Project NOLA - 500+ Camera City System at 90% Lower Cost

By Carlton Purvis, Published Dec 03, 2013, 12:00am EST (Info+)

The most disastrous citywide surveillance system is likely from New Orleans. After spending more than $10 million, it resulted in criminal charges and convictions .... unfortunately against the people involved in deploying it [link no longer available]. Now, it exists as a zombie, offline but still consuming tens of thousands in electrical costs [link no longer available].

At the same time, an online surveillance retailer has quietly built a 500+ all HD city system in New Orleans at 90 percent less than the original city system cost. What's the catch and tradeoffs?

** **** ****, ** ******* *** cameras, ******* *** ************** ** **** system, *********** ******* **** ***** ** a ******** *** ***** ******.

**********

** ****, ***** *******, * ****** police ******* *** ************, *************** ****** * *** ** ******** *** amount ** ******** *** ****** ***** provide ****** ***** * ***** *** give ***** *** *********** ****** *********** awareness.

“** ****** ** **** ****** * way ** **** **** ********* *** was ****** ***** *** *** **’** ****** here ** **** ******** *** ********** of *** *** ******* ******,” ** said. *** ******* ******** ************ ******* to *** ****** *** ********** ****** and ** **** **** *** ******* to **** ***** ****** ***** ******. ******* NOLA **** **** * ******* *** emergency ****** *** ******** ********* ****** to ****** ******** *** ****** *** enforcement ***********. 

Project **** *****

*** ****** ************ ******** / ******* founder ****** ****:

  • ****** *** **** ** ****, ******* NOLA *** ******** ** ** ******* of ******** ************** ** *** *******.
  • ******* **** ******* **** *** ****** clear **** **** *** ***** *****. 

The ******* 

*** ******* *** ******, ******* ******.

“** *** ********* ** **** ***** a *** ** ******* *********. *** we’re ****** ***-*** **** ********, *** as **** ** **’* ***** **********, we’ll *** ** **** *** ******,” he ****.

**** ************ *** *** ******** *** offered ** ******* **** *** $***. It ******** ** * *.*** ********** IR ******, * *** ******** *** a ** **** ***** ***** (**** ***** ****). ** **** ******** ******** **** *******. 

************ *** ** ********** $**.** *** if *** ****** **** ** ****** in *** ******** ** * ****** homicide *** ** ********** $**.** ** is *** ****** ** ** * fixed ****** ** ******* ******* **********. On *** ***** ****, ** *** participant ******* ** ****** *** ****** they "*** ** *********** ******* ** early *********** *** ** $***."

******** ** ****'* ****** **** **** do **** ** ** ***** ****, these ******'* ************** *** **** ******* to *** ***** *** **** **** included **** ** ******** ****** **** $*** ** ****.

****** ******

******* **** ******************** ****** ** ******** ****** ***********. It ** **** *** ***** ****** for ******* ** *** *****, ********* better **** ****** ****** **** **** many ******** ********** *** **** ** but *** ******* *** ** / IP *******.

*******

“** ****** ** ** *** ****** and *** *********** *** ** ******* that ****** ******* ** ************, *** they ***’* **** ***** ** **** forever,” ******* ****. ** **** ***, video ** **** ****** *** ** days -- **** *** *** ********** the ****** **** **** *********** ****. “It’s *** ***** ** **** * crime ******* ** *** **-*** *********," he ****. 

*** ***** *** *** ***+ ******* is ****** ** ******* ** ******* NOLA's ************. 

**********

*** ******* *** ****** ********* *** are *** ****** ********* ****. ********* will *********** ******* ****** ***** ****** like ***** **** ** ***** **** the ********* *** ******* *** *******, but ** * ***-**-*** *****, ******* NOLA ***** ***** ***** ** **** and ****** ******* *******.

**** ***** ** * ******** ** major ********, ******* **** *********** ****** putting ******** * ***** ******* *** law ***********. “** *** ***** *** he ****** ** *** ********** ****** **** make ** ** *** ***** *****,” he ****.

****** ** *** **** ****** ** the *******. "**** **** ** ** ******* us, *** ** *** ****** ***** to ****** **** *** ****** ******," he ****. **** **** ******* ****** ******* traffic *** **** ** ***** **** should ** ********. *** ***** ** sent ** ** *** ****** *** where *** *********** *** ******** *** review *****.

*******

** ***** ******* ****’* ******* ****** to ****** *******, **** **** ** connected ** * *********’* ********. ** a ****** *****'* **** **** ******** service, ******* **** *** ****** *** an ********* **** *** ***** ********* company ** ******* ******** ** * reduced ***** *** ****** *** **** to ** * **** ** ******* NOLA.

