Webcam in rough neighborhood
The Tenderloin is a downtown San Francisco neighborhood that is pretty sketchy and seedy. In fact, that's part of its charm. Still, the (comparably) cheap rents make it attractive to a broad demographic, psychographic, and just plain psychos. A few months ago, Adam Jackson, 22, moved there and was surprised by the crack deals, violence, and general rabble-rousing outside his window. So he and his girlfriend set up a couple Web cams and a site, AdamsBlock.com. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
UPDATE: Eric Hunt points out that Jackson received a death threat last week. "Tenderloin Webcam Founder Receives His First Death Threat" (SFist)
Jackson's camera has caught a man throwing himself into the side of a bus, apparently hoping to work an injury scam. It didn't work. The bus didn't stop. Viewers have also watched fights, car chases and break-ins...Adam's Block (adamsblock.com), "Front-window spy cam puts Tenderloin on the Web" (SFGate.com) (Thanks, Jason Tester!)
Jackson is now hoping to parlay that interest to a fundraising effort for (nearby church) Glide Memorial. Starting at noon on Dec. 13, he will host a 24-hour live Web fundraiser. He's hoping to pull in $5,000 to help fund Glide's programs...
What about those who say they are they an invasion of privacy? They will not get a sympathetic hearing from (police captain Gary) Jimenez.
"What's the big deal?" he said. "We may have a thousand cameras in the Tenderloin. You cannot walk down the street without being filmed. If a few more people want to jump on this, I say God bless 'em."
UPDATE: Eric Hunt points out that Jackson received a death threat last week. "Tenderloin Webcam Founder Receives His First Death Threat" (SFist)
the latest
latest episodes
I find it oddly hypnotic. Staring out a window, on the other side of the country.
I suspect there's a great deal of this going on, simply not as publicized. A decent webcam is dirt cheap and the lowliest of computers hooked to broadband lets you watch your street all day long. Nanny-cams for the block.
The privacy question, to me, always comes down to who has access to the logs. In this case it's everyone who can get to the site.
The notion that he's trying give back to the community he's broadcasting is quite nice.
If it wasn't flash we could have added it to SurveillanceSaver Screensaver..
BTW: We will release a geo-webservice on Google's App Engine with our entire CCTV database soon.
Thanks for the reminder, Michael05! SurveillanceSaver screensaver is terrific. Highly recommended.
I had a similar idea, after observing a trio of winos carrying on a streetcorner craps game, on Mission Street, last year...it was non-stop hilarity, like the Three Stooges on crack! They're probably still there...
This reminds me of the plot of the most depressing (good) movie I've ever seen: BOY (1969), by Nagisa Oshima.
Plot: Little boy gets made to do this by his dad and step-mum. They even inject him with purple dye for realistic bruises.
Seriously, just take a look at the trailer:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jn0L_z02oXw
That Oshima certainly knows how to ramp up the melancholy.
Let me get this straight, cameras watching our every move is HORRIBLE when it's the government, but cool when it's done by private citizens?
I live near the Tenderloin and I understand how much crime goes on there and how dangerous/frightening the neighborhood can be, but I don't understand how BoingBoing (or any of you) can be AGAINST the government setting up cameras but FOR private individuals doing it.
If these cameras had been set up by the Fed and were being watched by the FBI for "suspicious behavior" we'd all be outraged, especially because these cameras are targeting low-income minority neighborhoods while ignoring crime that might go on in high-income white neighborhoods.
Just because this was set up by a private individual and is available to the public doesn't make it any less invasive.
I keep two cameras on my block, and we caught a mugging last year and put it on TV (web access doesn't work on my setup unfortunately). It's sad because we have a $42 million HOPE VI housing project across the street, and the management won't do anything to protect security. A guy who did some plumbing for me just got shot there last week, luckily only in the leg, and the federal prosecutor seems to be building his career on HOPE VI tenants.
This is of course in San Francisco, where the chief of the housing authority was fired and no one bothered to replace him, and HUD workers are fired if they blow the whistle. I think of each camera as one more middle finger pointed at HUD.
It's not the cheap rents that make the neighborhood "rough" -- it's the Single-Room-Occupancy hotels and housing clinics. SOMA and the TL is where people are sent when they lack the competence to live on their own; there are no hospitals or long-term-care facilities for them because of Reagan's cuts, and many don't even WANT the care that they need. So they just live (and, usually, die) in that neighborhood.
