From: BIll Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 09:40:46 MST
As someone who sells braodcast, consumer and cctv products, I can say that
everything Blunderov has said below is correct. In the article mentioned by
blunderov, lets face it, 7,000,000.00 is no kinda money to use the best and
cover any kind of area. The camera is nothing special, it's off the shelf stuff,
environmental housing, Pelco or Panasonic mount. This is just basic video with
no audio (as the law forbids audio). I bet the command center was 5,000,000 of
the total budget, no problem.
The only area of confusion is about the US. Cameras are not in very many
locations relative to London or other others with a lot of surveilance. Dispite
my distaste for the American "government is out to get us" types, there are
enough of them to wreak havok if there were cameras on the streets. I don't mean
private, but there for the purpose of watching people.
Certainly there are traffic control systems that consist of many cameras,
however, to the best of my knowledge they are not connected to any kind of
database or used to catch license numbers. They are used for monitoring
accidents, traffic flow and the like.
Like Blunderov, I always notice cameras, it's just part of the business, and
frankly, I am suprised that even after 9-11, the security upgrades on nearly all
public sites, have continued to be neglected. Military sites on the other hand
do seem to remain busy. Major defense contractors and powerful corps like MS,
Hughes and such remain excellent business opportunities, far and away my best
customers.
The lack of cameras could in part be due to financial concerns. In Arizona we
have a huge defecit caused by our dependence on tourism and service industries.
That and our pathetic history of investing in our future as demonstrated by
having the poorest ranked schools in the country; just one issue among many
others that prevents Arizona from becoming one of the more effective but privacy
invadining states. Oh yea, I forgot to mention that AZ is famous for militias
and other anti Fed groups.
Enough blabbering
Blunderov wrote:
> virus: Washington is Watching
> Richard Ridge [richard_ridge@tao-group.com]
> Thu 2002/02/28 15:02
>
> Cited:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1845000/1845515.stm
>
> [Blunderov]
> I smell a large whiskered rat. The police chief claims the cameras have
> insufficient resolution to be able to identify a particular person in a
> crowd, yet later the source describes the cameras as having a 165 to 1 zoom
> ratio.
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, that is one phenomenal zoom ratio. In all my years of
> working in TV I have never seen a camera with such a zoom ratio, not even on
> outside broadcasts where a zoom ratio of 35 to 1 is more than sufficient.
> Digital technology, it's true has made much larger zoom ratios possible and
> it is also true that digital zoom produces far worse pictures than optical
> zoom, nevertheless it would not be necessary to use more than 20 to 1 in
> order to be able to pick a face out of a crowd that was reasonably close to
> the camera.
>
> When I was last in Europe (1998) I was amazed at the number of cameras there
> are. They are literally everywhere, traffic-cameras, police-cameras, private
> security CCTV.
> London has cameras on all of the routes, in and out, that are connected to a
> computer that scans and reads the licence plates of every vehicle and
> compares them to a database of stolen and other wanted cars, eg those used
> known to be used by the IRA, spooks of whatever stripe and probably
> traffickers of various commodities. This BTW is not a secret - I gleaned
> this info from an official pamphlet that I found on the tube to Heathrow.
> The temptation to install such a system, secretly if necessary, in a society
> under threat, such as, for instance, the USA, must be very considerable.
>
> The camera has caught on here in SA as well (and has been very helpful in
> containing the crime wave that was threatening to overwhelm us) and there is
> no doubt that these cameras are fully capable of identifying any member of
> the public that comes within their enfilade. A recent TV news broadcast had
> footage of an actual murder that was committed in the CBD. The villain was
> ID'ed and tracked by various cameras until his arrest. The footage will be
> acceptable in court as evidence against him. I would be very surprised to
> learn that US cameras are inferior to the ones in use here.
>
> Truth is lies.
>
> Fond Regards,
>
> Blunderov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT