Mail Tribune--
Medford is installing a fiber-optic ring around the city that will enable staff to detect problems in traffic signals and eventually monitor live streaming video cameras at the interchanges.
Initially, the public works department will be able to monitor how the traffic signals are working, said Alex Georgevitch, city traffic engineer.
In the long term, public works hopes to put up cameras to count vehicles and to help police and fire crews monitor traffic accidents, he said, adding that the city does not have any cameras at this time.
The cameras will have streaming video capabilities as well as the ability to tilt, pan and zoom.
"If we have a crash, we can zoom it the camera around," said John Vial, ODOT district manager
There are no plans to offer access to the fiber optic cable network for consumer use.
personally, I think I should be a law identifying who is looking at us through the cameras.
How do you know if the camera is one that controls the traffic lights which are becoming commonplace or the traffic cameras you see up and down I-5 which companies like Clear Channel use for their traffic reports.
I definitely recommend reading this article because I think that there is more here than meets the eye.
9 comments:
There's more here than meets your eye. On the one hand, that's a potential problem because the general public has no access to the cams. On the other, you have no access to the cams at your local Fred Meyer, either.
In theory, you could be tracked pushing a shopping cart loaded up with beer and wine toward the checkout, and subsequently out the door. These images could, in theory, be used to substantiate allegations that you're a raging alcoholic when in fact all you were doing was loading up for a big super-bowl bash. It doesn't mean it's especially likely to occur, though.
I don't see the traffic cams, or any other visible cams, as any threat whatsoever.
I'm more concerned with the ones that aren't as noticeable.
I always strike a pose as I pass the camera on I-5 just before Roseburg. Gestures vary depending on my mood. Always makes me laugh at myself and breaks up the monotony of the road. I figure as long as I'm not breaking any laws, I can create whatever picture I want. Maybe I should ask for one for the yearly Christmas card!
most of the cameras in stores aren't really there anyway. it is just to scare potential theives.
Laura: I'll strike a oppose for the camera... I do not know if it will ever happen in this country, but I have read reports in other countries where somebody flipped off the camera and actually got a ticket because there was a police officer that was monitoring the camera from the other side and was offended.
Max's argument about the store security's camera... stores like Fred Meyer are private companies, and they have the cameras there to detour theft and the chances are those cameras are being monitored by either store security or a private security agency off-site. You have the choice of not being on camera by not shopping at that store.
Roadside cameras on the other hand with few exceptions, such as the two cameras mounted on top of Billboard's between Eugene and Springfield on I-105 are mounted on public property. The four cameras that are mounted on the ferry Street Bridge, all with Pan, tilt and zoom capabilities, I have no idea who owns those.
The other cameras that you see at intersections we are told, are simply there to control the lights.
What Medford is doing, is really no different than a red light camera. In my own opinion, their reasoning for the cameras does not hold water. For example,
"... monitor how the traffic signals are working."
The systems in place now have the capability to do that already. If they have a traffic signal that they are concerned about, they can simply tie a tape recorder into the system to record what the cameras are currently seeing or for less cost than hooking up a special fiber-optic network, mount a temporary camera and recorder on a pole somewhere, or you could do it the old-fashioned way, and have somebody sit and watch the intersection.
"... to count Vehicles and to help police and fire crews monitor traffic accidents."
Counting vehicles is already done by systems that either uses a hose that goes across the street or the wire loop system placed in the concrete.
The argument of helping fire and police monitor traffic accidents... if you have that many accidents that you need to spend this amount of money to "monitor" the situation, then you have a bigger problem that needs to be dealt with.
Now here's where big Brother comes in the play.
Since the public will not have access to the systems and they are really not telling us who will, think about this.
Technology has advanced enough today that you can do a lot with the camera. Britain has a system that will actually log your license plate as you travel down the roadway. [I can think of pros and cons]
Photo radar is another example which is currently in use in Oregon. Mostly used in the Portland area, by law, Portland Corvallis Eugene Medford is allowed to use the systems. However, by law, they have to post signs stating that photo radar is in use. The company that provides a photo radar systems to law enforcement tried to push to automatically send citations if the driver is going 1 mile over the speed limit. Oregon said no to that it has to be at least 5 miles over the speed limit.
Photo radar's is nothing more than a mechanism for revenue enhancement. It is not law enforcement.
While the law states that anybody can set up a camera anywhere in public because your right to privacy is not guaranteed in public, I'm just concerned about abuse.
"You have the choice of not being on camera by not shopping at that store."
Once, that was true. Now, not so much. Frankly, I can't think of a store, large or small, that doesn't have cameras these days. Heck, you can pick up systems these days at PC Club that record to digital video for under $700.
As for the roadside cameras - here in PDX they're everywhere, and you see shots from them on tv every morning as the news updates commute conditions.
"The other cameras that you see at intersections we are told, are simply there to control the lights."
Now that is pure and utter bs. Traffic lights are hardwired to a controller, so there's no need for a camera to "control" the lights. Whoever's telling you otherwise is either really uninformed or should seriously consider upping his or her meds.
"Technology has advanced enough today that you can do a lot with the camera. Britain has a system that will actually log your license plate as you travel down the roadway. [I can think of pros and cons]"
Oregon has that as well.
As I say - it's the cameras that I don't know about that concern me most.
Why is this an issue? I welcome more cameras everywhere. And those of you who don't should stay indoors and never leave. Frankly, when I'm pulling out in an intersection and I'm T-Boned by someone who runs a red light, I want as many cameras from every angle proving he/she is at fault, not me.
Some of the cameras belong to the local TV stations that give us live looks at the traffic with our coffee. Funny how you could get arrested for taking a picture with a cell phone in public, but the TV stations can take pictures of anything they want. I thought there were laws but I could be wrong.
You can't get arrested for taking a picture with a cell phone in public. What are you thinking? Only if you're shoving your cell phone under a girl's skirt and taking a pic or something like that will you get arrested.
Nice colors. Keep up the good work. thnx!
»
Post a Comment