six surveillance cameras destroyed at UC Santa Cruz

also,its the people interepreting camera images ,that are biased.cameras arent ''objective'' when theyre run by ''police''

I'm smiling every time I look at this photo. Thanks, anarchists, for choosing your targets wisely, this time!!

http://www.artnewsblog.com/2008/04/banksy-one-nation-under-cctv.htm

So you guys are standing guard where the cameras were to make sure no one is raped or attacked right? And if the card readers are removed you will make sure no crazy transient goes into the dorms...won't you?

I think the logic that the above poster is using is that surveillance systems and police in general stop sexual assault and rape - which they obviously don't. Actually, many studies have shown that when put into place in stores and in the public, those behind the cameras often use them to spy on women in bathrooms and other public places.

Many other studies also have shown that surveillance systems fail to stop any kind of street crime, including rape. In a recent article in the Scotsman, one of the top police stated that Britain's extensive surveillance camera network has been an "utter fiasco."

We should stop relying on the state to solve our problem. Instead of believing that the eyes and ears of the pigs will make us safe, we should get together with our neighbors, friends, and co-workers and take back our streets and living areas not only from rapists and the like - but from capital and the State.

Bearing in mind most survivors know their attacker and you're more likely to be raped at home than in public I still think, as a rape survivor, that targeting surveillance cameras is misguided, vile and evil.

And if someone you love is hurt in a public space with no witness take a cold hard look at yourselves in the mirror as ask what the fuck you're doing with your life. After taking your chicken-shit masks off of course.

One of the cameras you took didn't even belong to the university, it belonged to a local, private business owner and was used to protect his business. Now the camera will be replaced and enhanced and next time you buy a slice of pizza and a beer and wonder why the prices have gone up, now you'll know why.

Thank you for providing this valuable community service. Keep fighting the good fight.

Ashanti Alston Omowali is an anarchist activist, speaker, and writer, and former member of the Black Panther Party. He was a Black Liberation Army political prisoner for over 12 years. His speech at the All Power to the Imagination conference in Sarasota, Florida was recorded.
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/05/27/ashanti.mp3

This was a news story from today. This San Jose college student didn't even plan his daylight tagging stunts to occur in front of surveillance cameras, but provided the videowork himself, and placed it on youtube. Now he was turned in and faces payments for the damage. :(

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-buket29-2008may29,0,2194783.story

As someone who has been raped and sexually assaulted multiple times (including in public by strangers) I'm really glad those cameras are gone. Security cameras provide (for some) a bullshit sense of security, while in my mind invading my privacy on a daily basis. I don't feel empowered by knowing that someone is watching (out?) for me everywhere I go- I feel empowered by developing the personal skills necessary to kick the ass of anyone who tries to hurt me, and developing a community where that kind of attack is completely unacceptable and punishable by vigilante justice.

If you feel unsafe on campus or anywhere else because of your biological makeup, question the patriarchy that makes that possible, and in fact inevitable.

and ps, there are lots of free self-defense and fighting in general classes available in santa cruz, both through the womens' center on campus and Santa Cruz Free School, and probably other places as well.

It's so good to see that there're people willing to put their asses on the line to destroy the web of surveilance that's been imposed 'to give us safe streets'. Many thanks for doing your part to smash the grid!

the only thing we ever truly control is ourselves. And it is up to us to face that reality. Unfortunatly, the common society we live in has been brainwashed in to thinking that there will always be someone around that will watch out for us, someone to take care of us, some one to help us out when we're feeling down and out. Yeah it's great when we have friends around to help us, but we can't control what someone else does. We can place our faith in our friends but we can never be one hundred percent sure they are going to do what they say they will, they are humans not robots. However, these people, our friends, around us are tangible, their hands and eyes and ears are real, we are free to talk to them, hold them, share skills and projects with them.
These are things that build our security and our trust. However private establishments and the government want us to think that they can give us the same sense of security to us. Well the government isn't gonna come talk to me, wrap it's arms around me and tell me that it loves me, the government is never around when I am in danger of being victimized. Does the government think it can make up for it's lack of these things by overemphasizing the one thing it can do? watch?
And as it does this, it documents everything it sees from me buying groceries, to me going on a walk, me picking my nose, to me kissing my loved ones. I'm not sorry to say that I don't want surveillance form a camera to be part of my life. I don't know who or what is on the other end of that camera, but whatever it is, it doesn't make any effort to be my friend. It doesn't attempt to ask me if I'm alright when I trip and fall.
I control my life and you control your life. I look after myself and I look after my friends.
I am not sorry for the communities from which these surveillence cameras were taken. I am not sorry to say that I hope we can learn to watch out for each other. 'Each other' being real people in real time. Maybe then we will learn to find friends in each other. People we can trust.

