The US has struggled in the past as regards public safety----whose public safety? The civil rights movement answered that with Constitutional Amendments that stated EQUAL PROTECTION----everyone is protected by public safety.
I spoke at length about how to stabilize communities around city center Baltimore by building a platform for the poorest in the community to own a home, have a small business, and have access to growing and attaining their own food. If that is built in all communities---then public safety especially in those communities grows and it is the answer citywide. Personal security brings safety-----NOT MILITARIZED POLICING.
When societies move towards global corporate autocratic control they change that idea of what public safety looks like. That is what we are seeing in Baltimore and US cities across America----now, we see the poor being portrayed as dangerous in our local media with no indications that it is the public policies at the top of the income ladder that is the source of this public threat to safety. When a person sees pictures of Baltimore's surrounding communities----it looks like a meteor dropped----it is third world. It comes from a looting of Baltimore's assets by Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins. So, the threat to public safety comes from that looting----not the people being pushed into black market employment because Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins outsources all work to corporations outside of Baltimore----outside of Maryland---outside of the US.
THAT IS WHAT TODAY'S PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT IS ABOUT.
Meanwhile, we have a Baltimore City Hall---working for Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins running around saying the answer to crime is more police----more militarized police methods to frighten people into submission----more surrveillance and data tracking to follow what every group identified as dangerous is doing-----
WAKE UP PEOPLE---THAT IS CORPORATE FAR-RIGHT FASCISM ---THE OPPOSITE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
Remember, Singapore is one of the original Asian neo-liberal economies and as such it has an autocratic leader handing his citizens to FOXCONN global corporate campuses and now likes the idea of making Singapore one big SMART CITY......it is ground zero for total surveillance society. Below you see where public safety now comes with special global corporations and surveillance of every sector of society.
THIS IS NOW THE SAFETY AND SECURITY THREAT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE-----NOT THE POOR PEOPLE MADE DESPERATE FOR SURVIVAL.
NEC Announces Establishment of New Global Headquarters for Public Safety Business
*** For immediate use June 13, 2013
Tokyo and Singapore, June 13, 2013 - NEC Corporation (NEC; TSE: 6701) has established a Global Safety Division in Singapore as the Global Strategic Headquarters for NEC's Public Safety Business.
The Global Safety Division will focus on growing and developing the company's expertise in public safety, an area which has attracted a great deal of attention and investment by governments around the world. The new division will devise global business strategy, develop new technologies and solutions and provide training and technical support for subsidiaries and partners worldwide. Mr. Tan Boon Chin, Managing Director of the Regional Competency Centre for Public Safety in NEC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., has been appointed to lead the new division.
NEC is known globally for its biometrics identity technologies, which have been provided to a wide range of customers in 30 countries around the world. This includes solutions for immigration control, national identification, law enforcement, urban surveillance, cyber security, and emergency and disaster management. One of NEC's primary missions is to realize a rich and innovative Smart Society by utilizing ICT technologies in the areas of security and smart energy solutions.
Mr. Takayuki Morita, Senior Vice President of NEC says: "The new Division is introducing global markets to the message of 'Safer Cities'. We are fully convinced that safety and security are the bedrock for a city's development, growth and renewal. We firmly believe in utilizing technology to safeguard lives and property, and in the process, creating a society where people are able to live, work and play in safety and comfort, while co-existing in harmony with the environment."
The new division was established in Singapore in order to conveniently access important markets, to capitalize on the business experience and capabilities of the public safety team, and to further enhance its capabilities, as Singapore is an open ground for attracting global talent.
The solutions delivered in the region span across various domains, such as national ID, automated border control, finance, biometric security, critical facilities, transportation, food safety and cyber security. NEC aims to optimize its global development, sales, and marketing efforts with the establishment of the new division. Members of the new division will be based in Singapore, Tokyo and other major metropolitan areas of the world.