“**** *** ****** ****** ** *** the ******* ***** ** ************ ********** areas ** *** ****,” ******** ****.

** ******* **** ******* **** ** simply ******* ***** ** ********* ** these ******* ** *** ***** *** special ***** **** / *********** *** capabilities.

Non-Profit ******

******* **** ******* **** *** ***** been ***** ****** *****. ** ******* out ** * **** ******* **** his **** *******,**** ***********. ***** ******* *** *********** ** 1994, ** ******* **** ***********, **** in **** ** ******* ******* ****.

"** ********* **** *** ******* **** selling *** ******* ***** ************ ********** and ******* *** ****** *** *****. We **** **** ****** ** ********* fund *** *** ***-****** ********, ******* NOLA," ** ****.

**** *********** **** $***,*** ** ****** the *******. ******* **** **** **** the ***** *** ******* ** ********** in *** ****** *******. **** ** began ******* *** $*** ****. ***** adoption ******, ******* **** *** ******* non-profit ******. *** *** ******* **** funding **** **** *********** *** ** able ** **** ********* **** *** public. *** ******* ******** ** *** came **** * *** ******* ******* who **** $**,*** *** ****** ** have ** ******* **** ******* ********* in * ************.

Pros *** **** ** **** ********

*** ******* ********* ** ******* *** low ****. **** **** ******************* ********* **** $**,*** ** **** per ******. **** ******* ****'* ********, having ********** ***** ** ** ***** property *** ***** ******** ******** ******, the ***** **** *** ****** ***** dramatically. ** ***** ** **** ***** $1,000 *** ****** *** **.

*** ****** **** ******* ********* ** that ** **** *** ******* **** approval *** *** ** **** ** concerned ********.

*******, ***** *** * ****** ** major ********* ** ****:

  • ********* ** ********** *** ****** ****** choose ***** ******* *** *******.
  • ********** ** * ******* ****** *** is *********** ******** ****** / ******** responsibility. 
  • ********* ** ***** ******** *** ****** to ******.
  • ******* ** ******* **** ********** ** cameras.

** ** **** ** ***** **** a **** **** ************ ** ****** overall **** **** ******* **** ** doing. ** *** ***** ****, ***** the ******* ********* ** **** *** complexity, ** ***** ******* **** *** benefits **** *** ******* **** ************ projects **** ****** ** **** ********* and ************ *******.

******, ** ******* * ******* ******** would ************ *** ************ *******.

Comments (13)

Interesting. I know at one time a significant amount of this system was running OnSSI? Many of the cameras were also Sony. Is that system still running? Has it been scrapped entirely?

Which system? Project NOLA or the 'official' New Orleans city surveillance system?

To be fair I thought they were one in the same, regardless, it's a political nightmare down there.

They are completely different. One is the city's own traditional system. The other is a 'crowdsourced' effort lead by an online retailer.

John,

Are there legal hurdles here with chain of custody or rights to the video? How about privacy concerns?

Presumably, these cameras are pointed towards public areas, so in the US it's almost always considered fair game, with no expectation of privacy.

I do not see any legal hurdles with video from this type of system. It's not much different than a homeowner catching a crime committed outside his house and sharing it to the police.

My concern was what if, since they don't have exact control over the placement or view of the cams, the cam owner points the cam inside the window of a neighbor? Or over a fence and into the backyard of their neighbor to watch their hot tub?

Does Project NOLA have liability? Do they have reponsibility to oversee placement of cameras?

There are so many red herrings here that I don't see this thing being as simple as described or lasting very long.

"... if the participant decides to remove the camera they 'may be immediately charged an early termination fee of $150.'"

If they don't adhere to the terms (keeping the cameras from facing places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then they're out of the network.

Jon, as we discussed in the hot tub case, there's little legal ground for someone (in the US). They could destroy the camera or beat up the neighbor, I suppose, but winning a lawsuit is unlikely.

Jon, Project NOLA owns the video and they provide it to law enforcement as a courtesy. There have not been any chain of custody issues yet.

Can you expand a little more on your question about privacy concerns? In general have people had privacy concerns? Yes, but I think that's par for the course for any city system. Can you be more specific?

As long as it is being gathered by a private entity, there are no chain of custody issues until it gets into law enforcment's hands. However, anyone still incurs civil liablity and that camera system definately could be a target for those prosecuted by footage from project NOLA.

This is something I wish more jurisdictions would do, I would love to know more about it.

Hi Steve, how could the camera system be a target for civil liability? You mean someone might sue Project NOLA? If so, on what grounds?

Lagarde contacted me today and said the number of cameras just reached 600.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports