Law enforcement

AngelTrax Announces VizuCop ? Innovative In-Car Video Surveillance Solutions

Posted by dtaitano 11:01 pm Categories: Law Enforcement, Mobile / In-Vehicle, Surveillance. Tags: , , , , , .

Email Print Register Bookmark RSS What’s This Newton, Ala. – October, 2013 –  AngelTrax , the rapidly growing, leading supplier of in-vehicle digital video surveillance technology, today announced a new brand –  VizuCop , featuring rugged, in-car mobile surveillance solutions engineered exclusively for the law enforcement industry. The first system to be released – VizuCop 360 – features a patented front-facing, dual lens camera that eliminates the need for manual zooming for clear license plate capture, up to eight HD quality video and audio channels, a solid-state 256GB SATA hard drive or a 128GB SD card and a space saving, LCD rearview mirror monitor. “Entering into the police market was the next logical step for AngelTrax,” said Richie Howard, President of AngelTrax. “We’ve been quietly working on our in-car police system for the last five years and are now proud to release it to the market.” The VizuCop 360 system will be released January 1, 2014. Customers can initially choose from two versions of the system – a 256GB solid-state hard drive version or a 128GB SD card version. The VizuCop 360 system will be introduced publicly for the first time at the IACP Expo, October 20, 2013 in Philadelphia, Pa. AngelTrax executives and engineers worked closely with law enforcement agencies across the country to create an officer-friendly in-car system that would withstand the harsh, oftentimes dangerous environment inherent of police work. Designed to complement standard law-enforcement procedures while meeting the specialized needs of officers in the field, the […]

Cambridge MA Blocks Surveillance Cameras

Posted by dtaitano 8:41 pm Categories: City Surveillance, Privacy, Surveillance. Tags: , , , , , , .

How one Mass city watches the watchers, and how others should follow suit On February 2, 2009, the Cambridge City Council voted in unanimous opposition to the installation of eight Department of Homeland Security cameras at major intersections on the basis that “the potential threats to invasion of privacy and individual civil liberties outweigh the current benefits” of accepting the DHS funds. While six such cameras were installed all the same, the council and a vocal citizenry has since successfully opposed their activation. At a follow-up meeting earlier this month, all nine Cambridge councilors reaffirmed their position: the cameras must remain off until police prove beyond doubt that their department has the capacity to balance investigative methods with civil liberties. Such aggressive civilian oversight of law enforcement should serve as a model not only for the Boston region, but for the whole country. Since 9-11, police chiefs, sheriffs, and commissioners have had an open invitation to request any range of surveillance and tactical gear from federal coffers, often without accountability checks to ensure that deployment squares with the Bill of Rights. Between DHS, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense, local overseers can secure every conceivable toy that they could ever covet without spending a dime of their own. From drones, to armored vehicles, to Long Range Acoustic Devices, which are essentially giant human dog whistles, it’s a veritable buffet via federal grants. Since these checks are written by the feds, such arrangements are often executed without […]

On Proliferating State And Local Surveillance Technologies

Posted by dtaitano 8:30 pm Categories: City Surveillance, Surveillance. Tags: , , , , , .

Over at  Security States,   I have this piece up , about the proliferation of city- and state-operated surveillance technologies—and the need to pair collection rules for these technologies with effective use and access rules.  The piece begins: The  New York Times  reports today that “ Privacy Fears Grow as Cities Increase Surveillance .” The main theme is that municipal police and law enforcement agencies around the country are deploying new and more sophisticated data gathering and analysis technology, some of it bought with counter-terrorism funds, stoking privacy concerns among residents and watchdog groups. As with much of the early reporting of National Security Agency surveillance programs disclosed by Edward Snowden, the  Times  piece is heavy on what the systems collect and how they store and combine information.  Only near the end of the piece, however, does it address accompanying rules and guidelines being developed to regulate such issues as who can access this information, for what purposes, under what supervision, and with what checks. Rapid technological development and lower price-tags for it are inevitable, and the most important question is whether regulation for how surveillance technology and data may be used can keep up. It is no surprise that local governments are deploying technologies like video surveillance systems, license plate readers, drones, networks of sensors, and systems for aggregating and analyzing the information streams they produce. The New York Police Department has  been out in front of other cities  in this regard, on account of its size, resources, threats, […]