"Singapore is a trusted hub for Asia's mission critical data and ICT infrastructure, and this makes us an ideal location for companies to develop new security-related products and services," said Mr. Jayson Goh, Executive Director of Infocomms and Media, Singapore Economic Development Board. "I am happy that NEC has chosen to orchestrate the international growth of their Global Safety Division from Singapore. This is a strong validation of Singapore's status as a Global-Asia Hub for Asian companies seeking to penetrate international markets."
One of the projects that the Global Safety Division will be involved in is the recently announced Singapore Safe City Test Bed project, where NEC Asia Pacific was appointed as leader of one of the four consortia managing the test beds. The project is spearheaded by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) to promote the Safety and Security industry in Singapore.
Working through its regional team, the Division will fully support this project by building an end-to-end inter-agency collaboration infrastructure that can help a wide range of government agencies to integrate and analyze data collected from various networks. Through the innovative use of technologies, multiple agencies can understand and correlate information from various sources and optimize the resources used to handle this information.
In December 2012, NEC announced the signing of a partnership agreement with INTERPOL to provide the world police body with vital assistance in developing core elements of the Digital Crime Centre being established within the INTERPOL Global Complex for Innovation in Singapore. The Global Safety Division's Cyber Security team will also contribute to the development of technologies and solutions, training and investigation support as part of this partnership.
Governments around the world are expected to invest approximately 0.5 percent of GDP into safer city projects by 2017, and the contribution of technologies towards the development of safer city projects is expected to amount to 80-85 billion dollars by 2020 (source: Frost & Sullivan marketing reports).
With the establishment of the Global Safety Division, NEC will continue to promote the expansion of business and to contribute to the public safety of cities worldwide.
IF THE GOAL OF GLOBAL CORPORATIONS IS HAVING 90% OF AMERICANS IN POVERTY---WE KNOW WHAT PUBLIC SECURITY AND SAFETY IS GEARED TO PROTECT---A VERY FEW RICH.
We have had plenty of national media in the US shouting just what this article from UK states----I wanted to show this is worldwide and citizens in all these nations see this BIG BROTHER as the security and safety threat. Citizens in Baltimore's underserved communities feel so under attack by black market violence---they see protection in police security cameras----but what they don't see is the big picture----although they are starting to. Creating the need for systemic surveillance by allowing such levels of poverty and unemployment is like privatizing public transportation away by defunding it and leaving citizens waiting for ever for a bus to come.
YOU CREATE THE NEED BY BUILDING THE CONDITIONS FOR A DANGEROUS SOCIETY.
Anyone would look at pictures OF DECAY of Baltimore's surrounding communities and say----THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN THE UNITED STATES.
So, citizens are being conditioned to think having cameras and security people all around them is for their good----as we move to more and more citizens becoming unemployed and impoverished with this coming economic crash.
That is what very, very, very conservative Republican Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development have been doing these few decades and they doubled-down after the 2008 crash----taking away all Federal agencies and funding sources ----all public social service assets in communities and now even public schools
ALL WHILE BALTIMORE CITY POLS INSTALLED THESE POLICIES---BOTH MARYLAND ASSEMBLY AND BALTIMORE CITY HALL.
Baltimore's Mikulski and Cardin----Sarbanes, Cummings--are queen and kings of all this global corporate autocratic society----and they installed this while being called 'progressive' Democrats.
Britain's freedoms under threat from 'Big Brother security state', warns Director of Public Prosecutions
By Steve Doughty for the Daily Mail
Updated: 04:11 EST, 21 October 2008
The chief prosecutor has warned the surveillance society is threatening to 'break the back of freedom'.
Sir Ken Macdonald, Director of Public Prosecutions, said the state was poised to take powers to keep information on everyone and 'we might end up living with something we can't bear.'
His message - delivered ten days before he steps down as head of the Crown Prosecution Service - was a parting shot at ministers who aim to make every phone call, email, test message and internet visit available to police and security services.
Sir Ken said: 'We need to take very great care not to fall into a way of life in which freedom's back is broken by the relentless pressure of a security state.'
We're watching you: An East German Stasi officer listens in on a couple in a scene from the Oscar-winning film The Lives Of Others
The warning comes amid growing public concern over state snooping.