We have the abilites to trust our friends and our communities, let's not let government and participating private establishments undermine that!

High powered lasers can also be aimed at the camera to burn out the CCD in the camera rendering them useless.

Cameras as security is bogus. The only security possible with it is protecting private property by threat of legal force.

As per social interactions, we will ALWAYS be safest trusting our own bodies rather than depending on an outside force to intervene. Cameras void us of this natural sense of instinct and security. We are safer now that these cameras are gone.

Besides, cameras are designed to control the masses at the hands of the few. It makes this domination so much easier that a person does not even need to be physically present to make their authoritarian presence known.

Word.

As a woman who deals with constant unwanted negative attention from men when I am alone, I do not feel like a couple cameras does ANYTHING to fix that.

there are cameras in the computer labs.

I think the point that is trying to be made is that in this time and age, we really have no privacy. High schools are being watched with security cameras even. The US is turning into london with all this security bullshit. I completely understand how this can help in the case of solving a crime, however I think the state moreover is abusing and using these tools to control and manipulate us. I am not willing to give up my right to privacy at the expense of several incidents. There are security cameras in halls, and what happens when someone rapes someone in a bathroom, we should no doubt put security in the stalls? You must draw the line somewhere. I am sorry about your incident, however I don't see a point in living life under a microscope by the government.

Check out the Naomi Klein write-up in the latest issue of Rolling Stone.

You start off by saying that they're used to monitor and track peoples activity and movement; in essence, saying they work.

Then you say they don't work; they don't catch crimes being committed; in essence, saying they don't effectively monitor or track activity.



How can they be working and not working at the same time?

they work at tracking people if such activity is desirable by the people behind the cameras.

they don't work at stopping crimes from occuring. many cities that embraced surveillance cameras are now getting rid of them, saying that they provide a negligable impact in actually stopping/convicting people for anti-social/violent behavior.

but i think you knew that but thought that you could put forward an obviously flawed argument and people wouldn't see right through it.

it works at one, but not at the other. do you need me to draw a diagram???

In both cases then, it's ineffective in stopping an activity or crime, but aids in identifying the perp.

And as such, if its enough of a deterrent that activists want to remove the camera so they can't be used to identify the activist, then by default its equally as effective in identifying the rapist. It can't do one and not the other if both are the same action: identifying activity. So "duh" back atcha with your flawed argument.

Or perhaps it's not flawed because your premise, per the first line of your post, is that the cops at UC are selectively identifying people. Is that your argument? If so, make the definitive statement you allude to and say that you think UC police use the cameras to identify activists but don't bother using them to identify other criminals. That appears to me to be the flawed argument you're proposing, but I don't want to assume...

http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=872671

Gues what guys? The university has already replaced the cameras you took out. Di not have much of a lasting effect on anything other than to cost the university money that could have been put to better use. Bravo to you.

they actually have not replaced all the cameras.

I have it on good authority they have all been replaced. Just because they did a better job hiding them doesn't mean they aren't there. Those big cameras are old technology. New cameras are smaller and easier to hide. Heck they were probably slated for replacement anyway.

Yep, they're back. They're just using the small ones with the round black covering.

with all the time and effort you put into taking those cameras you could have actually made a positive difference in this world. i'm not impressed. six well-off university students destroying surveillance cameras doesn't qualify as anarchism.

second, this call to some idealized notion of vigilante justice seems very wet-behind-the-ears. Mob mentality is what you are offering as a solution to police state? Mob mentality justice is what you are metaphorically arguing for in this destruction of surveillance cameras? Human rights can be fought for in collectives, but when has mob rule been effective in dealing with (allegedly) dangerous criminals?

