Cameras, Cameras, Cameras

"In the thousands" That, a direct quote from oemc ed Tony Ruiz, as published in the Chicago Tribune editorial on sunday 10 feb 2008, when asked how many cameras are monitoring the city. Of course he would not be more specific when pressed, and the editorial goes on to point out that citizens and alderman have demanded immediate replacements for their cameras when they go out of service for repairs or upgrades. The piece also states that "chicagos system (cameras) is open to inspection by visitors at the city's 911 center on West Madison Street."

Really? Really? And really? The editorial concludes that because such cameras are not physically intrusive the public has largely accepted them (and they have withstood certain court challenges) while "early fears of Orwellian spying have evidently dwindled". Well that is a pretty stunning conclusion, actually, and coming from the editorial pages of chicago's more conservative paper not wholly unexpected. But is it true? And if the more reputable of the two major papers actually ENDORSES the camera use, it just gives king daley--and his dukes, earls, and barons--more support for diverting city resources away from other areas and into the camera business. That means more jobs, more contracts, and more patronage most all of it secret.

First, it is an open question as to whether the majority of the citizens and taxpayers are aware to the extent of the camera network-certainly even many of the employees on madison street don't even have any idea and apparently the ed isn't talking. Thousands? That is a lot of cameras folks. Watching everything from "potential terror targets", cta and cha property, open air drug markets, and traffic intersections. It remains to be seen, as the editorial points out, whether the cameras actually do anything to prevent or solve crime and apparently no one is even asking those questions anymore. To date, there doesn't seem to be any widespread, independently credible, evaluation of the camera program--no cost/benefit analysis, no studies proving camera x or y solved a crime, and no evidence that a terrorist attack was thwarted due to the cameras. Really, the biggest acheivement that can be attributed to any camera program is plugging a $20 million hole in the citys budget (thanks to the traffic cameras).

But why let a small thing like efficacy get in the way of another government program funded by the taxpayers (remember even federal and homeland security money is taxpayers). OF COURSE the alderman and city suits like the cameras--it allows them to claim they are doing SOMETHING without having to do ANYTHING. It also provides citizens with a false sense of security, those that are not smart enough to know better. More smoke and mirrors, folks.

As for the papers assertion that the 911 system is open for visitors, Blogmaster hopes they erred; last we checked the oemc was SUPPOSED to be a closed, secure facility. But come to think of it, "open to inspection" might explain why the parking lot is still full of unauthorized cars and the building has an influx of people walking around there in civilain clothes.