Some 4.4million people - many of them non-criminals - are on a DNA database, CCTV cameras routinely film pedestrians and motorists and the Government continues to plan an ID card system.
Last week Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was accused of planning surveillance on a Big Brother scale when she announced moves to give police and security services access to all private electronic communications.
Sir Ken attacked the spread of surveillance in a CPS lecture. He said: 'Let me in my final public speech as DPP repeat my call for levelheadedness and for legislative restraint in an age of dangerous movements.'
While technology had brought immeasurable benefits, Sir Ken added, it 'also gives the state enormous powers of access to knowledge and information about each one of us and the ability to collect and store it at will. Every second of every day in everything we do.'
The DPP said: 'Of course modern technology is of critical importance to the struggle against serious crime. Used wisely, it can protect us.
'But we need to understand that decisions taken in the next few months and years about how the state may use these powers, and to what extent, are likely to be irreversible.
'We should take very great care to imagine the world we are creating before we build it. We might end up living with something we can't bear.'
Sir Ken said the best way to face down terrorist threats was to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law.
His period as DPP had seen a relentless struggle against terrorism and a conviction rate 'unmatched in the fair trial world.' It had been done 'with full respect for our historical norms and our liberal constitution'.
He added: 'It is difficult to see who will maintain a cool head if governments do not. Or who will protect our constitution if governments unwittingly disarm it.'
Tories praised the speech. Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'Sir Ken has been at the forefront of our counterterrorism effort for several years, so he knows the security challenges we face.
'This Government's approach has all too often proved cavalier - unjustified powers, sprawling databases and excessive use of surveillance powers risk undermining both our security and our way of life.'
The Home Office said last night: 'The Government agrees with the DPP that technology and communications data is critically important in tackling all forms of serious crime as well as in the fight against terrorism.
'The Government also agrees that care is needed to agree what safeguards are needed, in addition to the many we have in place already, to provide a solid legal framework which protects civil liberties.
'The Home Secretary made it very clear last week that the Government will consult widely with the public and all interested parties to set out emerging problems with technology, the important capability gaps that we need to address in collecting data and to look at the possible solutions.'
Sir Ken will be succeeded next month by human rights lawyer Keir Starmer.
So, in the world of progressive posing we are hearing Baltimore pols pretending all this surveillance and tracking of people is progressive------it is public safety and security for businesses. Then, businesses become suspect and now we are monitoring businesses to keep American's safe ----and finally, it is our neighbors----we never know what they are up to so we need these global corporations to provide national IDs that can track everything you buy-----everytime you are at home-----where you walk, ride, or hang out.
THIS CHANGES THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOLKS----
You can ask anyone in Baltimore----even Johns Hopkins students and employees and everyone will tell you----it is these global institutions of which they are growing skeptical.
All of this national security/Homeland Security is a Republican policy----the idea of national IDs and tracking all kinds of groups of people has always come from the right wing. Yet, of course----it is Clinton and Obama as Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals who are doubling-down on what a Bush neo-con did. They do that because global pols are all Republican---it is right wing Republican policy----so to is extreme wealth inequity by systemic looting of our US Treasury by corporations.
We are now watching this goal of complete SMART CITY roll out piece by piece all under the guise of being efficient-----being cost saving----being public safety=====POSING PROGRESSIVE FOLKS.
The New Threat of Big Brother: The REAL ID Act
By William J. Watkins Jr. | Posted: Thu. March 10, 2005
The United States Senate is the most august deliberative body in the world. In Federalist No. 63, James Madison, the principle architect of the U.S. Constitution, reasoned that with fewer members and longer terms than the House of Representatives, the Senate would be insulated from the pressures of reckless popular politics. Hence, it would possess the requisite coolness needed for self-restrained deliberation.
