Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMassive Surveillance System in Pa. Town Raises Privacy Concerns
LANCASTER, Pa. — Horses drawing buggies regularly clop down the roads approaching Lancaster, a peaceful city in the heart of Amish country that had only three murders last year and relatively low crime.
![[In this photo taken Tuesday, Aug., 18, 2009, in Lancaster, Pa., a security camera is mounted to a utility pole overlooking Penn Square. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/surveillancecameras_lancaster.jpg "surveillancecameras_lancaster.jpg")
But if the community sounds reminiscent of the past, it also has some distinctly modern technology: 165 surveillance cameras that will keep watch over thousands of residents around the clock.
When it is complete, the surveillance system will be bigger than those in large cities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco and Boston. And the fact that it will be monitored by ordinary citizens has raised privacy concerns.
"They are using fear to sell the cameras as much as possible," said Charlie Crystle, a member of a fledgling citizens group that opposes the cameras and is trying to raise public awareness about them. "There's just a huge potential for personal and political abuse."
Officials in the city of 54,000 say the cameras have deterred crimes and helped solve them.
The white, domed cameras sit atop utility poles in public spaces, business districts and some residential areas. They are monitored 18 to 24 hours a day by employees of the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition, a nonprofit board with workers who report suspected crimes to police.
Lancaster is the seat of Lancaster County, a popular and peaceful tourist destination known for having one of the nation's largest Amish populations. Horses and buggies are common on surrounding roads.
The safety coalition, directed by City Councilman Joseph Morales, screens prospective monitors and provides training about racial profiling and how to spot trouble. The group has seven monitors, all paid. The coalition does not release their names.
Monitors sit in a room with two 42-inch plasma screens and six smaller ones, each divided into views of different cameras. A joystick allows them to zoom in or move the cameras if they see something unusual. If they do, they call police.
"What they are typically seeing is people in their everyday life going through their business," Morales said. "They're looking for anything out of the ordinary."
A special commission recommended the $2.7 million camera system in 2001 in response to a spike in some crimes. Police Chief Keith Sadler strongly supports having citizens monitor the cameras because he does not have the manpower to do it with a force of 159 officers, about 20 fewer than two years ago.
"In this economy, nobody has the luxury to take cops off the street," Sadler said. "You are probably watched more by non-police agencies than you are by us."
Lancaster has seen some declines in property crimes since the cameras went up, but those numbers have fluctuated — along with the totals for violent crimes.
Despite inconclusive statistical evidence, police and the commission say the cameras are providing officers with a new tool. Last year, commission workers called police 492 times and provided video to police 305 times. That work led to 82 arrests and 86 citations, as well as 18 charges pending.
Police also credit the cameras with helping to solve a murder in which a man was shot outside a restaurant and the shooting was caught on tape.
Other small cities have also invested in surveillance cameras, though not as heavily as Lancaster.
In Wilmington, Del., the city of about 73,000 developed a network of 21 publicly owned cameras and networked them with more than 200 private cameras owned by businesses.
That city also has 37 neighborhood cameras, and the combined system is monitored by a nonprofit group, which refers calls to the police.
Wilkes-Barre, a northeastern Pennsylvania city even smaller than Lancaster, is planning to install 150 cameras this year, also monitored by a nonprofit.
Some research has cast doubt on just how much surveillance systems reduce crime.
A January study by the University of California, Berkeley, found that cameras did not reduce homicide in San Francisco but did help reduce the number of burglaries and some thefts. A New York University study found that cameras did not do much to deter crime in some public housing projects.
Those findings and others are part of why Crystle and other critics do not think the effort is worth the risk in a small town like Lancaster.
He also points to examples such as Cambridge, Mass., where officials decided in February against adding surveillance cameras because of privacy concerns.
Crystle and others in Lancaster say they have done nothing to warrant being watched. Nick Boots, who owns a barber shop near a camera, said he thinks the city is using fear to gain support for the cameras.
"Through the fear of the perceived threat, people are willing to give up certain rights," Boots said. "You got to think of Lancaster now being like an open-air prison. Who's the warden?"
Others praise the project, including Francisco Cruz, 65, owner of Cruz Barber Shop, who said he's seen less drug dealing and fewer prostitutes outside his shop since cameras went up.
"I don't care if they put one right here in the shop," Cruz said.
The American Civil Liberties Union also objects to the project, especially since it covers the entire city — not just high-crime areas.
"When you have a blanket network of surveillance, you are no longer about solving crime," said ACLU attorney Mary Catherine Roper, citing studies that show cameras mainly help solve just small crimes. "Now you're talking about a surveillance community."
23 Comments so far
Show All"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." — Benjamin Franklin
That's quite a stupid move by the city. Actually, they have clear justification now for cutting their police force, which they should do.
We all should pare back the police in every city since they seem to think their job is spying on and arresting DNC/RNC protesters. We'd save a lot of money in this busted economy. Cops get paid really well, and they just munch doughnuts and arrest grannies. Crime has been declining for many years, despite what your TV tells you.
-TIA
"That's quite a stupid move by the city. Actually, they have clear justification now for cutting their police force, which they should do."
