'Surveillance' cameras miss crime
Scott Miller at Argenta News illustrates a shortcoming of the growing popularity of surveillance cameras.
If nobody monitors them -- and if recordings aren't made of what they see -- they aren't of much use.
When the owner of Cafe La Pace inquired what the security camera (see picture above) a little over 100 feet from his business showed during the time period when his furniture was stolen, he was told the images are not recorded. The same thing has been told to victims of other crimes downtown over the last few months.
So why did the City spend tens of thousands of dollars for cameras which are being used for visual deterrence only? Couldn't the City just have bought the camera cases only and mounted those for the same deterrence factor, saving thousands of dollars? The cameras are monitored during large events downtown, but is a safe downtown only for those attending large events?



Comments
Sounds to me like someone in the City Hall, or State House has someone in the camera business.
Posted by: Americonio
|
June 24, 2009 11:15 AM
Way to go, Admiral! Are you afraid of Tailhook2?
Posted by: Quapaw
|
June 24, 2009 11:22 AM
This reminds me of a lesson I learned in the late 80s. That lesson is....when you're making a homemade sex tape, the man shouldn't hold the camera remote in his hand during orgasm. On Off On Off ONOFFONOFFONOFF.
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
June 24, 2009 11:42 AM
Here is another goodie for you.
The National Guard had a wide strip cleared along side State Highway 89 east of Mayflower. They then built a barbed wire fence along the edge. Obviously security right?
But the cleared strip is now all nicely grown up and the fence was never finished. It stops just west of Clinton Road.
Did someone's brother-in-law run out of barbed wire?
Show me the money!
Posted by: Alligatorgar
|
June 24, 2009 11:42 AM
Isn't there a way to rig [a] TIVO box(es) to the cameras? Shoot, now that we have digital cable let's call Comcast and have them hook up the cameras to several of the potential community access stations (##.001, ##.002, ##.003) that are available and all of our recording cable boxes can record "Surveillance Program of Little Rock". Parents could enjoy watching their kids cruise the Rivermarket on the weekend.
Posted by: imjustsaying
|
June 24, 2009 12:07 PM
Maybe they're spending all their time on the heli-cam...
Posted by: Perplexed
|
June 24, 2009 12:08 PM
On previous post, I mentioned Little Rock like they had the problem but I bet Comcast could do it for NLR.
Posted by: imjustsaying
|
June 24, 2009 12:12 PM
Very few surveillance camera systems record 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Most do random skips where they record and then click back off. Ask any business owner and that's what they will tell you. The main point of cameras is to provide visual deterrence and also for high traffic times when the cameras can be set to record constantly.
Posted by: Crash Davis
|
June 24, 2009 12:30 PM
And then there are those security cameras that are on and are of such poor quality that you can't make out hide nor hare the person being recorded. Surely they can set a system up to record continuously, save for X number of days and then be recorded over. That's what we do with over data for over 100+ computers and that's a lot of gigabytes.
Posted by: jrb
|
June 24, 2009 12:46 PM
Au contraire, Crash Davis. I am a partner in a retail business that has a security camera system with a DVR that records 24-7, and there's enough memory to store months worth. I also worked for a company that sold the systems, and there were none we peddled that operated in the manner you suggest. Cameras are NOT just a visual deterrent. In fact, there is no bigger PR disaster than a grandma getting hit over the head in your parking lot and then having to tell her the bad guys won't be nabbed because the cameras weren't really recording. In this day an age -- and NLR's cameras aren't very old -- no one is buying systems that are grainy or intermittent in their recording patterns.
Posted by: Big Fun
|
June 24, 2009 01:15 PM
More helicopters!!
Posted by: Country Boy
|
June 24, 2009 02:21 PM
Why not put the city's security cameras on the city website like the camera down at the submarine and allow anyone who wants to watch? There are probably enough bored whacko's and wannabe G-men in NLR to monitor every camera 24/7. Put some up on the Big Dam Bridge to find out who's leaving all the condoms up there on Saturday night.
Posted by: MysteryShopper
|
June 25, 2009 06:44 AM
Security cameras that are not monitored LIVE do not prevent the FIRST crime, they only increase the likelihood of the suspect being caught after the fact. If that suspect's victim is dead or seriously injured, what is prevented? Only the least desperate or most sober of criminals will be deterred by a security camera which may or may not be on, monitored, or recorded.
Local news had a report about PD getting tasers with cameras built in, and home DVRs can record 4 shows at once and many have Ethernet (Internet) ports. Motion-sensor cameras also exist. If I can monitor a 4-16 camera security system via the web, it seems that PD could monitor all camera systems from a central location in addition to them being recorded. The technology certainly exists, and is getting cheaper every day.
Video surveillance has gone through a transformation in the last 2-3 years. Experts in surveillance cameras now find they must have more computer and Internet skills. Some try to install older systems to unload old inventory or because they aren't knowledgeable about the current recording options.
Posted by: Kelly Franklin
|
June 25, 2009 12:45 PM