Gothamist: NYPD's "Operation Sentinel" Will Photograph Every Car Coming to Manhattan

allie25

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:28:52 -0500

im a pothead hippie, and i have plenty of things to do, thank you very much!

JMH

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:27:03 -0500

While "quote-on-quote" is stupid "quote, security, unquote" is redundant. The correct usage is "security". Let those quotation marks do their jobs!I'm guessing that the guy who was being interviewed actually SAID "quote-unquote" (or "quote-on-quote" if the guy used it wrong) so it had to be included in the transcription as well. Stupid. Its just a camera taking a picture of your car!!!! thats it!!! If your not a terrorist you have nothing to worry about. Stop with the shit about "freedom" and "Privacy" Tell that to Google with their street view. Nothing is sacred.In response to concerns about respecting people's privacy, Google has implemented blurring of faces and license plates and has accommodated most other privacy concerns that have been raised. Anyway, I say bring on congestion pricing. Too many cars in this city.

BJKnief

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:31:28 -0500

the look stupid and are not gonna actaully create an impact wouldnt be surprised if they are just for show

Jerky

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:57:17 -0500

Good to know that all the really smart people work for the NYPD nowadays......

dadoc

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:20:29 -0500

"Radioactivity" check is also, at best, a tenuous benefit. The sensitivity of the sensor will be tricky at best. Is this going to pick up anyone who has had a Technitium stress test this AM (as had happened many times in the subways)? Is it going to flag a truck carrying granite or industrial pipe inspection equipment? You don't think any reasonably intelligent terrorist can construct an appropriate shield? It's a question of sensitivity/specificity risk/cost/yield analysis. Like I said, spending Fed "anti-terrorist" bucks to place revenue-generation equipment.

scott10130

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:49:05 -0500

You are all forgetting about the radioactivity check.

chuzzlewit

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:35:14 -0500

edit: perpetrators' shit.

chuzzlewit

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:33:35 -0500

truck loaded with explosives drives into nyc is photographed by the robot camera then blows up in the middle of town with the bombers inside and the authorities rewind the tape and say "yup! there it is - we got a picture of the perpetrator's vehicle right here. it was a white van, god damn them"

plasticpants

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:18:54 -0500

Cameras focused on cars? I guess anyone wishing to do harm would never think to take a bus, train, or taxi into Manhattan.

NannyState

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:53:27 -0500

If the shit hits the fan, terrorists already know that cameras don't shoot back. As for the rest of us, check your mail: I have a feeling a lot of administrative fines are coming our way.

so1337

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:06:09 -0500

Stupid. Its just a camera taking a picture of your car!!!! thats it!!! If your not a terrorist you have nothing to worry about. Stop with the shit about "freedom" and "Privacy" Tell that to Google with their street view. Nothing is sacred.

Bubba

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:57:54 -0500

zodak & mocanlagunas, my typing is not so good. yes it is THX-1138

dadoc

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:20:33 -0500

And it's not a police state, it's a Tax/Revenue state. It's not about our privacy. It's about THEIR money, which doesn't get to us unless we're "Special Interest"

dadoc

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:18:47 -0500

Useless as a proactive defense against terrorist acts. Basically useless retrospectively. Uses: verify the crossings of a stolen vehicle. Catch a person/politician travelling to an affair. Mess with city/state employees who aren't where they're supposed to be & EZPASS doesn't work. Prepare to check viability of enforcing tolls on non-toll crossings, and use some Fed Anti-terror bucks that must be spent or lost. Gee, I wonder which one it is. I'd love to get a gov job and have them pick up my beer bill, as I go "deep", scouring the local bars/bodegas, looking to ID insurgents in the name of the "War on Terror".

JacqueMehoff

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:29:35 -0500

time to buy some microwave jammers. or just shoot them out with a hi power air rifle, pfffft, done and done. no muss no fuss. quiet as a city street during rush hour.

S.D.

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:37:50 -0500

"Fucking leave if you don't LOVE the freedoms that we have here in this country. You clearly don't know how lucky you are." (sigh) A freedom like privacy, right? This is nothing more than a silly PR attempt by the City to say "Look! Your Safer!!!" when in fact your not. At best, photographing cars entering the city will assist after the fact, nothing more. You'll NEVER have a scenario where someone says "Look!!!!! A Bad Man! Stop and Arrest him!!!" It doesn't work in England as expected and it won't work here as expected either.

