mayor and the efforts of the DC government to curtail the recent surge in crime without offering any concrete alternative solutions. I doubt that elected officials in the city do not recognize that crime is tied to poor education and unemployment of disaffected youth. I agree that addressing these issues, the real source of crime, will provide a real antidote, but it's easy and unproductive simply to say it without throwing out better ideas. How on earth do you do it? Moreover, how do you do it immediately to see results quickly? Until we hear a better idea, from you guys or someone else, I'll accept the security cameras and earlier curfew and wait for the results.
I do live and work in DC and am aware of LOTS of cameras. The ones on the mall are supposedly only active for big events. I don't care about security cameras in private businesses...certainly their right.
My problem is it being in MY NEIGHBORHOOOD (and they do specifically say neighborhoods) where it's possible it could be pointed at my yard or my house--both MY PRIVATE property.
I like the onion bit from my calendar last year: 'American people shrug, line up for fingerprinting'. Perhaps it's been slipping for a while, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped from going any further.
The federal judge that overturned the law claimed that it ran afoul of a federal statute protecting corporations from state-to-state differences in health and benefits.
This makes me so angry. Maybe it's time for Congress to get off their collective ass and make a law then, if Maryland can't do it alone. If corporations can't be bothered to be the slightest bit responsible for the care of their employees, I have no problem forcing it on them.
Mufo - Ben Franklin says it best:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Live Free or Die,
Hill Rat
I don't at all understand the curfew element. We already have curfews- 11 during the school year and 12 outside of it- that go completely unenforced. Why set a higher bar when MPD doesn't even attempt to meet the current one?
Also, the kids I see outside until all hours are put or allowed there by their families, who either abuse them at home or, slightly better, simply neglect them. How does a curfew take care of that?
It'd be better to combine *any* curfew with a robust and diverse program of supervised evening activities (midnight BB, mentoring, movies, tutoring, etc). Instead, these things, when they existed in the first place, have been cut back in the some of the neediest neighborhoods.
Make no mistake, this is a knee-jerk and ill-considered bill.
Blacks aren't just more likely to commit violent crime they are also more likey to be victims of such crime. While your egalitarian steak is certainly laudable I wonder if it is actually in the best interest of the people that you are aiming to help. For the vast majority of african americans this intrusion is certainly a mixed blessing but it is ultimately a blessing.
DCist Heather --
I don't get that either. I've lived in many different areas now: California, Illinois, Virginia, Tennessee and DC. And I can tell you that the employee laws on benefits and pay (even the length of the work week -- in California it is only 37.5 hours) vary significantly.
So when I heard that this morning on WAMU that the judge that requiring employers in Maryland to keep track of different benefits for its Maryland employees would be onerous -- I thought to myself: "Someone needs to tell the other 49 states."
I expect that Maryland will figure out a way to re-write the law or appeal. At least I hope they would.
Tim - We're on the same page my friend.
That's good work, Hill Rat. I posted the same quote in yesterday's Morning Roundup. Most people won't listen to an anonymous poster, but will take a second to listen to good 'ol Ben.
mufo, I think we've been clear about what we'd like to see happen. Personally, I think it's very important to recognize that we're in an environment of declining crime. These outbreaks are unfortunate, but they will subside, and have subsided since the "crime emergency" was declared.
Given that, is it wise to adopt these policies? They're largely unnecessary, and it's likely they'll just antagonize portions of the population that continually get a raw deal from the city without doing a thing to deter crime. Williams' attitude should, at least, be first do no harm, but instead it's first look busy. Not smart.
Perhaps city officials realize that there are deeper issues involved in these outbreaks. If so, they sure have a funny way of trying to develop solutions for those issues. I don't expect them to solve these problems in one fell blow, but it would be nice to see our leaders acknowledge that they're there and discuss how to begin crafting better public policies.
First off, cameras on private property by private entities are completely different from cameras on public property by public entities. Second, SCOTUS has not said that you have "NO right to privacy outside of your residence". While this is mostly true, you still have a right to privacy in protected areas, such as restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, etc.
Regarding the Federal Court decision on the wal-mart law.. Erhlich is a joke. WTF is an activist legislature? Is he saying the legislature doesn't or shouldn't have the power to regulate business in the state? Also, Scalia's son argued the case for wal-mart. I wonder if he'll recuse when it's appealed.
Hill Rat,
I'll take safety over a quixotic, libertarian fantasyland defined by lofty quotes and state mottos anyday. A truly "free" world that you describe would resemble anarchy, and I'd rather live with a little security, thankyouverymuch. Of course, whether the cameras in the District will actually provide that safety or will allow an abuse of civil liberties, is yet to be seen. Guess we'll find out.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben is right here, however, I hardly consider a camera looking onto my private property much like anyone else can (whether from the state or not) as an infringement on my essential liberty. Let's get real here.
mufo - I'm glad you can be so cavalier with my civil liberties. While it may make you feel more safe, it makes me feel less safe. And free most certainly does not mean anarchy, that's just an ignorant statement that scares people into believing that the gov't can and will protect them.