With the REAL ID Act just approved by the House in a 261–161 voice vote, temperate deliberation on the Senate floor is sorely needed. Proponents of the REAL ID Act claim it is an anti-terrorism measure meant to protect American lives. According to House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), the legislation’s author, the Act will “prevent another 9/11-type attack by disrupting terrorist travel.” Although the Act will make it easier for the national government to monitor suspected terrorists, it also lays the groundwork for a national identification system that threatens to invade the privacy of ordinary Americans.
At first blush, the requirements of the REAL ID Act do not appear onerous. For example, the Act commands state governments to include nine categories of information on all state-issued driver’s licenses such as full legal name, a digital photograph, and address of principle residence. These items are already found on most, if not all, driver’s licenses.
However, the ninth category requires states to use a “common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.” In implementing this and the other requirements, the Secretary of Homeland Security would be empowered to impose regulations arbitrarily on all citizens. This broad and highly intrusive power is key, considering the recent advancements in technology.
Radio frequency identification (RFID) chips, which are smaller than the width of a human hair, currently can hold up to 64K of memory—an amount of storage capacity that not long ago was standard for most personal computers. These chips can easily store biometric data such as a person’s digital fingerprints, iris scans, or DNA information. With a quick scan of the chip, the data can be broadcast to a federal official with the proper scanning equipment. These chips are already being used by the State Department in its new “smart passports” and could easily be integrated into other types of identification cards.
With federal regulation, the Homeland Security Secretary could require states to adopt RFID technology in driver’s licenses. The Secretary might also require that these chips contain fingerprints, iris scans, and other biometric data. In addition, the Secretary could require the states to include personal information such as criminal history, employment history, or firearm ownership—all in the name of “homeland security.” As RFID technology improves, the chips in driver’s licenses could even be read remotely at greater distances, permitting the federal and state governments to know a citizen’s location at any time.
If states were to fail to implement the Secretary’s requirements, federal agencies would refuse to accept the driver’s license for official purposes. This means that a citizen would not be permitted to board planes and trains if his identification card (i.e., a driver’s license) does not meet the federal standards. This clearly clashes with the Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to travel as a fundamental right that can only be burdened by restrictions narrowly tailored to serve a “compelling” governmental interest. While the government certainly has a compelling interest in protecting Americans from terrorist attacks, jeopardizing the privacy of all American citizens is not warranted. Surely safeguarding Americans can be furthered by a far less restrictive and intrusive mechanism than that prescribed by the REAL ID Act.
Not surprisingly, the REAL ID Act is opposed by diverse groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Conservative Union, Free Congress Foundation, Amnesty International, and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Rather than fighting terrorism, Marvin J. Johnson, the ACLU Legislative Counsel, predicts that the REAL ID Act will “only serve to restrict our freedoms and invade our privacy.”
Considering the carte blanche that would be given to the Secretary to promulgate regulations regarding “common machine-readable technology,” the concerns raised by the ACLU and other groups are very real. So far, our massive leaps in technology have not brought Orwellian monitoring by Big Brother. The REAL ID Act, however, could change this completely. At the very least, it places too much discretion in the hands of the Homeland Security Secretary to monitor Americans and unnecessarily interferes with the fundamental right to travel.
It also lays the groundwork for a national ID system common in some European and South American counties. In many of these systems, citizens are required to keep their ID cards (“your papers”) with them at all times, and they face stiff penalties for failure to comply. Americans have been insulated from such a system in which government officials can arbitrarily demand their “papers.” The REAL ID Act is unfortunately a giant step in this direction.
James Madison envisioned the Senate blocking legislation sparked by “irregular passions” and “artful misrepresentations” that might influence the House of Representatives. There are perhaps no two better phrases to describe the impetus behind REAL ID Act than those used by Madison over 200 years ago. Let us hope that the Senate will live up to Mr. Madison’s expectations by rejecting this latest legislation that unnecessarily circumscribes liberty in the name of national security.
In Republican states and cities like Baltimore, these cards are used to track students around the school building so at no time do these students feel they are not being watched. Conditioning the next generation.
Below you see just how all this is made to sound progressive----we are making it easier for youth who are burdened by having separate cards. We as a society have wallets designed for one massive grouping of credit cards-----that never worried anyone.
