How much video camera surveillance would you be comfortable with?
One of our stories for Friday’s Post-Dispatch focuses on the town of Columbia, Ill., where residents are ponying up tax dollars to pay for a network of video cameras.
Says the story:
“Columbia, with a population of about 9,000, has 11 known cameras trained over the town’s 9 square miles. It’s a sleepy town with a big city approach to crime. Columbia police have turned to the cameras as a basic element of law enforcement, saying they’ll do whatever it takes to keep the town safe. But a civil rights group worries that advancing technology could allow police to spy on residents outside of public places.”
The city appropriated $2,250 for a park security camera in 2005. Police said they wanted to crack down on thousands of dollars worth of vandalism at city parks. In 2006, officials budgeted $8,400 for two more surveillance cameras. Last year, the budget included $18,000 for wireless surveillance cameras. Other money is spent on monitors and staffing, but the total amount spent on the program is unclear.
The story notes that crime hasn’t been a big problem in the city, though vandalism has dropped in the parks.
Would you be comfortable with city-owned cameras privy to every move you make? Some argue that if you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about. Does that argument wash with you?
Kurt is the director of social media for the Post-Dispatch, where he has worked since August 2002. He's been a journalist since 1982, covering municipal government, courts, education and two hurricanes as a reporter before becoming an editor. 
Columbia is a small homogeneous town… not even necessarily a suburb. If the residents and government there agree that cameras are for them, that’s great. But I don’t want any more in the City. Surveillance is creepy. Every building, every street corner practically has cameras. The best way to protect oneself is to be aware of your own surroundings and not rely on a false sense that the “Good Guys” are looking out for you.
If I can be on the street, in a park, a mall or parking lot and I personally can feel safe in my space than that is enough liberty for me. A camera video taping me walking, browsing, kissing a friend goodbye in exchange for someone spotting a gun toting nut and stopping him/her from causing me bodily harm just doesn’t feel like that big of a trade off to me. That’s where my mindset is.
Public is public. If your child is taken from your street, front yard, park or anywhere else, you better hope that there was a surveillance camera every step of the way. Living in todays world makes some of us uncomfortable with cameras and the thought of someone watching us. It is the safer alternative in some situations. Watch what you do and live with it. It might make for a happy ending someday for you.
I disagree with Ryan/E on police surveillance. Sure, there are lots of times when the police need to investigate criminal behavior without blowing cover. But there is something positive to say about a police force that is seen on the street. Their physical presence is more a deterrent to crime than many more surreptitious cameras. There is honesty and integrity involved when the men and women who represent the law are physically present. A tank of gas a day is a small price to pay for visible, accountable government.
I still belive the good people out weigh the bad people, so no camera’s for me. Gina why would a camera make you feel safe? If someone comits a crime to your person its done regardless of weather it was filmed or not, so the guy gets caught good,you have still been violated nothing changes that,and if you think camera’s will deter crime, well do you watch the news at all?
It seems that cameras only act as a deterrent to honest people.The criminals seem fairly oblivious,or else they are just too stupid to realize there are cameras ,given how often security footage is used to help solve crimes or posted online.The cameras would only increase safety if someone was actively monitoring them 24/7,with officers able to move immediately in the event of a crime.Otherwise, it seems they would give a false sense of security.I do think they have some utility for solving crimes, but I would hate to see them become so ubiquitous that the only place without cameras is the restroom.It also seems the widespread use of cameras would be ripe for abuse without limitations on their use.There have been enough legal questions regarding the legitimacy of red-light cameras.It seems many people get tickets as the registered owner of a vehicle, but with no proof of who was driving.
The comment about trading liberty for security, I believe was from Ben Franklin.I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not feeling anymore secure now than 20 years ago.It seems society has effectively lowered the bar so much on behavior and personal responsibility that anything goes with some segments of the population.How can people who don’t respect themselves have respect for others?
AH, so THAT’S how they intend to keep that county over 98% caucasian over the next few decades! Like Macoupin county, the demographics are entirely unnatural in this day and age. Let’s have cameras in the crappers and bedrooms since this country has lost most of its freedoms anyway. We mught as well be entertained while awaiting our last day. But who will hide the film that takes pics of the good old boys doing crimes? They just let them go now, but who will hide all that film when nosy do-gooders want everyone prosecuted equally?
I have given up trying to pretend we have the kind of country our PR says. Bring it ON! Just let someone else pay for all that jail cell space we will need to house all those offenders we will catch. I would think that insisting folks raise their kids right or get sterilized would help more than cameras since we all know the worst know full well how to disable cameras. Hell, all you really need is a scantily clad chick and the cops won’t be watching any crimes. LMAO God, Canada looks better day by day. The cameras aren’t the problem. The problem is our citizenry is so evil we think we need them to bring people in line. Perhaps we ARE infidels!
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This sort of neo-fascism blatantly disregards the 4th amendment. There is no probably cause to “search” my person with a video camera. The fact that this is being allowed to take place is a grim reminder that America has let their guard down when it comes to government oversight.
Another factor worth considering is the objective nature of the video evidence. It has already been mentioned that law enforcement officers are just as visible on video as are the public, and with appropriate oversight they are subject to prosecution just as much as average citizens.
But what about persons falsely accused and/or framed by crooked cops? If the video was available to prove a witness was lying and prevent a wrongful conviction, the camera would be worth almost any cost.
It comes down to how the cameras are placed and who does the monitoring.
If you trust the system, I suspect you’re for the cameras. If you don’t, then you’re against them.
I wouldn’t be opposed to the video feeds being web accessible, as was mentioned.
So to answer the question, I would say I’m for them with some rigid and sensible safeguards in place.
Security cameras In St. Louis!? Are you kidding? They should have one on every single street corner. My plan is that the City of STL will join forces with the US Army. In addition to having high security cameras in place, new army recruits will get their combat training for Iraq and Afghanistan on the streets of North St. Louis. It’s a win-win situation: we have better trained troops, and our streets become safe again. East St. Louis could follow suit, with Scott Air Force base in close proximity. Why the hell would the City invest millions in traffic light cameras when the crime rate, especially in North St. Louis, is among the worst in the entire world? Time for some real leadership.