Enforcing laws, keeping people safe and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive ideas.
That damn utopian Franklin! What's he done for us lately?
Mufo - Where are you getting the idea that I'm an anarchist? Franklin's quote is pretty specific in saying both "essential liberty" and "temporary safety", two important qualifiers.
The right to move about the city where I live and work without having my actions monitored by the police qualifies as an "essential liberty." As a Black man, I'm not willing to gamble on the good intentions of the police.
Am I the only one that sees no problems with cameras in neighborhoods? Why is everyone all up in arms about public cameras? So what if they are pointed at your house...what are you so afraid of these cameras seeing? Aren't there satellites up in space that could take photos of you in your backyard just as easily?
If there's a slight chance that these cameras will deter crime (which of course there isn't) then I'm all for them. I'd much rather have my life on tape rather than get mugged and have the creeps get away with it.
So what if they are pointed at your house...what are you so afraid of these cameras seeing?
My three-foot bong
YEAH!:
I double dog dare you to go to Baghdad.
Rob, re satellites: The answer is no. I know, I know, we've all seen Under Siege 2.. but movies aren't reality.
As I recall, the controlling standard is "reasonable expectation" of privacy. This has been held not to exist in public space. Restrooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms- sure. Public streets and parks and parking lots, no.
Not meaning to offend, but my guess is the folks who fear the cameras more than the crime (and a poster made the very good point that cameras are already all over downtown and in Dupont Circle) do not live in neighborhoods where violent crime on their own streets is a daily happening. I do.
I'd strike a balance by requesting these things go in designated crime hot-spots. The locals do support this. They stop me on the streets (during daylight hours, they don’t go out at night or, if they do, they don’t leave their front porch) and tell me so.
Actually Rob, I'd really appreciate it if someone had caught my muggers on tape. Perhaps the cops would have had an easier time tracking them down and discouraging them from committing the same crime again against someone else.
Hill Rat, no, I'm not calling you an anarchist. Sometimes I wish this group could interact face-to-face when these heavy emotional issues come up, because I think misinterpretations become a lot more common.
Ryan, this blog has been clear as to the desired outcome for government intervention, but in terms of specific means to achieving those, I wish there were more substance, something more specific than "improve education" and "provide better jobs." Can you point to something that other cities have done successfully?
How would you feel, Rob, if your life is on tape and you get mugged and the creeps get away with it? Because the resolution on these cameras is often not up to snuff, and there's not going to be anyone watching them full-time to stop crimes in progress.
You get to feel like a star, though. How 'bout you spend a little more time on your hair in the mornings now, since you'll be on camera so much.
I live in Trinidad. My car was shot 7 times in a drive by. I still don't want cameras.
Politburo - Don't believe the hype! If you can get a picture of your house from Google Maps, do you honestly believe that same technology doesn't exist in a more advanced form?
Is the NSA using those satellites to bust stoners or guys gambling over the internet? Doubtful, but the capability exists.
Thank goodness I have a shaved head so don't have to spend the time to pretty myself up in the mornings. Though I live in Chinatown so surely I've been taped with regular frequency already. Maybe DC is just looking for an easy way to contribute videos to America's Funniest Home Videos and win the $100K. A new source of city revenue?
Regarding the satellites...I've never seen that movie and was half joking. But movies aren't reality? Man...way to ruin my day...
Thank goodness I have a shaved head so don't have to spend the time to pretty myself up in the mornings. Though I live in Chinatown so surely I've been taped with regular frequency already. Maybe DC is just looking for an easy way to contribute videos to America's Funniest Home Videos and win the $100K and disguising it as a crime prevention measure? A new source of city revenue?
Regarding the satellites...I've never seen that movie and was half joking. But movies aren't reality? Man...way to ruin my day...
Can you point to something that other cities have done successfully?
Mufo - I think that's what the objection is to the measures we are taking, they haven't been proven effective in past applications. The kids that killed that guy in Georgetown were out after curfew, so what good is making curfew earlier going to do? There are already cameras all over this city and people get killed all the time, so what good is putting up more cameras that noone is looking at in real time going to do?
We're wasting time and money on "feel good" solutions that aren't effective.
Mark - The city has told us that those cameras are only turned on during specific events. However, the traffic cameras are on 24/7.
I do understand that some citizens want cameras. I'm not really against the current proposal, per se, but like others I wonder where it stops. Do we want to become London? Some estimates say they have half a million cameras. Proportioned to DC by area, that would still be 50,000 cameras. Even then, would that be enough? What's really the goal here?
Paranoid - That's aerial photography, not satellite.
If an Al Qaeda cell had killed 15 people in DC in 15 days, would anybody be protesting cameras on the street that would maybe help catch them? I doubt it.
So, why are the lives of 15 people killed by our own home grown terrorists any less valuable?
If there was a camera at 14th & U, we might have suspects in the shooting of that young man outside Duke City. Heck, if there had been cameras at the corners along U street, perhaps the idiots who shot someone over a parking space would have thought twice before pulling out a gun in the first place.