Baltimore and Johns Hopkins is ground zero in the US for making a Singapore SMART CITY not only of Baltimore---but all International Economic Zones. So, we know this City Council person is working for Johns Hopkins and not the youth in his voting district when he shouts for this.
BRANDON SCOTT IS A TOOL FOR GLOBAL WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT JUST AS HIS COUSIN RAWLINGS-BLAKE IS.
Citizens of Baltimore are being sold they are being protected from a growing impoverished majority of citizens while SMART CITY technology takes over their water, waste, energy with data showing the middle-class every move.
NONE OF THIS IS PUBLIC SAFETY---IT IS NOT ABLE SUSTAINABILITY----IT IS NOT SECURITY----
It is global corporations trying to transform developed nations in to third world autocratic economic zones
THIS IS NOT A RACE, CLASS, OR CREED ISSUE----THIS IS A US AS A DEMOCRATIC SOCIAL REPUBLIC WITH CITIZENS HAVING RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
City Council considering 'One Card' for Baltimore youths
Erica L. GreenContact Reporter Baltimore Sun
The Baltimore Sun
Councilman: It's "financially irresponsible that we give kids three different cards to do three things that onA Baltimore city councilman wants the city to issue a single identification card allowing young people to ride buses and use other school and government services, but a civil liberties advocate says the proposal raises privacy concerns.
The One Card would be modeled after programs in cities including Washington and Boston, where young residents use the ID to enter facilities such as libraries and recreation centers and use services including the bus system.
City Councilman Brandon Scott called for a hearing on the idea, saying a One Card system would help Baltimore better serve young people by offering easier access to services.
He said it would be more convenient for youths than having to carry multiple cards — school IDs, library cards and Maryland Transit Administration bus passes — and would help city government better serve the population by gathering performance and usage data for programs.
"In 2015, it is idiotic and financially irresponsible that we give kids three different cards to do three things that one card can do," Scott said.
An investigative hearing on the proposal will be held at 4 p.m. Thursday at City Hall.
The idea was met with trepidation by a top official of the ACLU of Maryland, who said such a card could potentially create access barriers for students and threaten their privacy.
David Rocah, senior staff attorney at the ACLU, worried that losing the card could block students from entering their schools. And misuse of the data it could unlock would be illegal, he said.
For instance, Scott suggested the cards could allow the head of a recreation center to access a student's academic records to tailor services to student needs. Rocah said doing that would violate the student's right to privacy.
"These cards should not be a way of creating dossiers about kids with data that crosses the boundaries of the different government entities that they have to or want to interact with," Rocah said.
Scott's proposal calls for the card to be issued in the form of a student ID, and produce data that is already accessible through means such as sign-in sheets at recreation centers and libraries.
"This isn't information that we don't already have," Scott said. "The information [would be in one] place to be used for good," he said.
Scott said that ultimately he would like to extend such a card to all city residents and expand its functions.
In Boston and Washington, the cards are used to give students access to their schools, libraries, recreation centers and transportation. But in other cities, including New York and Oakland, Calif., the cards are also used as prepaid debit cards and valid forms of identification to present to government agencies and police.
The city school system is supporting the One Card measure, and last spring piloted a similar program in three schools.
About 3,000 students were issued bus passes that were also used to track attendance at Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School, Digital Harbor High School and Mergenthaler Vocational-Technical High School. At Digital, the card could be used at the school's library to check out books.
John Land, the school system's executive director of operations, said the pilot was generally a success.
The pilot ended in June, and the school system is in negotiations with the MTA to start it again.
Outfitting all schools with the card would cost about $3 million, and would have a recurring cost of about $1 million year for data service, maintenance and supplies, Land said.
The district now pays $5.2 million for MTA bus passes for about 34,000 of the district's 84,000 students.
Land said no one raised privacy concerns during the pilot — which allowed school officials to see students' movements on buses, including transfers. Officials also could track when students entered and exited their schools.
