As surveillance cameras proliferate throughout the Lehigh Valley, civil liberty activists are becoming increasingly concerned. An ACLU web page, You are Being Watched, tracks Big Brother "hot spots." has chronicled the use of these high tech spycams to watch a couple make love on a rooftop, monitor kissing by gay high school students, and film middle school students undressing in locker rooms.What's even worse is that they are ineffective. "Studies have shown that cameras are less useful than adding more police officers to neighborhoods, improving lighting conditions in parking lots, or holding meetings among officers and citizens to increase public education about how individuals can protect themselves."
"Studies have shown that cameras are less useful than adding more police officers to neighborhoods, improving lighting conditions in parking lots, or holding meetings among officers and citizens to increase public education about how individuals can protect themselves."
ReplyDeleteYes and no. If only cameras installed an there no increased police traffic, this is true. But when done together (lighting, community organizing, cameras and more police on the street), they have been shown to be remarkably effective. I noticed that the source of that information is the website itself. They were very intentional in crafting the language they used, making it seem that cameras aren't effective. In actuality, they are part of a comprehensive strategy of crime reduction.
If you want the sources that I have to verify this, hit me back channel.
Cameras are also a much better way to hand out taxpayer funds via no-bid contracts.
ReplyDeleteWhat you've listed here is very disturbing. What's more disturbing is that I'm sure the list goes on and on...
ReplyDeleteOne is entitled to as much privacy as one can maintain, but there is no constitutional protection of privacy. The privacy conjured from the Constitution by SCOTUS is a charade. Just ask anyone living under the court-ordered inspection regime of Ed Pawlowski.
ReplyDeleteYour government will tell what is private. It's change we can believe in.
gsbrace - Are you saying that cameras are effective in and of themselves, when combined with lighting, more police and community awareness? How does one evaluate the effectiveness/contribution of the cameras as compared to the rest of the package?
ReplyDeleteDo the other factors somehow enhance the effectiveness of cameras or is it possible that one or more of them is actually responsible for reducing a crime rate (which I assume is the measurement of effectiveness), with little effect from the cameras?
I have my doubts about cameras as a deterrent - we see lots of security camera tape on the TV news, showing various acts of robbery and mayhem by people who seem to be pretty undeterred by the camera. I won't argue that sometimes a suspect can be identified from tape, but does it happen often enough to justify the cost in both money and privacy?
Mickey,
ReplyDeletethe determination requires a control and variable study. When lighting, community organizing and increased police power are introduced, you get a certain number. When lighting, community organizing, increase police power AND cameras are introduced, you get a different number. Every study that I have seen suggests that the introduction of cameras with those other tactics does increase public safety. It's very easy to set up that kind of study. Simply increase lighting, community organizing and police power in a neighborhood. Test, track crime rate, crime type, location and frequency. Then, add cameras. Continue to track crime rate, type, location and frequency. Studies from Baltimore, NYC and London suggest that in concert with the other tactics, cameras do result in measurable improvements. I've also seen studies where cameras were the only tactic taken. Nothing changed.
I'll let everybody else fight about the costs and other issues such as privacy. I just wanted the record to be accurate. The link that bernie provided had carefully crafted language that allows people to imply something that isn't true.
Geoff,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you checking the link so carefully. That's something I should have done myself. I make no apology for any of my goofy opinions, but try to get my facts right. Your observation that the ACLU was, essentially, linking to itself, is right on the money.
so does this mean that i'm not going to get caught if i blow through a red light on hamilton? because i've done that a few times. accidentally, i assure you.
ReplyDeletegsbrace - Thanks for taking the time for a full answer. It does lead to one more question . . . if it is proven that cameras, or any of the other ingredients, are key in reducing crime rates, can someone ever justify a future study that requires delaying the introduction of that ingredient?(I'm not asking you for an answer,, I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak.)
ReplyDeleteAlso, I note that the ACLU quote doesn't say cameras are useless; it says that they are less useful than adding more police officers, inproving lighting, etc. If cameras by themselves have no impact, and adding police officers by itself does have some impact, then the statement is correct, isn't it?
However, I agree that you were right to point out the "self-linking" involved.