![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
richardf8From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22rooftop.html
By JIM DWYER
Published: December 22, 2005
A man and woman who shared an intimate moment on a secluded, dark rooftop one August night last year have learned that they were secretly watched, an intrusion made possible by increased police surveillance of protest rallies and other events and also by advanced technology intended to fight terrorists.
That night, police officers tracked bicycle riders moving through the streets of the Lower East Side from a custom-built, $9.8 million helicopter equipped with optical equipment able to display a license plate 1,000 feet away.
With the night vision of the helicopter's camera, and permission to make videotapes, an officer also recorded nearly four minutes of the couple on the terrace of a Second Avenue penthouse.
"When you watch the tape, it makes you feel kind of ill," said Jeffrey Rosner, 51, one of the two people. "I had no idea they were filming me - who would ever have an idea like that?"
The tape, broadcast earlier this year by WCBS-TV news, was made on Aug. 27, 2004, just before the Republican National Convention. That night, several thousand bicycle riders arrived for a group ride that did not have a permit.
The helicopter followed the riders but turned the camera on the couple. High above Second Avenue, they seemed to be shielded from view by a wall of shrubs and the nearly total darkness. The police camera, however, included special thermal-imaging equipment that yielded distinct, if ghostly, images.
Mr. Rosner, a music business executive who owns the penthouse, said he remembered a police helicopter hovering overhead, which he assumed was only monitoring the throng of bicycle riders below.
"I'm very happy about cameras in public spaces," Mr. Rosner said. "If you're in a public space doing something inappropriate, I'm all for that. But if I'm in my house and you're using multimillion-dollar equipment to film me, not at all."
Eileen Clancy, a forensic video analyst, observed that the scene was disclosed only because the same tape included images from the mass bicycle ride and had to be turned over for the trial of a rider.
Mr. Rosner has filed a complaint with the Police Department through his lawyer.
Asked about the incident, Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the department, said: "Aviation routinely checks and sometimes videotapes rooftop activity when someone's in a position to throw projectiles at officers below. In this instance, the officer was instructed afterward to terminate taping once it was determined a threat did not exist."
Mr. Rosner said the woman on the roof with him did not want to be identified or discuss the events. He said he was relieved the tape did not include even more personal moments.
"I am usually in favor of surveillance," Mr. Rosner said. The issue, he said, is "more the sensibility that the police think it's O.K. that they do that - it's about their own professionalism."
I find it very difficult to muster any sympathy for Mr. Rosner. He fails to understand the basic problem with surveillance, and he continues to fail to understand it even when he has been skewered by it. I've written a letter to the Times responding along these lines. I will share that sometime down the road.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22rooftop.html
Police Video Caught a Couple's Intimate Moment on a Manhattan Rooftop
By JIM DWYER
Published: December 22, 2005
A man and woman who shared an intimate moment on a secluded, dark rooftop one August night last year have learned that they were secretly watched, an intrusion made possible by increased police surveillance of protest rallies and other events and also by advanced technology intended to fight terrorists.
That night, police officers tracked bicycle riders moving through the streets of the Lower East Side from a custom-built, $9.8 million helicopter equipped with optical equipment able to display a license plate 1,000 feet away.
With the night vision of the helicopter's camera, and permission to make videotapes, an officer also recorded nearly four minutes of the couple on the terrace of a Second Avenue penthouse.
"When you watch the tape, it makes you feel kind of ill," said Jeffrey Rosner, 51, one of the two people. "I had no idea they were filming me - who would ever have an idea like that?"
The tape, broadcast earlier this year by WCBS-TV news, was made on Aug. 27, 2004, just before the Republican National Convention. That night, several thousand bicycle riders arrived for a group ride that did not have a permit.
The helicopter followed the riders but turned the camera on the couple. High above Second Avenue, they seemed to be shielded from view by a wall of shrubs and the nearly total darkness. The police camera, however, included special thermal-imaging equipment that yielded distinct, if ghostly, images.
Mr. Rosner, a music business executive who owns the penthouse, said he remembered a police helicopter hovering overhead, which he assumed was only monitoring the throng of bicycle riders below.
"I'm very happy about cameras in public spaces," Mr. Rosner said. "If you're in a public space doing something inappropriate, I'm all for that. But if I'm in my house and you're using multimillion-dollar equipment to film me, not at all."
Eileen Clancy, a forensic video analyst, observed that the scene was disclosed only because the same tape included images from the mass bicycle ride and had to be turned over for the trial of a rider.
Mr. Rosner has filed a complaint with the Police Department through his lawyer.
Asked about the incident, Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the department, said: "Aviation routinely checks and sometimes videotapes rooftop activity when someone's in a position to throw projectiles at officers below. In this instance, the officer was instructed afterward to terminate taping once it was determined a threat did not exist."
Mr. Rosner said the woman on the roof with him did not want to be identified or discuss the events. He said he was relieved the tape did not include even more personal moments.
"I am usually in favor of surveillance," Mr. Rosner said. The issue, he said, is "more the sensibility that the police think it's O.K. that they do that - it's about their own professionalism."
I find it very difficult to muster any sympathy for Mr. Rosner. He fails to understand the basic problem with surveillance, and he continues to fail to understand it even when he has been skewered by it. I've written a letter to the Times responding along these lines. I will share that sometime down the road.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 05:37 pm (UTC)OK, wait. He was out of doors, on his roof, butt bared to the heavens, and he's surprised? Does he not know there are satellites?
I'm not a big fan of highly expanded police powers, myself - far too easy and tempting for law enforcement to abuse them - but for heavens sake, Rosner was out of doors. Do you suppose a simple "dude, try snogging indoors if you want absolute privacy" might work...?
no subject
Date: 2005-12-23 09:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-23 09:55 pm (UTC)Don't want to get porny or raunchy in anyone's journal but my own, so suffice it to say I'm a bit surprised there was any, er, activity to film, considering it was cold.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-23 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-24 03:51 am (UTC)I don't think temperature was an issue.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-24 04:03 am (UTC)But you know, warm or cold?
I still think the man's a dumbass. Even if he isn't a cold-ass.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-24 05:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-24 05:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-24 03:53 am (UTC)I don't think temperature was an issue.