Shinobi Shaw

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:14:00 -0500

Alex Jones called it back in 2000! 8 years later and NY is becoming London part deux!

nicemarmot

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:34:30 -0500

It's too late. They've been doing this stuff for years now and hiding it from us. The best you can hope for is that they don't find a reason to go after you. Or space travel to colonize new planets, but that doesn't seem likely anytime soon. And until then we're stuck in this hellhole, watching every tiny privilege drain away until there's nothing left and we are slaves of our government. Back in the day people could immigrate to a new place if their circumstances were too awful. Now there's no place left to go.

jibbly

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:33:18 -0500

Don't tase me bro, indeed. Using up precious resources for the illusion of safety and security takes away from actually implementing plans that create real safety and security. This is getting real ugly, folks. Is it even possible at this point to completely gut the NYPD and do a bottom up restructuring?

mocanlagunas

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:30:54 -0500

BTW it's THX-1138... unless you really want your name to be TXH...

zodak

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:17:35 -0500

The problem, Novanglus is that you are are referring to this "slight change" as though it is the only one. but it isn't: warrantless wiretapping by the telecoms, american citizens subject to being called enemy combatants & stripped of their rights, police brutality week, laptop seizures at airports, library records secretly investigated, secret prisons & tribunals, etc... really, open your eyes. people need to get outraged at small loses before they become so big that it becomes illegal to even become outraged. don't tase me bro'

Murray Hillster

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:13:07 -0500

Novanglus, Ignorant and obnoxious is no way to go through life. People naturally assume that such a breathtakingly moroni comment such as your first couldn't possibly reflect genuine thought or beliefs. Consequently, the natural conclusion is that the purpose is to attract attention and agitate people. On behalf of those who thought you were a troll and didn't recognize the true stupidity of your comment, humblest apologies. And one additional comment regarding, "You clearly don't know how lucky you are." What you clearly don't recognize is that people objecting to this encroachment do in fact understand how lucky they are. Indeed, it is quite predictable, as your study of "Revolutionary times" should have clued you into, that when the government encroaches on freedoms, such as those provided directly under the Fourth Amendment and as interpreted in later Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut), people fight back. People who truly appreciate the freedoms provided to them under the Constitution do not sit idly by calling others "pothead hippies." You imply that you understand and appreciate "how lucky you are," but you're really just an embarrassment.

Novanglus

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:12:41 -0500

THAT is a valid argument. Crying "POLICE STATE" is not.

drewo

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:08:05 -0500

The NYPD needs a dose of good press. After recent stories (and videos) of cops beating up bicyclists, off-duty cops shooting and killing drivers in acts of road rage, cops being busted for stealing and dealing drugs, and cops murdering their spouses, the NYPD wants to do something to justify (and probably expand on) their departmental budget. So they resort to the old reliable Fear card. And who's to argue against terrorism protection? That would be unpatriotic! If all these proposals were implemented within a reasonable budget and timetable, it might be acceptable. However, I foresee dodgy, poorly-maintained and ill-used equipment, along with groups of disgruntled cops at bridge entrances standing idly by chatting and checking out the chicks, instead of inspecting license plates and vehicles. And you and I, the taxpayers, get to pay for these new expenses. No thanks.

Novanglus

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:04:24 -0500

jnguy, But what is the PROBLEM with these changes that would cause you to mind anyway? Why do you perceive this "slight change" to be negative to begin with? These can only do nothing other than HELP. It might not prevent a terror attack, but maybe we can solve auto-thefts or other crimes with this system, as I'm sure we will. There is little that can be done to completely prevent terrorism, but I don't think this is solely for fighting terror. You're saying that driving a car into Manhattan without anyone knowing is a right? eyekantspel, you have a well-formed argument. Thank you.

jnguy

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:58:24 -0500

@Novanglus Loving our freedoms, yet being unsatisfied with the direction our freedoms are taking are hardly mutually exclusive. So as long as they're slightest changes, we shouldn't mind? Don't confuse being unsatisfied and expecting more with being unpatriotic. Ultimately, what we're talking about aren't privileges. They're considered privileges in other countries, but here, they're the foundation of our country and considered to be rights.

