3 ms·

its kind of sad. i'd rather there was a promise that the footage was kept indefinitely, but never watched unless there was a police warrant. that sounds much mo

• 0xffff2 11y ago
  That sounds like the kind of thing that no public agency has the budget for. Even at relatively low resolution, X kb/s * Y cameras * 60 * 60 * 24 adds up to a whole lot of data accumulating every day. Why store all of that data forever when it's vastly unlikely to ever be used after the first 30 days. Even 30 days is probably generous. How often are police not going to have any idea that a crime was committed in the general vicinity of a camera for an entire month, much less two or three or more?
• wlesieutre 11y ago
  For one, if the data still exists, you can expect its entire history to eventually get datamined via facial recognition because "think of the children" or "we need to identify people's routines so we can spot outliers" or "the terrorists might have taken a train 12 years ago," and eventually used for god knows what else. Not a fan of that idea. And two, can you actually trust the transit people to keep a pile of petabytes of footage secure forever? I certainly don't. So we should assume that the person datamining all of those records will actually be an adversary. Third, who's going to pay for it? Video (or even stills) at a useful resolution take up space.
• jheriko 11y ago
  hard disks are cheap. they are not the expensive part of this at all...