Sure we need better education and an end to poverty. But we don't really have a plan for how to get there. I'm out of ideas. In a city where far too many parent's don't value education, where attempting to instill even minimum order in schoold ellicits crys of racism and oppression, where children so disrespect their own neighborhoods and neighbors that they litter left and right on the way to school -- and they learned it from their parents, what are we supposed to do to ensure that these kids get educated? I'm sure there is an answer, but I don't know what it is, and I don't blame Tony Williams for not knowing either. Perhaps this forum could be a place or ideas?
Paranoid - That's aerial photography, not satellite.
Even so, the thought of AWACS bristling with cameras, flying around the country and taking pix 24/7 doesn't really make me feel any better.
When it comes to cameras I'm reminded of something that my Grandfather used to say. "Only guilty people need to keep secrets and hide stuff." Maybe that applies here too.
Politburo:
Yes, I was present at the ANC 2B vote years back when the issue of the cameras at Dupont and their use during protests was raised and voted on. I recall Ramsey's promises, and the ensuing far-ranging discussion, led by Commissioners, that touched on the notion of "the slippery slope", which is not a lunatic theory, and went so far as to discuss the still-developing technology of biometric software
I've also been gassed while photographically documenting downtown protests, know grandmothers who were arrested, and know others who were the target of FBI stings re other protests or anticipated protests.
Nonetheless, the battle is constant. I don't think we can afford to be afraid to use passive tactics simply because we're afraid they may be used against us. They already are.
Paranoid - They would probably use an unmanned UAV for such an operation. Much smaller, much quieter. Now that you mention it, I guess it doesn't make me feel any better either.
Wait . . . what are you saying is "aerial photography," Politburo? If you're talking about Google Maps or Google Earth, the overwhelming majority of the images that make up those databases are satellite, not aerial photographs. And if the publicly available photographs can show your backyard, I don't have much difficulty believing that more advanced government tech could actually see what you're doing in your backyard.
When it comes to cameras I'm reminded of something that my Grandfather used to say. "Only guilty people need to keep secrets and hide stuff." Maybe that applies here too.
TC the Terrible - You're absolutely right, but what happens when your desire to [insert innocuous hobby or habit here] falls out of favor?
Oh yes, let's bring Al Qaeda into this. Awesome. That's what reasoned and productive debate is crying out for, more Al Qaeda analogies. If Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were skipping merrily around Dupont arm in arm hitting people in the face with pies, would you protest cameras on the street to stop them? I guess that depends on whether your principles are something that you hold through good times and bad, or if they're just something you keep around when you don't need them and conveniently forget when you do.
Mr. 420 - That's when you have to make a choice between changing your behavior to match the new social norms, or take the risk of getting caught and paying the price for your choices. And yes, I do worry that an unreasonable group could come to power and ban the things that I do/say. But having said that I'm not sure that filming the places we live is as slippery a slope as some are suggesting it is.
It's not a perfect answer, but it could be part of a better answer. And it is better than the nothing answer that the city was doing before.
After some research, it appears that more of Google (and other sites) imagery is satellite than I thought. There isn't any hard data on exactly where/when it switches from satellite to aerial, if at all, but Google does clearly say that they, in part, use aerial.
Al Queda is the Nazi analogy of our time- tossed out as shorthand for irredeemable evil that must be resisted at all expense. I move that Godwin's Law be updated at DCist. 2nd?
Duly seconded.
TC the Terrible - It's very easy to say that when it is not your life impacted. People's views of what are reasonable are very subjective. I say your view of reasonable is objectionable, yet I'm just supposed to suck it up and change so you can have your way?
At one point in this country's history it was normal to keep women and minorities from voting. Obviously this is no where near the horrific issue that was, but it's easier to get a point across with extremes. What gives you the right to tell me what is the best way to live my life.
CONFORMING TO SOCIETAL NORMS when I am not harming anyone with my "anti-social" behavior is not something that should be embraced, in my opinion.
TC the Terrible - Point taken, but willingly giving up the right to privacy in your own home is a pretty dramatic step don't you think?
I would suggest that if we want to cut down on crime in DC the Chief could start by mandating that all Metro PD officers spend at least 2 hours of every shift out of their cars, walking a beat. Not hanging out at the 7/11, not sitting on the car, walking around; talking to citizens, asking questions, learning the lay of the land.
If you've seen some of these calorie collectors, you know that it would do them some good to have walk a couple of hours each day.
Everyone should feel more anomymous the more cameras they put up, because the sheer volume of information is what protects most of our privacies nowadays. It's not like there is someone in a control room watching every single camera feed in the city at all times. They redirect and examine specific feeds when they have a reason to.
Regardless, anything in public view should be considered public domain. How could an image of your front yard be a violation of your privacy? Let's not confuse privacy rights with the protection from illegal search and seizure which guards your front door. Besides, would it be any more of a violation if someone snapped a picture of you taking a shower through your open window? You're the dumbass who left the window open. Don't assume you're ever in a private setting when you're outside. It could be true via a camera on the lamppost, or someone hiding in the bushes.