It is a sad situation, and it has defied solution for years.
mgfarrelly writes ; "The privacy question, to me, always comes down to who has access to the logs. In this case it's everyone who can get to the site." So who does not have access to the site? The "rabble-rousers" who live in the tenderloin, that's who.
The first justification is "hey, the corporations on the street are doing it already so why don't we". This is just stupid, there should be less surveillance, not more.
The second is "hey, we're giving the money we raise to a church down the street". Which indicates to me that they know what they're doing is stupid, evil and wrong and are hoping (praying) that making it a charitable event somehow lets them off the hook.
If it's not going well will you pay a couple of them up to to fight, or have sex or something? You'd raise a lot more money that way, praise god.
#6 Actually, you've got it completely wrong. The problem with the government setting up cameras is that only the government can watch the cameras. You get a "who watches the watchmen" situation. If the government setup cameras that everybody could watch, it would be totally awesome. Because only the govt. can watch govt. cameras, they could fake the footage or whatever to create evidence to arrest everybody. With everyone watching the cameras, this can't happen.
Also, remember that BoingBoing also often makes posts complaining about photography by private citizens being banned in places. If a place is a public place, and not a private place, then anyone should be able to photograph it. When you are out in a public place, you can, and will, be photographed, and nobody needs your permission to do so. Or are you going to start claiming there is some ownership of the photons?
More cameras are always better as long as the government doesn't have cameras which can't be watched by anyone else, and as long as cameras don't intrude into private places where they are not permitted. For example, I can prevent you from taking pictures while you are visiting in my house. All other times, cameras yes!
I agree with #1-mgfarrelly, it is oddly hypnotic. My second thought was that of #6-thomas12345, that I'm against public surveillance cameras and red-light cameras, yet, now with this having put myself on the opposite side of the camera, my curiosity is conflicting. I'm rationalizing being hypnotized by Adam's Block by treating it as a work of art, like street photography, and not an authoritative privacy invasion.
I'm also surprised by the quality/frame rate of the videos. Its been a long time since I've watched any "live" streaming webcams, but I was expecting a choppy 1-fps video that would quickly lose my interest. I'd almost be interested in setting something like this up on my street, but suburbia is nowhere nearly as interesting as these city streets... what with all the dive-bombing seagulls they have.
@Joesters:
That's a marvelously cynical way of reading this posting. Rather than get into your disdain for churches, and, it seems, charity in genera, let's look at the facts.
-Anyone with internet access can access the site. This is why free and unfettered internet acess at libraries and other community organization is so important. You're assuming that the "rabble-rousers" (your term) are unable or unwilling to look online. That's a pretty broad assumption on your part.
@Thomas12345:
The vital difference is access. Your hypothetical (I hope) FBI footage can't be accessed without a court order or any number of FOIA hoopla. And even then, you might only get an edited down view.
More than that, we're talking about a public street here in a major metropolitan area. The expectation of privacy is fairly low.
#10) Good comments, thank you.
I agree to some extent, but still don't like it. The idea that the government is going to fake footage that would be good enough to convict someone in court is laughably paranoid, and it's not like a private citizen couldn't do the same thing. Just because we have access to the footage doesn't mean we know it's accurate to real-world events or that things happening in front of the cameras aren't staged or altered.
"If a place is a public place, and not a private place, then anyone should be able to photograph it."
Then why can't TV news & programs use images of people's faces without permission? This isn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious about the law surrounding this.
Not saying this applies here, but my only objection to this kind of thing would be webcamming Unfortunates for the Amusement of Hipsters.
Thomas12345 @6, have you considered that David Pescovitz (who posted this article) and Cory Doctorow (who's most likely to make negative posts about government surveillance) are two different people, with different opinions and beliefs?
@teller: Indeed - it seems that we're fascinated by the urban poor but prefer to view them and their "antics" from a distance (both physical and emotional).
Are webcams in the ghetto the new slumming?
@ZikZak:
I'd hardly call the Tenderloin "the ghetto". I've been there and lived in similar neighborhoods in Chicago. It's a poor area, especially by San Francisco standards, but there's also a very active art and theater community.
Speaking for myself, a non-hipster, I'd be curious to see that camera in an affluent neighborhood. More cars, less walking?
I live 1 block from the mugging capital of San Francisco (16th and Mission). It's also a major drug nexus. I could easily imagine setting up a web cam and I have considered it, not because of of cynical hipsterism but rather to get a modicum more security knowing that if someone whacks me on the head on my webcam I can hope to bust him.