eyekantspel

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:52:23 -0500

I'm not a hippy or a liberal, but I think it's right to discuss whether or not we support a surveillance state. Does this really keep us safer? Maybe. If the police know the terrorist license plate beforehand, and if the camera is working properly and the person or computer system monitoring the images identifies it in time to prevent an attack. If not, and the system works, I suppose it could provide a way to gather information after-the-fact. My problem with this is more like my problem with the thousands of "security guards" we find in most office buildings. They only give an illusion of safety. If someone was devoted to attacking one of our major office buildings, a high school grad with a gun monitoring the sign in sheet isn't going to stop him. Similarly, I presume that a terrorist who wanted to commit a crime using a truck of explosives would be aware of the security camera, and would take steps to avoid detection. Maybe drive without plates. Maybe switch plates with another vehicle. Someone devoted to do us harm is not going to be deterred by this. So we end up with a monitoring device that is unlikely to serve its supposed intended purpose. Rather than let that go to waste, we use it to help with other crimes. Like the daddy who recently kidnapped his daughter. Maybe we can track his plates to help locate him. Where is the line drawn? Who draws the line? We could easily put up surveillance cameras on every corner as a way to reduce crime. Maybe we should do that. But once these systems are in place, we give the power to abuse them to whoever controls it. Maybe the person with access thinks his wife is cheating and wants to monitor her. Or maybe someone like Elliot Spitzer would want to use to monitor the activities of a political enemy. Or maybe a corrupt cop would use in a way to advance his or her own interests. I think it makes sense to consider the likely benefit of this against the potential for abuse.

Novanglus

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:43:56 -0500

It's funny how someone voices a different opinion, and you call it trolling. There's a big difference between the two. What I am talking about is people acting as though they have it so rough, when we do not have the problems of our Revolutionary times (which I study in great detail). Police checking license plates, which they were going to do for toll-paying purposes anyway, is the worst argument ever for calling this a police state, or especially for dropping a Jefferson quote like that. Incredibly over-dramatic. I never said love it or leave it. That, too, is a different phrase with a different meaning, from a different time, and does not apply to my beliefs. Feel free to offer any rebuttal to my points about you folks being spoiled brats and are playing the victim when there's absolutely nothing wrong.

BlackieJones

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:41:57 -0500

Novanglus, I do LOVE the freedoms that are afforded to me in this country. What I don't love is how said freedoms are slowly being eroded in the name of our personal and collective safety. The reason that I don't "fucking leave" is because I love this country and I don't want to see it continue going down the path that it's on. I'd rather try to make a change. Your whole "fucking leave" bit makes me sick. That's usually the first thing that the head-in-the-sand right wing usually spits out. No thanks, I'd rather be patriotic and try to take my country back.

Bubba

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:39:02 -0500

dr zippy, I apologize

Bubba

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:37:58 -0500

America, Love It Or Leave It. I guess you hate Thomas Jefferson too, Novanglus: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

dr zippy

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:35:27 -0500

Lame attempt at trolling there Novanglus, let's hope nobody takes your bait.

dr zippy

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:34:24 -0500

While "quote-on-quote" is stupid "quote, security, unquote" is redundant. The correct usage is "security". Let those quotation marks do their jobs!

Novanglus

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:24:28 -0500

Many of you people are stupid. Someone said it was an inconvenience to have photos taken. How? You don't have to stop and wait to be checked. You just keep going as your normally would with no change to your daily life unless you're a criminal. Otherwise, booths and bomb-sniffing at WTC means we're in a police state? Is that a joke? How are we in a police state, anyway? Because of strict security when getting on a plane. You people are so privileged and so spoiled that when the SLIGHTEST change comes along, you think your rights are being taken away and jump to extreme, idiotic statements like saying you're in a police state. Fucking leave if you don't LOVE the freedoms that we have here in this country. You clearly don't know how lucky you are. Pothead hippies have nothing better to do than to play the victim.

brooklynbs

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:12:46 -0500

We need to end this vicious cycle of "quote-on-quote" on violence.

