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. 
I am totally in favor of having cameras in any public place that would normally be patrolled by the police anyway. They can put one in my front yard as far as I’m concerned, but I’ll settle for the public places. I have nothing to hide and I conduct myself lawfully so why would I care if they put cameras up to protect the public? I think people are missing the point that they are designed to protect us and not to snoop on our privacy. Get over yourselves or clean up your act so that you don’t have to fear that you’ll be seen.
I think this reporter has been misled. Cameras are an excellent pro-active approach to keep our community safe. I think it is ashame he has tried to make the police department look bad for having cameras installed. And yes, there is policy on how cameras can and cannot be used (AKA the Illinois Compiled Statutes). The Columbia Police Department is one of the finest in the area. I wish the police department had enough money to place a camera on every city street. What an excellent way to prevent and solve crime. Instead the City Council would like to spend money on a frivolous law suit, which could easily be solved by agreeing upon the development (this was previously agreed upon by contract).
Sluggo- I recommend Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territiories of Canada. It seems to fit your requirements.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
This is one of my favorite quotes. I thought it was from Ben Franklin, but I have seen some info that this may not be his quote.
Still great none the less.
I sometimes think I would be OK with the uses to prosecute felony crimes, but it will never stop there, soon you won’t be able to fart outside your house without the government knowing about it, and probably in your house too. 1984 here we come
I am a law abiding citizen but you cross the line when you need a camera to babysit thats what neighborhood watch groups are for,not only do they get people involved with the safty and well-being of the area where they live it creates a commuinty willing to protect themselves,but go ahead stay inside and lock your doors,stay uninvolved let the cameras cast judgement as long as you all feel safe.
maybe they can equipt these cameras with a taezer,zap the hell out of the bad guys!
Short answer: None. That’s the only acceptable answer. Anything else gets into grey area, and no one wins. Surveillance yes/no is an easy, black/white issue. However, if you say yes, then you have to determine how much. Some people maybe only want a little, some maybe a lot. What I have no doubt about, though, is that, once we allow any surveillance, the amount will always increase. The argument will always be “look, it works here”, regardless of the counterevidence. So it is indeed a slippery slope. So what was an acceptable level of surveillance is now too much, to the point where it’s too much for everyone. We should be striving to make the machinations of government more transparent, not allowing the government to control us.
Anyone with the lame “nothing to hide” argument - read this: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
It’s a stupid argument. Read security expert Bruce Schneier’s take on why all this stuff is useless: http://www.schneier.com/essay-109.html among others.
Also, research what effect Britain’s massive surveillance network has had. (You won’t like it if you favor cameras.) You have to realize that you can’t just put up a few cameras and stop all crime. That’s just asinine, and it’s just treating symptoms, not cause. Sure sometimes they might be useful, but the tradeoffs aren’t worth it.
And it’s “cameras”, not “camera’s”. Apostrophes are used for possessives, not pluralization.
Times have changed since Ben Franklin was around.
He could not have forseen the times we live in now.
They didnt have a huge population to police as we do now. No cars that could outrun everyone. No teenage drivers talking on cell phones. Respect was taught at home and parents were in control of their kids not the other way around No shopping malls with acres of parking. No driveby shootings using gun that fire 50 bullets a second.
Sorry but times have changed.
And we must change with it.
“Times have changed since Ben Franklin was around.
He could not have forseen the times we live in now.”
Sorry, but I call BS. His quote is about principles, and principles don’t change. The principle is you don’t lock yourself in a box just because it might be dangerous to go outside. You don’t hand over your freedom for a 1% or whatever increase in safety. That’s true whether the dangers are pirates (or whatever 18th century danger is appropriate) or gangs. He supported freedom of speech. We don’t say that doesn’t apply anymore because he couldn’t have forseen the internet all the idiotic things people would say on it. If anything it makes resilience in the face of oppressors all the more important.
“Respect was taught at home and parents were in control of their kids”
Perhaps that’s something that could be fixed instead?
I don’t know if my earlier post will go through, but here’s something for all the people with the “Nothing to hide” argument to read:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
No public cameras without a warrant, and those installations should be targeted and temporary.
What people seem to not understand here is a camera cannot come to your aid. All a camera can do is record what happens, not intervene or prevent it. It can take a really nice picture of my dead body, but that doesn’t help me.
Pictures aren’t airtight unalterable evidence. They can and have been used for ulterior motives, and can be altered digitally to ‘prove’ almost anything. They don’t do anything at all except after the fact. They just make some control freaks feel good.
I don’t think much of private unmanned cameras either. You can put a camera on a bank counter, but if someone isn’t there to push a button, lock the doors, call the police, the amount of effort to track down the perp isn’t any more than training the employees to get a good description if there is an incident, and you’ve already got to pay the employee.
I don’t shop in stores with obvious cameras, or that brag about them.
If we want surveillance, let’s use real people. If it’s good enough for inmates in jails, it should be good enough for the rest of us.