Gothamist: The War on Scratchiti Begins!

Max.

Wed, 24 May 2006 00:32:11 -0500

Tagging is hands-down the hardest form of graffiti to do well. That said, go with the mylar shields. Cameras are breakable and expensive to replace.

drew

Tue, 23 May 2006 23:06:25 -0500

The thing about the acid-etching, its not just ugly, its pretty dangerous. People are carrying around industrial strength corrosives to do this shit, and who knows how long the acid takes to dissolve the glass. What if you leaned up against the glass right after someone tagged the window?

Boggo

Tue, 23 May 2006 22:04:21 -0500

"Maybe some people need to pull out a copy of 1984 and see how much closer we've come to that nightmare in the past decade." LOL -- can anyone really argue this? We have more freedom of thought and expression than ever before. Internet blogs, the fall of MSM, cheap digital cameras and video cameras to catch cops doing bad things, etc. The price of having more free flow of information is, however, that you leave information in your wake. But it hardly suggests we're closer to "1984." Bah.

Charley

Tue, 23 May 2006 21:04:18 -0500

I'm as worried as anyone else about the erosion of our Constitution and intrusion on personal privacy. These are VERY real things to worry about right now... However; there is NOTHING personal about riding the subway and I have no problem at all with video surveillance of subway cars. As for an art vs vandalism opinion: Subway windows and doors are meant to be looked through - something very difficult to do when they've been completely scratched/etched... There is fantastically beautiful subway graphitti to be sure - but it never altered the functionality of any part of the train...

jizzbomb

Tue, 23 May 2006 19:34:53 -0500

It's easy to get rid of graffiti. Just replace all the black and latinos with Japanese people. Guaranteed all problems will vanish. Not only will graffiti cease, but crime will stop and you'll get cute little video phone cameras.

nothing like 1984

Tue, 23 May 2006 17:31:11 -0500

jr, I can see the point sailing right over your obviously thick head. Cameras and Padilla have nothing in common. The point was the government can stomp on your rights without technology just as they can use technology and still respect your rights. The fact remains YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BE INVISIBLE IN A PUBLIC SPACE! Until you can prove the government is going to use the cameras for evil purposes you are merely speculating.

The Red Nun

Tue, 23 May 2006 16:48:38 -0500

You're wrong. It's a privilege to drive, not a right. and as The MTA is a privilege so is The London Underground. As I stated before, you're not being forced to pay for the fare, it's your right to decide whether or not to ride, but as far as riding goes, it's a privilege. Also, you're swimming away from a Red Nun, not walking. Learn to spell and check your grammar. C-

cdjames

Tue, 23 May 2006 16:43:18 -0500

Cameras = reactive = $25 MM to identify criminals AFTER the crime has been committed and damage done. NYPD = proactive = $25 MM for NEW cops to address criminal acts BEFORE, DURING, and after the fact. Could PREVENT not only vandalism, but rape, assault, muggings, and [less likely but still] potential terrorism. The biggest benefit of cameras is obvioulsy having physical evidence of all crime, but I still say a worse ROI than with human-presence.

Tim N.

Tue, 23 May 2006 16:05:53 -0500

Chicago Skyway (Toll) ... not a privledge... Indiana East-West Toll Road, (Interstate 80/Interstate 90) ... not a privledge... Pocahontas Parkway (Toll) ... not a privledge... The London Underground ... not a privledge... my aim is right on... ... if its pointed at your own head... Whatever. Moving on. Just another nun I've walked away from.

jr

Tue, 23 May 2006 15:59:35 -0500

Jose Padilla is exactly the reason why we need to discourage the government from further intrusions on our liberties. Do we really trust a government that will hold an American citizen without charges to watch every move we make?

The Red Nun

Tue, 23 May 2006 15:53:34 -0500

Hospitals are usually public/private and to use them you have to pay for them. The following is a list of public/private entities that are for public use, but must be paid for to use by the public: Chicago Skyway (Toll) Indiana East-West Toll Road, (Interstate 80/Interstate 90) Pocahontas Parkway (Toll) The London Underground my aim is right on...

nothing like 1984

Tue, 23 May 2006 15:50:21 -0500

This is nothing like 1984. If every camera were being monitored and records were being kept of what you were doing or what you were reading on the subway then you might have a point. If people were being arrested or detained for things that are NOT illegal you might have a point. But those things could happen without the use of cameras. Just ask Jose Padilla.

Tim N.

Tue, 23 May 2006 15:31:54 -0500

You are paying for a service. You're wrong. “A fanatic is someone who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim.” --- Santayana Nuns.

The Red Nun

Tue, 23 May 2006 15:21:44 -0500

*And it's a privledge to pay $2 for the ride?* As I stated earlier public/private. You do not have to pay at all, but then again, you don't have to ride it. Prove me wrong.

Tim N.

Tue, 23 May 2006 15:05:31 -0500

It's funny how the idea of a cop on every car is so much less of a thing than a camera on the cars (not to mention that if the MTA runs the cameras 80% of them will never work). Human-to-human contact makes you feel safe, human-to-camera contact makes you feel threatened. Seriously, why do you suppose that is?

jr

Tue, 23 May 2006 15:00:09 -0500

The argument isn't about whether someone has something to hide while riding on the subway, it's whether we want the government to be able to watch and document every move we make. Maybe some people need to pull out a copy of 1984 and see how much closer we've come to that nightmare in the past decade.