Privacy is important, but please. I know there are hungry and sick people in santa cruz that need help more urgently than you need to make a poorly argued example.

Prisoners take direct action against surveillance cameras in Navasota TX

On or about March 13 2008, 3 groups of prisoners carried out a joint and coordinated direct action at the Luther unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, located in Navasota TX.

The 3 groups of prisoners in 3 of the 4 dorms in C-Hall masked themselves in homemade balaclavas and completely destroyed the $2000 dollar surveillance cameras that had recently been installed in the dorms.

despite intense pressure from prison administration all 54 men in each of the 3 dorms (162 men in total) maintained their solidarity in the face of harsh collective punishment and refused to inform on any of their fellow prisoners who carried out the action.

it is reported that in at least one of the dorms there was a meeting of the prisoners to plan the action in their dorm, discuss the possible outcome, and vote on the action.

This type of collective, coordinated direct action is largely unheard of in the draconian Texas prison system and the solidarity of the prisoners strikes fear into the hearts of the prison authorities. The total property destruction is estimated at close to $8000 Dollars which strikes at the pocket book of a vastly over extended prison industry that is experiencing chronic guard and budget shortages.

This past week of May 12 - 16 new cameras were installed in the dorm and extra security measures are being taken in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the direct action of March. Let us hope that the spirit of rebellion continues and grows.

-El Insurgente
unembedded in Texas prison

Good work. I just discovered they are filming everything that occurs in the Mens Rooms at the 41st ave. movie theater. There is even a sign. This disgusts me. Even the stalls. Does this bother anyone else?

I understand kids have to go, but parents need to take their kids to the restroom if they are too young. My mother even maged this when I was a child with no father around. Plus nearly every movie was R or PG13. There is no excuse.

Tim Rumford

These cameras have been on campus for a long time. They were there when most students enrolled. Knowing that they were there, in advance of making the decision to go there, students who find it objectionable should have made the decision to go elsewhere.

I have to agree with the person who posted that the cameras were there when you enrolled. Don't like the cameras? Go somewhere else to learn (or whatever it is you are doing there). I suspect the person or people involved in this fantasy are probably not on student aid either, and have a lot of nerve pretending to be anarchists when they go home during breaks to their well off parents. If you can't hack the curriculum (and based on the poor grammar skills of some of you, I can't imagine that you can), let someone else who really does want to learn have your seat. If you don't believe that having cameras available to discourage and/or capture vandals, rapists, etc. works, is that a good reason to destroy them? If you are not involved in, or planning on doing something illegal, then what do you have to worry about? You can pick your nose, scratch your butt, or give the finger to the camera if you are really that paranoid that someone is actually bothering to waste their time on you for such activities. Frankly, I think you overstate your importance, and the "importance" of this stupid useless act of vandalism.

Are you stupid, or just an apologist for the police state? We live in a society on a trajectory towards total surveillance. Would you tell someone born in London (where nearly all public streets are under surveillance as well as rigged with audio intercoms) that they should have chosen to be born elsewhere? Repression existed before we were born, and is increasing every day--our response should be revolt.

Read the communique, dunces. It does not say that the cameras were targeted for being ineffective or not working, that flawed discussion came up in the comments section only. The communique itself says "this was an act of rebellion to the social control in our daily lives. These cameras are the eyes of the police."

The world is passing you by: http://dailykos.com/. Real change is at hand and you are busy playing high school vandals.

right on brothers and sisters.
Lets takem all down.
TO HELL with their Nazi fascist surveillance police state!!!