The district used the data to monitor truancy and alert school officials when students were using the transit system in the middle of the day.
"That was really the most powerful piece," Land said. "So we could really evaluate services" schools needed to address such issues.
Education policy advocates, however, worry that using the cards to take attendance takes authority away from the people who are best equipped to help students with attendance problems.
"It removes teachers from engaging in conversations around attendance," said Sue Fothergill, senior policy associate at the advocacy group Attendance Works. "I'm all about having information to deliver interventions to kids, but I'm not sure this is the right one."
The student data generated from the pilot was accessible by principals and the central office, and some of it was turned over to the Baltimore Education Research Consortium for a study, Land said.
Rocah said elements of the school system's pilot were troubling.
"That convenience could be good for the kids, and could be good for the government agencies involved," he said. "But none of that requires or justifies why the school system needs to know where the kids are going outside of school."
Thirty-four city schools are equipped with the hardware to support more ID card functions, and some are already using bus passes to take attendance, Land said.
Baltimore City College High School is one of them.
Two years ago, students had to use the card to swipe in and out of every class, and it took at least 10 minutes from instruction time as lines would back up outside classroom doors. Now, students at City use the card only to get in and out of the building.
Senior Bryonna Reed said she's comfortable with the more limited approach.
"Having to carry it everywhere, and attaching so much value to it is not the most comfortable thing for me," Reed said.
She also worried that it could be dangerous if information about how students spend their day got into the hands of people who wanted to harm them.
Reed said she would support a card like one currently available to city students called The Harbor Card, a discount program created by the Inner Harbor Project. The program offers a Harbor Card to young people, ages 13 to 19, who complete 10 hours of community service.
"If the city wants to provide more rewards to students, then it would be more beneficial — if they took away the tracking part of it," Reed said.
Scott said he believes the city could find a way to phase in the card over several years, responsibly and with lessons learned from other cities.
"The great thing about being last is that you don't make the same mistakes," Scott said. "We see there are places that it's working, and we can build on that success."
Baltimore City as is true around the nation, has a system of neo-liberal political party machines operating with the intent of dis-information----what I call progressive posing. These neo-liberal political machines create non-profits from leaders who are then actually creating the public policies leading to this International Economic Zone status of SMART CITY global entity. It's only good for the richest people in a city---a nation----the world.
When pols are allowed to run as Democrats and work for very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development pushing all these global policies-----and then these same pols are made leaders of groups with goals of helping impoverished communities from the violence and crime that exists from the VERY PUBLIC POLICIES THESE POLITICIANS INSTALL-----you get a community that has no leaders----that grows to hate the politicians that should be working for them.
AND AUTOCRATIC SOCIETIES LOVE WHEN CITIZENS GROW TO EXPECT ONLY A PROGRESSIVE POLICY BONE THROWN EVERY NOW AND THEN---THAT IS HOW THIRD WORLD SOCIETIES CONTROL 99% OF POOR PEOPLE.
So, Brandon Scott----and I use him in this example because he is chair of Baltimore's Public Safety committee-----Scott pushes and votes for every policy that Baltimore Development puts in front of him----creating the mass unemployment and impoverishment----he votes for a Chief Batts brought by Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development for Batts decades record of police brutality and abuse with no transparency--- he knows the city fails to fund any oversight and accountability of police......and now he creates a group to be the voice for peace and non-violence.
Now, all the people associated with 300 men are not bad people---they may very well want good results for citizens-----but when you allow politicians and leaders known to be bad for citizens to lead a group----you compromise your voice. Already citizens in Baltimore see that hypocrisy.
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW LABOR AND JUSTICE GROUPS POSING PROGRESSIVE TO HAVE LEADERS WE ALL KNOW WORK FOR GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.