I certainly don't consider myself viewing the less fortunate from afar, not if my tender melon is exposed to them everyday.
I don't understand how BoingBoing (or any of you) can be AGAINST the government setting up cameras but FOR private individuals doing it.
Doublethink. Do try to keep up.
I tried to do something very similar at my apartment in the South Side of Pittsburgh -- recording people peeing behind my house. I didn't have any suitable hardware then.
Now I live up the hill, and frequently see fights, abuse, drug deals, cop-stops, and other interesting behavior. I'll be doing something very similar.
There have been three shootings within two blocks since I started living here. I sure wish I had footage of one of the murderers running down the street. I'm sure the timestamp would have proved useful for the nice detective when he came to visit me.
Nobody likes crime, but how to stop it...?
This strikes me as bringing the ideas of safe small town living - where everyone knows everyone else and people used to watch the goings on in the neighborhood by sitting out on their front porches - to urban life. It has it's upsides as well as it's downsides. Overall I'm landing on the upside.
And for those of you who think his fund raising is just to assuage some phantom guilt over doing something wrong I think I can assure you that Adam is not like that. I've known him online since he was about 17 and he's a genuinely nice guy. And I pity you for having to live such a cynical and bitter life that even without knowing someone you assume the worst of them.
The quote by the police captain is priceless.
The Tenderloin can be a little rough in parts, although Adam's block is hardly the worst, but it's also got a vibrant arts community and the highest per capita number of children in the entire city.
I live barely three blocks from Adam, deep in the Tenderloin. Sure, it's a little bleak sometimes but I've rarely felt unsafe.
It's easy to get irritated at the panhandlers and the poop, but they're a reflection of the dire straits many of the TL's people are in. You don't poop on the street if you can get to a restroom.
Both Adam and I are tremendously fortunate compared to the rest of the Tenderloin; the response to the sights from Adam's webcam should be compassion, not shock or titillation.
I live 1 block from the mugging capital of San Francisco (16th and Mission).
Hey, that's the first place I ever saw someone with an ear cut off. I guess it hasn't been gentrified.
I don't understand how BoingBoing (or any of you) can be AGAINST the government setting up cameras but FOR private individuals doing it. Doublethink. Do try to keep up.
I don't understand how you can make that comment when Avram has already addressed it. Nothink. Do try to keep up.
Tenderloin? Pish tosh! I'd like to see a camera go up in the bayview.
#15 AVRAM "have you considered that David Pescovitz (who posted this article) and Cory Doctorow (who's most likely to make negative posts about government surveillance) are two different people, with different opinions and beliefs?"
Yes, I have, however I believe that Cory isn't the only one who has expressed an annoyance at surveillance cameras.
I do wish someone would answer my question, though.
If anyone is allowed to photograph/record anyone & anything in a public place, then why can't TV news & programs use images of people's faces without permission? This isn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious about the law surrounding this.
Also, is it legal for someone to wear a mask at all times when in public? With recorded surveillance getting more widespread (and gaining more widespread acceptance) it would appear that the only way to protect ones image from theft would be to don some form of disguise, but I'm pretty sure that if I wandered around town in a full-face mask I'd get stopped by law enforcement...
There have been times when I've felt less safe in Buena Vista Park or the Panhandle after dark, although it's nice that people are finally doing this sort of thing. Makes us all feel a little safer. Even at the expense of feeling more surveilled, it's worth it.
Evildoers do exist, and they should never be allowed to feel empowered by others' inaction. The more that petty criminals and thugs worry about being watched, the less ostentatious their behavior.
@ thomas12345:
"If anyone is allowed to photograph/record anyone & anything in a public place, then why can't TV news & programs use images of people's faces without permission?"
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like more of a cautionary measure than anything. People will sue over all sorts of things, but someone who's signed a release form is far less likely to do so.
Similarly, when someone submits to medical testing, they have to sign their lives away, promising that they will never sue for any reason, but these documents are often not legally binding. If a drug or procedure is directly responsible for someone's illness or death, their family can sue and win.
I don't know the law regarding TV stations' ability to use uncleared footage, and I would imagine that it varies from state to state, as with damn near anything. Even murder is a state crime, usually.
"Also, is it legal for someone to wear a mask at all times when in public?"
I believe so, but there are a few things that cops love to hold people for. Failure to ID is one. Another is "suspicious behavior." And again, I think much of it depends on regional specificity.