Cameras are cheap, destroying them will only create the incentive to replace them with more cameras. The solution to the loss of privacy is not vandalism, but accountability. I would advise anyone who is concerned about this to take a look at David Brin's book The Transparent Society. This is the world we are moving toward, whether you like it or not. From amazon: " David Brin takes some of our worst notions about threats to privacy and sets them on their ears. According to Brin, there is no turning back the growth of public observation and inevitable loss of privacy--at least outside of our own homes. Too many of our transactions are already monitored: Brin asserts that cameras used to observe and reduce crime in public areas have been successful and are on the rise. There's even talk of bringing in microphones to augment the cameras. Brin has no doubt that it's only a matter of time before they're installed in numbers to cover every urban area in every developed nation. While this has the makings for an Orwellian nightmare, Brin argues that we can choose to make the same scenario a setting for even greater freedom. The determining factor is whether the power of observation and surveillance is held only by the police and the powerful or is shared by us all. In the latter case, Brin argues that people will have nothing to fear from the watchers because everyone will be watching each other. The cameras would become a public resource to assure that no mugger is hiding around the corner, our children are playing safely in the park, and police will not abuse their power. No simplistic Utopian, Brin also acknowledges the many dangers on the way. He discusses how open access to information can either threaten or enhance freedom. It is one thing, for example, to make the entire outdoors public and another thing to allow the cameras and microphones to snoop into our homes. He therefore spends a lot of pages examining what steps are required to assure that a transparent society evolves in a manner that enhances rather than restricts freedom. This is a challenging view of tomorrow and an exhilarating read for those who don't mind challenges to even the most well-entrenched cultural assumptions. "

"Those that would give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."
Benjamin Franklin
http://www.notbored.org/camera-abuses.html

I do not understand how being well off or being poor or white or loving or hating your parents can be used to refute a completely valid opinion. These people don't like the cameras so they chopped them down. What the hell does the situation they were born into have anything to do with the right or correctness of their own thoughts, actions, opinions?

What does being well-off have to do with the relevance of their action. Actually, a lot. The recent historical record has shown that well-off, middle class university students have achieved precious little when it comes to affecting change in this world. Furthermore, only a well-off, middle class university student could mistake the destruction of several cameras as "anarchy" and then take the time to write a "communique". The main problem is that well-off, middle class university students are in a privilaged position when it comes to the potential they have to create positive differences in society/the world. However, this gets squandered by romanticized visions of petty theft. The man who steals bread to feed his family is no anarchist, yet he is far more of a hero than the posters of this so-presented news event.

In other words, what the fuck do I care if a couple rich kids high on low-risk danger and idealism break a couple cameras, when, at the same time they could be saving lives contributing to underfunded organizations in.... bolivia, chad, you name it, where several dollars makes the difference of life or death in antibiotics/safe drinking water?

Not well off? On student loans? How many lives could you save with that money for your education, the education you're using to call camera-stealing ¨anarchism¨?

If they were senior citizens/retirees doing this as a prank I would be seriously interested, but as an event of art-- not anarchy.

Its interesting that almost all of the negative posts have been ad hominem attacks. Attack the people themselves who carried out the action to try de-legitimizing it, without actually responding to the action or the communique itself.

The last posts would have you believe that college students shouldn't try to resist the current system because they're not oppressed enough or "old". That is also assuming they the people who carried it out are actually college students, which they don't even claim to be in the original post. You'll notice that the article wasn't called "UCSC students destroy cameras".

What sense does it make to say only certain people should have the opportunity to rebel against their surroundings? EVERYONE SHOULD BE IN REBELLION AGAINST THIS FUCKED UP SYSTEM!

These people are out there risking their freedom to attack social control as they see fit. Why, instead of sitting back in your cubicle or dorm room (or FBI cointelpro office?) criticizing these folks for being "middle class white people" or whatever the fuck reason you think they shouldn't be allowed to rebel, and let YOUR actions do the talking. Get the fuck off the internet and into the streets. Or is your critique of these people actually your excuse for your own inaction? You have some "middle class white people" complex where that category of people (yourself included) should not rebel against their surroundings.....

Oh wait. I forgot. Its because internet posting idiots like you don't actually act, you just talk. Get the fuck off your asses and do something that is meaningful to YOU. This action was obviously meaningful for them. If you actually read their communique, you would realize why they were inspired to act. My guess is that people like you don't understand true passion. Perhaps thats why you cant relate?

