In an Express Times article by Michael Buck, a new plan to install security cameras in the West Ward along Northampton is outlined. I know residents seem to be split on this issue--some residents say they will feel safer and that having security cameras might cut down on crime, while others feel that it makes the neighborhood look like a police state. Still others worry that it will discourage good families from buying homes in our neighborhood. Some are ok with more cameras as long as they are they are hidden from view, while others feel that that would defeat the purpose--deterring crime. How do you feel about it?
Posts
12 comments:
You're right that this is a controversial issue. I think it's generally agreed that security cameras at high-crime locations can sometimes help solve crimes [although criminals know to wear hoodies or ski masks to obscure their races].
Study after study has shown that surveillance cameras, do not prevent or deter crime. They occasionally seem to have a barely-measurable tendency to displace crime to the next block.
They are, however, an invasion of the public's right to privacy. Did you know that the typical modern surveillance camera is controlled by an operator who can choose to aim the camera with a joystick and zoom in so close that it's like standing right next to you. There are many, many real civil liberties issues that I can't go into in this comment. If people want more information, they can email the local Bill of Rights Defense Committee at rights@sustainlv.org. The American Civil Liberties Union of PA also has a lot of information on this issue.
I would absolutely love to see more cameras out and about.
The deterrent value is high, and I'm sure it will make a huge impact locally. Feel free to put one up on our block, love to have it.
Thanks,
David
The approach seems more a PR move to me. I'm sure somebody thinks they work. I don't. Cost vs effect is the key. How much was spent? What alternative needs could have used the equivilent amount of money? Past figures for similar programs have been very steep.
I hate to hear the rationalization that we spent grant money so it really isn't costing us anything. Grant money comes from somewhere - usually us in a roundabout way. How it gets spent always effects someone else's needs someplace.
DRL
The approach seems more a PR move to me. I'm sure somebody thinks they work. I don't. Cost vs effect is the key. How much was spent? What alternative needs could have used the equivilent amount of money? Past figures for similar programs have been very steep.
I hate to hear the rationalization that "we spent grant money so it really isn't costing us anything". Grant money comes from somewhere - usually us in a roundabout way. How it gets spent always effects someone else's needs someplace.
DRL
I love them. The more the better. I don't do anything that
I need to hide from so it isn't an invasion into my privacy. I also believe that I have read that they do deter crime. The EAston Police as I understand it have really upped their technology. It shows. They are oding a great job and these new tools will make them even more effective in the war to take back our neighborhoods.
This is a controversial issue. Many do not mind giving over privacy in the name of security. Not only do I have concerns regarding government privacy I have real concerns about my neighbors who have cameras monitoring the street and my house front and back. Very unsettling especially with children around.
As Easton was such a popular hangout for our founding fathers, their ghosts keep up with this blog too. A comment from Benjamin Franklin on this post:
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Is the issue about liberty? Or privacy.
The minute you step out your door someone may be watching you and even filming you. I am very conscious of windows that are everywhere and have taken pains to privitize my yard with plantings so I can sit there without feeling self conscious. Thats the price of dense residential living. Self awareness is the best defense. And I am perfectly free to not act illegally or like an idiot. I can live with that.
Anon 9:11 It's an interesting debate because it's a fine line between privacy and liberty, and it certainly falls under the category of civil liberties. Another similar issue is our last administration's assertion that the government has the right to read our email while they look for terrorists. Where do you stand on that one?
I'm torn about the cameras. I know peterkc has done much research on varius methods of social justice (he teaches social justice internships for lafayette) and if he says there is no evidence to prove that cameras deter crime, then suddenly spending over $400K on cameras becomes a very worthwhile topic for resident taxpayers to debate.
There have been a string of somewhat consistant car vandlisms/ property damage issues on my block that I think this could be a pretty easy deterent of. For the most part, more survaliance makes me somewhat uncomfortable, but there are at least some useful applications that could argue for the use of cameras as a crime deterent in certian areas.
More to the civil liberties topic--I saw a segment on TV today on the body scanners that are being used in airport security stations now to combat terrorism. They say they could have caught the underwear bomber in advance if they had had these machines at the time. They admit that it's pretty much like stripping someone naked, and that you can see genitalia, but that it's not an invasion of privacy because the image is not attached to a name or face (as if the guy at security isn't going to see your face or give you the eye when you walk through the scanner) and the images are fleeting and not being saved. Well, it turns out that hundreds of scans have been saved and were sent to a university in Florida to be used in training, which is what the uproar was about on cable today.
I mean, really--how far are we willing to go for a sense of security? Drugs, chemicals and small weapons can be brought aboard a plane internally as well--should we all submit to internal prodding and probing? Where do we draw the line and say that our civil liberties are as important as our security?
I'm just throwing this out there for discussion--I'm still torn on the security cameras on Northampton.
I'm on board with Ben:
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
I don't think cameras are the answer but active communities are.
Post a Comment