It's perfectly legal to carry a loaded shotgun in Austin, Texas, but if you were to walk down the street with one, I can assure you that the police would confiscate your weapon and hold you until they knew more about you.
I go to school in the tenderloin.
(Hastings, anyone?)
It's not really that bad, I routinely drink all up in the middle of it. But it is pretty bad, and I am happy not to live there. People get shot fairly often, robbed etc. Mostly if you don't go there to scam drugs, don't flash money around etc and just keep walking you'll be fine.
Mostly.
I am perfectly fine with putting up some civilian cameras.
To the SurveillanceScanner folks posting here, I've been trying to email you for awhile but there's no email addy on your google code page: I made an application for Chumbies that tune into the cameras from your database, as well as a zillion other cameras that my script has found.
http://www.chumby.com/guide/widget/ChumbySpy
More deets and source code are here:
http://gizmoware.net/chumby
My email is wrybread at gmail dot you know what.
Hi all,
Does anyone know if the street tag in the right window feed predates the webcam?
I don't particularly care for tagging (at least I am an advocate of William Upski Wimsatt's notion of tagging the suburbs and keeping true art in the inner cities),
but this tag caught my eye. It looks like it is most easily viewed online. Is this intentional? Is this a new dimension of graffiti?
ETHERSMITH, it's new today and it's kinda blowing my mind.
Adam’s Block has gotten a ton of local and national (international?) press in the last week. Now a tagger has meta-tagged the intersection. Whoever did it was painting the ground but is advertising to the web. This totally up’s the ante of post-reality tv and redefines the very notion of space.
This is just the start. Expect more street art, performance theater, protests, and outright corporate advertising to invade the short stretch of Taylor St. Adam’s Block is a hole in the wall between The Cloud and The Street, helping forge that new land where the two are indistinguishable. Fitting that the tag is in the intersection (no idea who or what MKT is).
I fell there’s something really significant happening here…
Are you sure that it's not a utility tag? It looks a lot like what you see when they're going to dig something up.
@mgfarrelly #12
So because there are computers in libraries and homeless shelters the digital divide has been breached and surveillance of everyone is okay? I'm afraid it's not that simple. Do you really think any of the people on the street are aware of the camera? What if they don't want to be on? Do you feel that they should have any rights in that regard?
"rabble-rousers" I distilled from the original posting ("general rabble-rousing outside his window"), a term I found off putting. I put it in quotes because I was quoting, but I'll admit it was a bit unclear.
I have nothing against churches or charities. I do have something against using either to assuage the guilt obtained from voyeuristic spying.
Why was there controversy over that art piece DEMONSTATE at Berkeley? http://demonstrate.berkeley.edu
Because the people being surveyed were rich, educated, and digitally empowered. The same outrage should reach to those with less access and money.
from the linked article about the death threat; "In a perfect world, every dodgy street corner would have a live stream going for our personal enjoyment."
Is this the world we want to live in? Where the rich get entertained by the antic of the poor? This seem like something out of a dystopic sci-fi novel. Death threats are no joke but the irony of saying "Time to start rethinking my privacy." in regards to your 24hr webcam is pretty outrageous.
(bold tags added by me for emphasis).
http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2008/12/12/death-threats-force-san-franciscos-adamsblock-website-to-shut-down/
http://sfist.com/2008/12/12/adams_block_down.php
http://sfist.com/2008/12/12/12oz_prophet_theatens_adams_block.php
At first, the person who threatened young Adam wanted a video statement. Adam ended up writing the following written statement, as he feared his gf would be attacked. The SFPD has been visiting him regularly to see how he's doing. The SFPD police chief knows all about this.
Adam's insincere statement:
"There’s nothing I can do about this other than an issue an apology and reveal my “true intentions” of this camera. My camera was placed in my window to showcase the homeless people of San Francisco and to make fun of them. I like making fun of people who have mental illness, can’t hold a job and piss themselves on the street. My goal was to broadcast every day and night just to raise money for myself and show the world what a racist and ignorant human being that I am. I don’t give a crap about this city and am a yuppie blogger who feels that he’s too good for all of this. I’m sorry to San Francisco and this community for the harm I caused and I’m moving to a place filled with other yuppies so we can make fun of this disgusting neighborhoodknown as the Tenderloin. Glide, good luck with everything cause I’m not ever going to donate to your cause cause I don’t care and I’m embarrassed to have ever lived here."