Posted on 08/22/2019 1:30:39 PM PDT by Kaslin
A couple of years ago, the city of Baltimore launched a pilot program (no pun intended) that involved having a private contractor fly a surveillance plane over the city almost constantly, recording high-resolution video of the activity on the streets. It was surprisingly successful, resulting in police being able to retrace the movements of people engaged in shootings and other crimes back to their homes or to their post-crime destinations.
The public wasn’t initially informed of the program and when word leaked out there were complaints from the usual digital privacy advocates. The program was eventually terminated. This year, however, the company operating the program, Persistent Surveillance Systems, was back offering to start things up again. The new mayor didn’t have any objections, so the Police Commissioner met with them. He emerged from the meeting with a one-sentence response. No thanks, we’ll pass. (CBS Baltimore)
Baltimore’s police commissioner will not support flying a surveillance plane over the city again.
After meeting Monday with Ross McNutt, the founder of Persistent Surveillance Systems, the police department issued a one-sentence statement: “The commissioner learned a lot today about the surveillance plane program and still has no plans to bring it back.”McNutt says the Greater Baltimore Committee set up the meeting.
The BPD statement echoes comments from spokesman Matt Jablow in an email last week that, “The commissioner has no plans whatsoever to bring back the surveillance plane,” he wrote.
Here’s a couple of things you might not know about the program that the Police Commissioner is turning his nose up at. First of all, it’s completely free to the taxpayers. The first time it was done, a pair of Texas philanthropists, John and Laura Arnold, paid for the entire thing. They also offered money to hire extra police officers and funding for a committee to provide oversight of the program.
They already offered to cover the full cost again for three years. And they would have provided three planes, not just one. They were rebuffed.
Baltimore’s murder rate remains off the charts, logging hundreds more homicides than even New York City, which is fifteen times as large. The vast majority of those killings are attributable to gang violence. The planes, with both normal daylight and nighttime infrared capabilities, are well suited to tracking gang violence on the streets. But the city is going to rebuff this offer of a free solution to some of their worst problems because they’re worried about the police filming what goes on in public?
People have been demanding answers to the skyrocketing murder rate in Baltimore as well as other troubled cities like Chicago. Now someone comes along and offers to make a gift that’s been proven effective to the city out of their own pockets, and they’re told to stay away? I’m quickly running out of sympathy for the city of Baltimore. They’ve got a violent crime rate that makes some war zones look safe and if they can’t take yes for an answer when a free solution comes along, perhaps they deserve their fate.
If a murder happens in Baltimore and nobody sees it, did it really happen?
We now know the answer: “No”, according to the Baltimore Police Chief.
Some folks just like rolling around in there own feces, I guess.
Fallujah by the Bay
The plane was stolen..planejacked if you will...&^)
A very mixed bag on this one. Both sides of this argument have full place of valid front.
Disallow anything that does not support the narrative.
I would guess the surveillance footage does not show racist white conservatives as the perpetrators of the majority of the crimes and violence occurring in Baltimore.
I wonder if money wasn’t getting into the right pockets for this contract or they just want the endless Baltimore chaos to cover for the diversion of the billions in Federal aid?
It’s just politics. The left really blew it, over-reacting to Trump’s comments about Baltimore. They don’t want to draw any more attention. “Baltimore is so bad they have to fly 3 surveillance planes over the city”.
IMO.
Is the Baltimore Fire Dept. fighting sprinkler systems, too?
interesting thoughts... surveillance of a city and tracking perpetrators of crime home...
no expectation of privacy when out in public... doing a crime and tracking individuals, perhaps by face recognition... keeping that database might be problematic of those not involved with the crime.
i will have to land on this one as solid police work... book em danno.
stop chasing just pick them up the next morning.
am i wrong?
What are the complaints? There are no expectations of privacy out in public regarding one's whereabouts. There are security cameras everywhere, many cars have toll tags, etc.
Only one's possessions on their person is protected. Being in public on a public road has no expectation of privacy. The first amendment gives people the right to peaceably assemble; if someone commits a crime on a public street it is not peaceable assembly.
The courts might rule that the crime was not limited to the moment of assembly, but that it also includes travel to the place where the crime occurred and travel away from the scene of the crime. Tracking one's movement on the public streets would not be a violation of privacy or an infringement on one's right to peaceably assemble.
-PJ
If we have problems with the NSA recording our communications, we have to have problems with this also. If we don’t, let the police state begin. (continue)
Omgosh.
I am so dearly tempted to use your ping on a temporary basis!
LOL
I’d hate to see what the “leadership” of Baltimore would consider to be “things not going so well”.
They’ve got corruption, incompetency, and stupidity pretty well covered.
Now, if I could only remember which party rules that sorry state......
Yours is pretty good too, FRiend!
Hmmm... and some people still wonder why Baltimore is such a crime infested cesspool?
My bet is that this hit too close to 'home' for some Baltimore city officials.....
I don’t agree. I have no expectation of privacy when I am outside my home or my car.
When I am speaking to somebody in my home, even if I am using the telephone or I send somebody an e-mail, I am (usually) expecting that to be a private communication.
Huge difference to watching you when you are out on the street versus watching or listening to you while you are sitting in your own home calling grandma.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.