It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Chicago to be Watched by 2,000 Camera's

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 01:40 PM
A new system of networked cameras in the city of Chicago will give Police and other departments an unrivalled view oif the city through a series of linked CCTV camera's and microphones strategically placed throughout the city. The system is also supplemented by surveillance camera's owned by businesses that will tie into the system to provide a new level of command and control.

CHICAGO (CBS 2) Mayor Daley officially opened a new city operations center Tuesday that will include a dramatic increase in camera surveillance on Chicago’s streets. The new addition to the 9-1-1 center will help manage and coordinate in response to emergencies such as a terrorist attack.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The Citys new operations centre was opened by Mayor Daley on Monday and features a range of up to date technologies tying in all the Camera and microphone feeds into a manageable environment. The system will be used in a whole manner of roles and can respond to varying levels of crisis from murder to terrorist attack.

“The key to dealing with an emergency is not just having the manpower, it’s having the manpower in the right place at the right time,”

Mayor Daley

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 01:41 PM
I tell you Nerdling, Big Brother is no longer creeping, its CASCADING.

All for "our security".


posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 01:43 PM
The microphones were the ones that confused me. Why the hell do they need microphones? Will they be able to distinguish between a car backfiring, a firework and gunshots?

I think it'll do well under mass casualty terrorist situations and be very valuable but for domestic law enforcement it's a little "overkill".

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Nerdling
The microphones were the ones that confused me.

for domestic law enforcement it's a little "overkill".

IMHO - "security" and 'domestic law enforcement' are about protecting big investments. ...and since NAFTA, Big Brother is a corporate entity.

I thought I was cynically immune. Not so. Every day here I read something here that sickens me, almost to despair.


posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:35 PM
I wonder what all of this "state of the art" technology cost? And how did Chicago pay for it? Was it Fed money?

I heard that London has almost a million cameras. Montreal just installed cameras on a 2 block commercial stretch of St-Denis. Every time I go by there now I think about the cameras.

It's behaviour control.

If you know you are being watched and heard you WILL think and act differently.

Security is a police state.


posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:38 PM
It's inevitable that nano technology will turn every surface into a camera and or a billboard or tellevision or microphone/loudspeaker.

[edit on 11/17/2004 by bodebliss]

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:41 PM
I think there are about 5 million CCTV camera's in the uk.

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:30 PM
I live in Toronto, and i'm hoping this never happens here.

We have those red-light camera's...the ones that take a pic when you run a red...I think they cost 100 000 each, I'm not sure if that's in CND or USD though...

That I can see as useful, nothing good can come out of running a red. But camera's accross the entire city? What an invasion of privacy

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 08:06 PM
Eventually you will have to assume your on camera when in public places. We just need to make sure there are no-photo areas such as bathrooms, locker rooms, private homes etc.

We also have to make sure the playing field is equal by not slanting the field by only making the information available to government agencies to use against you.

As far as money goes I think it's good bang for the buck in urban areas as it allows us to have one law enforcement person to patrol more areas then they would otherwise on foot or vehical. Thus you can patrol more areas with less personel. I think the police unions might not like such a thing.

I think we need to start thinking about laws on where & how they can be used and who can use the information and for what purposes.

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 11:13 PM
I think that should be a wakeup call to most people, Chicago's a big gang city, a definate threat IMO, if "they" decided to clamp down, microphones are great for hearing blasphamies... or for just hearing what people are talking about on the streets. Marshall Law... Bye Shy town soldiers.

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:59 AM
A concern I have is that these systems that include microphones could be used to stifle political dissent. A little off topic, but I think it's worth looking at by ATSNN members, is an account of what happened in a small Southern Oregon town when George Bush's entourage came to town during the election campaign. See the full account at under the section titled "THE BUSH ELECTION LEGACY" of which the following is a disturbing excerpt:

“An order was issued that the anti-Bush rhetoric be quieted. The local SWAT team leapt to action. It happened fast. Clad in full riot gear, at least 50 officers moved in. Shouting indecipherable commands from a bullhorn, they formed a chain and bore down upon the people, only working to clear the side of the street appearing to be occupied by Kerry supporters. People tried to get out of their way. It was very crowded. There was nowhere to move. People were being crushed. They started flowing into the streets. Pleas to the officers, asking, ‘where to go’ fell upon deaf ears.

“Instead, riot police fired pellets of cayenne pepper spray into the crowd. An old man fell and couldn't get up. When a young man stopped to help, he was shot in the back with hard pepper spray balls. Children were hit with pepper spray. Deemed ‘Protesters’ were shoved and herded down the street by the menacing line of armed riot police, until out of the President's ear-shot.

“Across the street, individuals shouting support for the president were allowed to continue. Officers monitored this group but allowed them to shout words of support or hurl derisions toward Kerry supporters, undisturbed. Honking cars filled with Bush supporters were left alone. A honking car full of Kerry supporters was stopped by police on its way out of town."

If the surveillance cops can not only see what you are doing but also hear what you are saying, that creates the perfect system for quieting any politically unfavored expressions.


posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:52 AM
Cameras dont prevent crimes, they cant do anything to stop someone,
they only leave evidence for the pd to bust you with.

i ALWAYS expect that there is nowhere im NOT being monitored except my home and restrooms.

These type of big brother surveilance cameras violate my rights to privacy and the right i have that im innocent until proven guilty...why do i need to be monitored by law enforcement when im not a criminal and have never been one? What is the justification for monitoring innocent people?

here is news flash....
people know convienance stores and banks have lots of cameras,
and they still get robbed every day.
Still think the cameras do anything?

[edit on 18-11-2004 by CazMedia]

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:19 AM
I remember watching an Archie Bunker episode. Archie's daughter was stating that 20,000 people each year are killed by handguns and Archie quiped,'Well would it make you feel better if they were all pushed out windows?'

Cameras won't stop people from stealing. People who feel they have to steal or rob will attempt to do so anyways.

Having a camera there only makes it more likely a suspect may be caught.

top topics


log in