Ph

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:11:36 -0500

Actually this is the first step in automatic ticketing and tolling in Manhattan. They called it 'congestion pricing' when the city attempted to be honest about it. You will not keep government from its money.

zodak

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:10:44 -0500

Bubba: this thread is filled with tpyos.

Peter

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:09:33 -0500

Words for all of us to live by: The war on terrorism is over. Osama Bin Laden is dead. Al-Qaeda has been destroyed. The war on terrorism is over. We won. End of discussion.

tingo

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:06:24 -0500

I feel safe - nay - fear safe. Protection against terrorism is one thing, but I'm sure this will slowly be put to other uses eventually, further eroding our civil liberties. It's not a conspiracy theory - it's just a basic freedom from the monitoring of citizen's every move. Maybe they should just add state after that police logo.

Bottomless Chips

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:01:42 -0500

Yes, a typo, should read as "sort." Settle down, Timmy. Muphry's Law at work.

r1b2

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:57:51 -0500

Yes, a typo, should read as "sort." Settle down, Timmy.

r1b2

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:57:07 -0500

Thank you #7. Quote-on-quote? Great Caesar's ghost! I am assuming the person transcribing has to have some osrt of degree in something, anything, right? What a moron. Another great moment in education.

gregroth

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:50:40 -0500

What a terrible Inconveniance. I for sure will never drive a car into Manhattan again. Instead i will drive my complaints and whines because those can fly and cameras can't FLY!

Ronkonkoma Ondinnonk

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:44:34 -0500

It's a shame these guys aren't around anymore. They were brilliant: http://www.notbored.org/the-scp.html

Bubba

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:44:11 -0500

Why don't they just implant chips in all New Yorkers? Track us like they can track dogs and cats. I think I'll change my name to TXH-1138.

Think twice

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:43:36 -0500

I said it before and I'll say it again: Replace Vesey, Church, Liberty, and West Streets with a moat, with crocodiles. How inviting.

evidiot

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:43:34 -0500

Too bad the last terror attack happened from the air. Those cameras will really help guard us from the terrorists if that ever happens again.

Splicer

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:42:08 -0500

Aside from the the safety versus uselessness argument, what exactly will the NYPD do with the data they gather? Will they plumbing the depths of these photographs for all manner of reasons? For example, will the photos be detailed enough to see who has a an expired inspection sticker or perhaps soon to expire one? Ticket for you! Maybe they'll sell the database of photos to businesses so they can spam you with offers to fix your windshield or your fender? Or maybe the cops will just look at the photos of young, attractive women, find their addresses and then hound them for dates.

Spiritof76

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:41:52 -0500

in the name of quote-on-quote security? I despair for the state of our educational system. What idiot transcribed this for 1010WINS? It makes no sense whatsoever. Try "quote, unquote." Or better still, "quote, security, unquote." The doorman sounds smarter than people working in media. We're already in a police state. It never fails to amaze when when people casually say we're already there. We're nowhere near a police state. Ask people in China, Tibet, North Korea, Iran or Zimbabwe.

Kojak

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:29:08 -0500

I love how nicely labeled these cameras are. When the terrorists see the NYPD shield on these Cameras, They will definitely think twice before committing terrible terrorist acts against our citizens. Nice work NYPD

scott10130

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:28:16 -0500

They should have been doing the bridge thing from the start, if you don't smuggle drugs or nuclear weapons into the city, it's unlikely that it would affect you. Civil Liberties my *****, how about you elect a mayor who doesn't destroy public parks and gardens to build condos for the rich?

REALITY CHECK

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:25:59 -0500

"[...]We're getting closer and closer to a police state. [...]"That quote is terribly inaccurate. We're already in a police state.

rcltrh

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:25:27 -0500

And its 2008? Talk about swift reactions 7 years after the fact. What are they afraid of at ground zero - that someone might fill up that huge gaping hole with a building or something. What a waste of taxes at this time when the city is running out of money. Let me guess, an increase in our Metrocards will help to pay for it.

plk779

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:25:11 -0500

I feel safer already. ...

OttoBloggo

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:23:51 -0500

It's highly ironic that not a single one of these "new" precautions would have prevented the horrors of 9/11.