Like these folks claim, these actions are easy to accomplish and easy to reproduce. Perhaps thats why they are so intimidating to folks like you, who don't want to see the rebellion against your precious status quo challenged. "Why don't you little 'rabble rousers' just send money to folks in some other continent instead... you can HELP them (dont try to actually help yourself), and you wont even have to present a challenge to MY comfort here! See! Everybody's happy." (We can all just pretend that it isn't the economic policies of this country that force people in the third world to live in shit conditions in the first place. Throwing a few bucks in their direction will surely solve the problems that the good ol' USA has created for them.)

different tactics, same goal!

My arguments are not ad hominem attacks. They have in fact been criticisms of ¨the action¨ (destroy cameras, write communique) based on the context of the assumed enculturation of the authors-- here, presumably well-off, middle class university students. My previous posts were: ¨this is pathetic¨ and ¨answer to previous post¨.

First, I explicitly argued in both posts that the authors of this action SHOULD be doing something that matters, rather than destroying cameras (which does not matter at all). I also did not say that the authors are not ¨oppressed or old enough¨-- in fact, I said they have --because of their position-- an obligation to rebel against the system in meaningful ways.

By the way, it is typical of college students to view their campus as their universe. Creative writing courses are filled with stories of college students, filmmaking classes have dozens of plots dealing with dormrooms, political activity often pertains to intercampus affairs. It is not without merit to assume the authors are in fact students at UCSC, even though that may not be the case.

¨These people are out there risking their freedom to attack social control¨ is exactly the thing I have a problem with. It is counterproductive to romanticize something so useless because it (in the words of the great Bill Hicks) lowers standards. What will be next? Shall I post an anarchist communique when I give the homeless man on my block five bucks? How do we react when a democratic candidate promises to protect the environment in ways we know are meaningless? Do we applaud them for doing so precious little?

Lastly, you yourself engage in an ad hominem attack there at the end of your post, assuming far more about my identity than I ever did toward the authors of this ¨action¨. Perhaps I should call it from now on ¨inaction¨, no?

I will now quote at length:

Perhaps thats why they are so intimidating to folks like you, who don't want to see the rebellion against your precious status quo challenged. "Why don't you little 'rabble rousers' just send money to folks in some other continent instead... you can HELP them (dont try to actually help yourself), and you wont even have to present a challenge to MY comfort here! See! Everybody's happy." (We can all just pretend that it isn't the economic policies of this country that force people in the third world to live in shit conditions in the first place. Throwing a few bucks in their direction will surely solve the problems that the good ol' USA has created for them.)


Maybe I should include at this point that I live in Argentina. Contributing money to Oxfam (for example) does not threaten my status quo. It would not help me pretend that the economic policies of the US are not largely responsible for the level of poverty globally. I am not happy.

Allow me to turn your assumption against you, if you will:

Perhaps YOU want to remain comfortable in YOUR status quo. Perhaps breaking surveillance cameras allows you to feel like you are rebelling against the system that's placed a slum two miles from here. Perhaps breaking cameras allows you to continue spending those fat dollars that could save lives on ... geology textbooks? free trade coffee? diet veggie burgers?

¨Throwing a few bucks in their direction¨ just might save a life or two. Breaking cameras and communique writing, well, maybe that's what you need to NOT challenge your comfort THERE.

Big Peace from the Deep South.

Perhaps you will think it naive of me to believe that the security cameras actually served a purpose other than invading privacy. Namely, to provide some security. We've all heard stories about sexual assault and stalking that occurs on college campuses, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that colleges are not doing enough ensure the saftey of female students. Now, I'm under no illusions that security cameras will eliminate campus rapes, or even that the majority of campus rape occurs on park benches or in darkly lit corridors, but when you're walking home alone at night, there's something to be said for security cameras. It's no substitute for being careful, but careful isn't always enough.

So, in my opinion, if you're going to destroy security cameras because they are a net negative, you still need to address the positive aspects that will be lost. I'm not trying to antagonize anarchists when I say this, but we can't wait for a radical restructuring of society to answer the question of public safety.