Tim N.

Tue, 23 May 2006 14:53:10 -0500

And it's a privledge to pay $2 for the ride? The subway is a service, not a gift. Not sure it's a right, but I know you're wrong.

The Red Nun

Tue, 23 May 2006 14:33:08 -0500

Tim N. when you're dealing with a public/private entity it's privelage, not right.

Tim N.

Tue, 23 May 2006 14:22:24 -0500

Riding the subway is a privledge? Methinks you overstate your case a bit...

Boggo

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:59:52 -0500

CC cameras would obviously be useful for other things, like preventing or solving violent crimes and terrorism. The Mylan, though cheaper, addresses only the scratchiti and etching.

Guy

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:47:58 -0500

Mylar on windows = good Cameras in every subway car = useless at best and a money pit/pork barrel pay off at worst. I'm an advocate of personal privacy, but if they allow me to take as many pictures I want of the subway and it's contents, they can of me too. Public space is public space regardless of the creepy big brother factor.

nicetry

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:46:27 -0500

Jake, just stop talking about graffiti! Saying that etching is "the fairly craptastic end of graffiti," followed by a square professor's version of what etch bath does to windows sorta paints you in a bad light. You take pictures of it and hail CERTAIN artists as visionairies, while you pan others in the same field who either influence your graffiti heroes, or do it a million times better. You missed the mark again.

cdjames

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:43:57 -0500

It would be great to have the windows clear so that I could have an unimpared view of some real public art, covering 5 Pointz in LIC, on my daily commute on the 7. I love some well thought out and executed street art, however nondescript tagging involves no talent and is ugly as hell. Cameras are a waste, though I wouldn't feel violated if they were installed. My idea: 1 driver and 1-2 cops riding each MTA train... apologies to conductors, but an armed and trained NYPD can close doors and announce stations. Let the MTA pay for that instead.

MT

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:33:18 -0500

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not engaging in any sort of behavior on the subway that would cause me to be concerned about getting video taped. If, however, they can be used to catch people who are doing this really disgusting scratchitti and acid etching, I think they should do it. I'm sure it would also go along way in solving subway crime. The only question I would have is would this actually work? Can they reasonably expect to catch the vandals from video footage?

josh

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:21:57 -0500

they need to make the penalties for defacing property hard time and then have some big public procescutions.

emily t

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:21:51 -0500

i think the point and the problem with the scratching and etching is that there is no way to 'clean up,' janelie, the only way is to replace the windows and that IS expensive. I am frustrated when i can't see out of the windows on elevated outdoor lines - the view is one of my favorite things! the mylar sounds like a good solution (as long as it doesn't impair my view though), and what about slightly relaxing restrictions on paint? i don't know what they are but apparently pretty if kids are resorting to etching on subways. paint can be cleaned up and i'd much rather have color on the cars than etching on the windows. no i don't want to be watched by a camera on the subway car.

Ace

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:13:15 -0500

are we all willing to submit to constant videotaping just to keep subway windows clean? -Yes. that "just" is a pretty big just in the life of most NYC residents. The view on my twice-a-day trip across the Manhattan bridge on the D train is worth at least $25,000,000.00. Having to half-see it through the haze of some twit's effort at self-aggrandizement is making Ace frustrated.

selfish crab

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:08:48 -0500

Maybe they should look into this again: http://www.engineering.columbia.edu/news/archive/spring01/eraser.php

MissPinkKate

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:58:01 -0500

Mylar Sheets? Sure, fine, great, whatever. Cameras? For graffiti??? What a waste. NO ONE will watch those tapes, ever. Is this really the best thing the MTA can figure out how to spend $25 million dollars?

jmchez

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:41:47 -0500

To follow up on do not pass go. What exactly are you doing in a subway car that you don't want the MTA to see? You are already seen by thousands of other conmuters! Personally, I just read or talk to my friends. If you don't want to be seen in a subway car, hire a limo with tinted windows.

The Red Nun

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:40:59 -0500

You can throw your civil liberties out the window. The MTA is a public/private organization and it's a privelage, not a right to ride the subway and use their bus system. So, on that note... mylar shields sound like a better solution, it will also cost a lot less. We could use the cams for "violent crime control" not graffiti.

do not pass go

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:38:17 -0500

For the 1000th time, you do not have a "civil liberty" to not be observed in a PUBLIC PLACE! If the city put one police officer on every subway car what would be your constitutional defense to stop that?

Brightliner

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:36:27 -0500

But, Jake, this is street art (or at least beneath-the-street art). Haven't you always said there's nothing wrong with graffiti, that it gives the city vitality and is an expression of freedom? We could protect our civil liberties far more easily if people wouldn't advocate and engage in uncivil "liberties" like this. And that includes all those people who put stickers on subway doors. I just love how Gothamist complains that trains are dirty then forces the MTA to waste manpower removing those stickers, manpower that could have been cleaning the trains.

Kevin Walsh

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:32:52 -0500

The MTA should do what it can to get the crap off the windows. www.forgotten-ny.com

Tim N.

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:21:56 -0500

Closed-circuit cameras in every car? Think of the performance art possibilities!!! On the other hand, maybe not...

janelle

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:09:18 -0500

it just seems not worth the investment on either of these given the (relatively speaking) low cost of cleanup, despite the qualitative benefits.