Confronting the hypocrisy of the 300 men and Brandon Scott
Published on Aug 22, 2014On Friday August 21th, 2012 between 8 and 9pm the so called "300 men" along with Brandon Scott invaded my community of Belair/Edison and impeded pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the corners of Belair and Erdman aves without a permit to do so! to continue their "blame the victim" campaign, NO POLICE AND NO HELICOPTERS BROKE UP THAT ILLEGAL DEMONSTRATION!!, yet when young people gather to shoot a video in their community on August 22nd 2012 on Belair and Seidel aves just down the street, the police swarmed down on them in numbers and with overhead surveillance to stop them from exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE! the hypocrisy is BLATANT! who gave Brandon Scott, Munir Bahar and the "300 men" the ok to step into the 12th and 13th districts and usurp the authority of Warren Branch and Carl Stokes?? what is interesting to me is that they are the two councilmen that voted against the "curfew" law, our mayor SRB is extremely vindictive and using her "lapdog" Brandon Scott to violate the jurisdictional boundaries of his fellow councilmen, HE NEEDS TO STAY IN HIS OWN DISTRICT AND MIND THE BUSINESS OF HIS CONSTITUENTS!! AND STAY OUT OF BELAIR/EDISON!! POLICE KILL BLACK MEN TWICE A WEEK IN BALTIMORE and around the country! AND THEY HAVE TWO PROMINENT DEATHS THAT ARE UNRESOLVED "TYRONE WEST!" AND THE YOUNG MAN THAT "DIED IN POLICE CUSTODY!" STOP TRYING TO DEFLECT AWAY FROM THE REAL ISSUES AND ADDRESS THE CONSTANT POLICE OVERREACH AND BRUTALITY THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR FACE IN BALTIMORE!!
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if you privatize all of what used to be public safety-------then those corporations working as 'public safety' are seeing their boss as the corporations and private business......not the citizens. In Maryland, we have so dismantled our public works departments that what used to be public safety is now gone. CSX rail crossings and tracks are all without maintenance-----THAT IS PUBLIC SAFETY-----we have predatory speed enforcement where profits motivate over safety. Our water and waste system has been allowed to become toxic to people and environment because we have no public health and safety demanding it be fixed decades ago-----NO PUBLIC SAFETY WHEN YOU DISMANTLE ALL THAT IS PUBLIC.
When we have Marathon races in Baltimore -----the races are allowed permits that close the city's roads all over-----it is called public benefit. When we want a public protest with people closing roads-----it is called public disruption costly to private business.
We have a Homeland Security that is completely global corporate ------citizens have no right to know what's going on----all working on what is called PUBLIC SAFETY.
Does Privatizing Traffic Cameras Hurt Public Safety?Study finds some red-light camera system contracts limit government’s ability to enforce traffic regulations.
by Brian Heaton / October 27, 2011 0
Are cities negotiating away their ability to protect citizens by outsourcing traffic enforcement to private camera system vendors?
A new study found that contracts between the companies responsible for red-light and speed cameras and municipalities can include payment incentives that put profit above traffic safety. Some of the contracts also limit the ability of governments to set and enforce traffic regulations, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) said.
The report, Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead; The Risks of Privatizing Traffic Law Enforcement and How to Protect the Public, said that red-light violation mitigation techniques such as lengthening the duration of yellow lights potentially could lead to financial penalties in some jurisdictions. The study cited the California cities of Bell Gardens, Citrus Heights, Corona and Hawthorne as examples of contracts where this could occur.
The findings also revealed that some contracts include language that could also penalize municipalities if they don’t approve enough traffic tickets that come from camera systems. For example, the report notes that in Walnut, Calif., the city has a contract with the vendor Redflex that has a possibility of a financial penalty if the city waives more than 10 percent of violations from the cameras.
“Too many cities wrongly sign away power to ensure the safety of citizens on the roads when they privatize traffic law enforcement,” said Phineas Baxandall, senior analyst for tax and budget policy at PIRG and a co-author of the study, in a statement. “Automated traffic ticketing tends to be governed by contracts that focus more on profits than safety. That shouldn’t happen.”
Not surprisingly the National Coalition for Safer Roads (NCSR), a trade association that advocates for the traffic safety technology industry, called the study findings “misleading,” in a press release.