After discussing and looking at this post with my wife, Soledad, I have come to the realization that an apology is due. While I have my problems with some aspects of this action, I should not be making fun of or mocking people trying to make a positive difference. Especially when those people are... my peers, self-described members of the far left. So, I'm sorry. Especially if I said anything that might discourage anyone from trying to make a difference in this truly fucked up world. It is important to encourage people to fight against the police state and the culture of surveillance and zero privacy. Sole especially liked the post that says ¨a camera can't give me a hug¨, and I have to say she is right. She usually is. So, I apologize, especially for the last post from ¨the academy¨. That was more ill-concieved and immature than anything I was attacking in my posts.

To quote Bob Marley's top rankin':

They don't want to see us unite
All they want us to do is
Keep on fussin and fightin

They don't want to see us live together
All they want us to do is
Keep on killin on another

So, please accept my apologies-- keep on fighting... but don't be afraid to reach for the stars!

Joshua Schilling

Almost any time you threaten to harm someone or destroy property in the name of some revolution or movement, you alienate the opposition even further, and give them an excuse to gain funding to fight back. The security at the tree sit site is there because of the animal rights activists who attacked uc researchers. You can play pigs vs pirates all you like, but you gotta fight them in the day light with words and public policy changes, or they'll treat you like wild animals, which they ignore or destroy. Your power is in your public presence. We who see the error of the corporate consumerist ways are the true mainstream, we are proculture, not counterculture, we are the future, not the fringe. Progressive sustainability is not the alternative way, it is the way. Smashing cameras might be fun, and make you feel cool, or righteous, but it's more long lasting if you get people together, educate yourselves and rally public support to have them removed. I'm not saying it isn't bringing attention to the issue, and that's great, but if you don't have any follow through, admit it for what it is, blowing off steam. The machine will eat anything it can justifiably disrespect, and vandals and criminals are prime targets for inhumane treatment. Thank you, your intent is great, no effort goes unnoticed, just don't forget to keep learning how change has been made in the past rights movements. (Massive crowds, daylight and speakers, music, fun, direct action) History has always shown the conservatives to be overruled by common sense.

hey, im a technician and would like to have some of those cameras to study the technology.
however i do not agree with removing campus cameras. if i misread that these cameras were taken off an campus of an educational building. however schools did not used to have sutch good equipment, woman were paying for this because campus rapes were escalating. removing these cameras is puting people and woman in danger.
why make it easier for a rapist to target colage woman. as i see it people use any excuse they can to cause distruction. they invent problems as excuses to act out and rip off peoples propery. maybe it would be understandable if you found these cameras in a public restroom or some place truely violating privacy. kids these days i swear, they have no idea of what it means to be in public. a common thing i hear younger people saying to others, others siting at a cafe or something, well anyhow they talk about something ofensive in public and if someone coments on it in a way they dont want to hear, they freak out and tell you mind your own bussiness. they dont have common sense enough to realise they are in the public eye and are broadcasting thier personal bull all outward for all to hear. fact is theft is theft. your not helping a single person by ripping off multi hundred dolar camera technology. this cost people money and only students will pay. so all your really doing is helping the criminal element rape and steal and not be recorded.

The idea that removing street corner cameras endangers women, is a strawman argument. It doesn't. Cameras do not stop rapes from happening. They may assist, later, in the apprehension and punishment of rapists, but cameras themselves do not protect you. Women should take responsibility for their own safety, including carrying firearms. They shouldn't rely on a fascist authoritarian police state to protect them, because in a police state, exactly the opposite happens: the police become the rapists.

The cameras are not there to keep you safe. Destroy them whenever you see them.

Speaking of strawman arguments... anarchists don't make anyone safe. Aren't anarchists opposed to anything remotely connected to societal responsibility?

Security cameras can assist in prosecution and imprisonment of rapists, making them unable to continue to rape.

So yes, these cameras DO prevent women from being raped.

You know there's a reason we don't take you hippies seriously.