The use of surveillance cameras
Since the Interim Police Chief Roy Vasque presented to the city councilors his proposal to install surveillance cameras in “hot spots” throughout the city, I started researching the issue. I will bring you next week what that means according to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the American Civil Liberties stand on it.
This is nothing new. Last summer, Frankie Caraballo spoke before the council insisting that this is the way to avoid violence in the city. My response at that time was that it is not economically feasible for our city because of the cost involved if they are going to be live cameras instead of just recording.
The memo sent to the mayor by Chief Vasque says, in part: “There will be a monitor placed in the Office of the Officer in Charge (OIC) of each shift, as well as the dispatch center. The data will be stored for 30 days. There are two types of cameras; those that may be fixed to monitor a static location and those installed with a pan-tilt-zoom capability to survey a wider range of view and/or a closer view.”
First, the Officer in Charge has many responsibilities during his shift and he cannot be looking at some screens with 28 cameras to detect if any crime is being committed. These cameras do not have sound to his or her eyes must be glued to the screens. Then, someone will have to be in charge of copying the videos to press charges and do the corresponding paperwork.
In 2011, while Dan Rivera was a councilor it was voted 8-0 (Marc Laplante was absent) for the installation of cameras in vacant lots to prevent illegal dumping. Those are different because they don’t have to respond immediately. When something is dumped, they check the video and go after the offender, if he or she can be identified.
They know the mayor’s intent is to get a job for a friend (maybe more than one) by creating an entire department to handle that workload. Yes, one person cannot do it and putting “a monitor in the office of the Officer in Charge” is a fallacy – for now. They’ll start complaining immediately.
Just think: Three shifts, seven days a week with coverage during the weekends will require at least six additional employees.
Meanwhile, I didn’t want to ignore it because I want to warn our residents that this is nothing but another maneuvering from the mayor to dupe all of us. The majority of the council members are already duped. More next week.
Another aspect to deal with is the stand of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). After I read all 68 pages of the study of the Fourth Amendment by American University, I’ll be able to speak with more accuracy as to whether this is a violation on our rights. Yes, we know that something has to be done to curve the violence in our city but, at what price or for whose benefit?
The ACLU doesn’t believe cameras to be an effective tool to combat crime and they warn us as to the dangers on the wrong hands. They said, “One problem with creating such a powerful surveillance system is that experience tells us it will inevitably be abused.”
Also, “Powerful surveillance tools also create temptations to abuse them for personal purposes. An investigation by the Detroit Free Press, for example, showed that a database available to Michigan law enforcement was used by officers to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists after traffic altercations, and track estranged spouses.”
Video camera systems are operated by humans who bring to the job all their existing prejudices and biases. Camera operators have been found to focus disproportionately on people of color.
Experts studying how the camera systems in Britain are operated have also found that the mostly male (and probably bored) operators frequently use the cameras to voyeuristically spy on women. Fully one in 10 women were targeted for entirely voyeuristic reasons
While the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution offers some protection against video searches conducted by the police, there are currently no general, legally enforceable rules to limit privacy invasions and protect against abuse of CCTV systems.
The ACLU believes that its benefits – preventing at most a few street crimes, and probably none – are disproportionately small.
Our shameful City Council
The Lawrence City Council will be meeting on Tuesday, April 3 and I noticed a posting from Rich Russell on Facebook offering some suggestions that I wished I thought of them. With his permission, I am reproducing it here for your input.
Rich Russell From next Tuesday’s agenda, this work of art of an agenda item: 132/18-ID badges for council members! Dynamite idea, but how about carrying a step further? Why not see if we can get a bulk rate on GPS ankle bracelets so we can see where our AWOL CITY Councilors are when they miss council and committee meetings? An idea long overdue! How about electric shock collars similar to the wireless dog fences just to let the councilors know that if they go out of town prior to a meeting, they will be notified in a shocking manner? Or maybe putting their faces on the sides on milk cartons just to let people know what some of them really look like?
Great ideas! They continue to embarrass the city with their behavior. Look what happened at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting with TV cameras from Boston waiting for them. Didn’t they know in the morning who wouldn’t be able to make the meeting? This city deserves what they get!