The NCSR argued that PIRG’s report focused on outdated models of contracts and that the organization did a “disservice to the safeguards” that localities have in place to ensure safety for citizens.
According to NCSR, the “fee-for-service” style contracts that PIRG claims “give municipalities a clear picture of the cost of applying the system as part of an overall traffic safety management plan,” in its report, is the now actually the industry standard.
“It is clearly more than a majority and I would say it’s an overwhelming majority,” explained David Kelly, president and executive director of NCSR, in an interview with Government Technology.
“You still have some of the old contract terms about fee-per-ticket and that kind of stuff is still out there and I don’t want to pretend it doesn’t exist, because it does, but it’s not the norm,” he added.
Anne McCartt, senior research vice president for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), said it was good that the study was done so more could be learned about different community practices.
While she hadn’t looked at the PIRG findings, McCartt emphasized that decisions regarding safety should be in the hands of officials, not bound by contractual stipulations.
“I think the city — meaning the police agency and the safety officials in the community — should make the decisions about where the cameras are placed and how the thresholds for ticketing and all that should be clearly in the responsibility of the city,” she said. “I’m surprised if it’s not done that way.”
Speaking specifically about the yellow-light duration extension and whether that could seriously mitigate red-light running violations, McCartt explained it was “really important.” She mentioned a study conducted by IIHS in Philadelphia, which showed a decrease in red-light running violations when a yellow-light time was increased.
When traffic cameras were also added to the mix, however, she noted that violations went down “a whole lot more.”
Some of the PIRG report’s other findings included the threat of termination penalties in San Bernardino, Calif., and Houston when those cities elected to shut down their traffic camera system. The study also noted that Baytown, Texas, paid $1 million to American Traffic Solutions in exchange for early camera removal. The city had a contract with the company for red-light cameras through 2019.
All Federal Safety agencies are being dismantled and repurposed for global corporate profit-----so food safety----workplace safety------environmental safety------child safety----are all disappearing as the NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BECOMES SMART CITIES....security and surveillance against crimes and violence brought by further impoverishment and abuse.
We do not want this change in what represents are PUBLIC SAFETY-----so we will rebuild our public sector to focus on what really creates safety concerns-----and use the billions of dollars spent on SMART CITIES to build a platform for the poor so they can live with dignity and feel home, job, and food security.
WholeFoods and most US stores now have only Asian seafood because it is cheap.
HOW THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
WOULD IMPACT THE SAFETY OF OUR FOOD
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Undermine Food Safety
The TPP would require us to limit food labeling and to import meat and poultry that do not meet U.S. food safety standards.
The TPP would require us to allow food imports if the exporting country claims that their safety regime is "equivalent" to our own, even if it violates the key principles of our food safety laws. These rules would effectively outsource domestic food inspection to other countries.
Under the TPP, any U.S. food safety rule on pesticides, labeling or additives that is higher than international standards would be subject to challenge as "illegal trade barriers." The U.S. could be required to eliminate these rules and allow in the unsafe food under threat of trade sanctions.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration already inspects less than 1% of all seafood imports for health hazards. Entering into the TPP with Malaysia and Vietnam, both TPP negotiating parties and major seafood exporters, would increase seafood imports and further overwhelm inspectors' limited ability to ensure the safety of our food. Some TPP countries have serious shrimp and fish safety issues. For example, even with the minimal inspections, high levels of contaminants have been found in Vietnam's seafood.
Under the TPP, food labels could also be challenged as "trade barriers." The TPP would impose limits on labels providing information on where a food product comes from. The TPP also would endanger labels identifying genetically modified foods and labels identifying how food was produced. The TPP would expand the limits on consumer labels already included in existing "trade" agreements, like the World Trade Organization (WTO). But already under the WTO, the U.S. "dolphin-safe" tuna fish label and our country-of-origin meat and poultry labels have been successfully attacked by other countries. And, under the TPP, a foreign meat processing or food corporation operating within the United States could directly challenge our policies that they claim undermine their expectations - meaning a barrage of new demands for taxpayer compensation.