I think that it's a bigger mistake by the police department. The Chief is strongly in favor of them, too. He tells us that cities don't have the luxury to take police off the streets. In fact, that's just what he's done!
Are the members of the Lancaster P.D. associated with the F.O.P.? I hope not, because when it comes time for contract renewal, a huge bargaining chip was given to the city.
But you're right: The city now has justification for cutting jobs, and in this economy, they'd have no excuse for not doing so. Is it the right thing? Don't know. Is it the prudent thing? Sure seems like it.
In 2003, the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota (where I once lived) installed street surveillance cameras in its downtown area that are funded by Minnesota's own Wal-Mart, the TARGET corporation, which, like all big-box stores, I already boycotted.
I attempted to fight the surveillance cameras via city hall and the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, but the city council (comprised mostly of Clintonian Democrats) approved the project and the MnCLU didn't think they could win the case, saying they had fought surveillance cases before: is there not a significant legal difference between having surveillance cameras in PRIVATEly-owned buildings that are accessible to the public (e.g. banks), and having surveillance on PUBLIC streets? After the cameras went in, I wore tinted glasses or a brimmed hat when going downtown, and maintained a neutral expression. Needless to say, it made me very sad and angry to feel like an extra in a movie set in 1950s Moscow on streets where I'd once walked tipsy after dinner and drinks, once shared a romantic kiss, and many times sat outdoors to write. Was I afraid that anyone was watching me in particular? I'm not paranoid, yet the idea that someone COULD be watching definitely affects an aware person's behavior. Unfortunately, too many Minneapolitans seem oblivious to the surveillance cameras; in fact, "al fresco" dining (and drinking) in downtown Minneapolis is VERY popular during the summer months. Do people think public surveillance is just another version of YouTube?
I have come to believe that the real purpose of public surveillance is not to prevent crime, but to subconsciously make individual citizens fear one another: if governments and corporations convince us streets are so dangerous that cameras are needed, we are less likely to trust people and more likely to tolerate government and corporate "protections."
May the next American revolution begin by occluding the lenses of public surveillance cameras with chewed bubble gum!
FYI: http://mpls-watched.org/
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/35775res20080625.html
If you don't already, BOYCOTT TARGET!
Here we go! Another feature reminiscent of the Cuban surveillance program: the CDRs (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution) where they had people on watch 24/7 and snitching on each other just because they were jealous of the clothes somebody was wearing...
Just when you think you're safe, Communism (or is Fascism?) comes to Amerika!
A report that came out of London (the most completely camera'ed and facial software recognition'ed city on the globe) sometime in the last 2 weeks or so ( from the Guardian I think) stating that cameras do NOT help to deter or prevent street crime. They can get arrests after the fact up, but a deterence to crime?
Not!
Pete
Silly, goose...you don't really think they are for 'crime deterrence' do you?
Point taken.
Pete
In Montpelier Vermont the people who put parking tickets on cars with expired meters are volunteers. They are actually predatory and wait around for meters to expire so they can slap that $10 ticket down. In nice "friendly" Vermont.
There are plenty of people in this country who seek status and a sense of self-importance by being little hitlers. Give them a uniform and the ability to wield a little power over their fellow citizens and they feel better about themselves. It's pathetic and sick.
I hope the sabotage fairies visit Lancaster, they are certainly needed!
We deserve the government we get. If we lay down our liberties out of fear.... we really suck! People need to get off the prozac and Do Something!! We also need to talk to each other...everywhere, even the grocery store...tell people how this is wrong...chances are, the people you are talking to will also think it's wrong, they just haven't known it was alright to think so much less say anything about it. Oh what an Orwellian world we live in....
Last year, commission workers called police 492 times and provided video to police 305 times. That work led to 82 arrests and 86 citations, as well as 18 charges pending.
So, 492 police responses resulting in 82 arrests. I would consider this to be a waste of valuable police resources. The installation of these cameras in Lancaster will increase taxes to pay for the cameras and to pay for increased police wild goose chases in response to false reports of "suspicious activity". Great work, Lancaster, well done.
"Others praise the project, including Francisco Cruz, 65, owner of Cruz Barber Shop, who said he's seen less drug dealing and fewer prostitutes outside his shop since cameras went up."
So why didn't you call the police to report the prostitution and drug deals, Mr. Cruz? Perhaps you DESERVE a camera inside your shop, asshole.
If they put a camera in his shop he will quickly discover that the camera can also be used by the IRS to track how many times he stuffs cash into his register. Same with the state and the city. It doesn't matter if he is innocent. He will spend all his days off in tax court trying to prove it. Then there's the fired employee that claims he wasn't sweeping the floor after each customer as required by law. Then there's the fire marshal fines for too many people being in the building for one second. Then there's the DHS misidentifying one of his customers as a terrorist and destroying his credibility and business. Then there's the little girl that fell off the chair when he wasn't looking, and the monitor will need to call Child Services to have the child put into a foster home where she can't be abused. Of course after all this, no one in their right mind will go into his shop.
No, in the long run, he's probably not going to like an unaccountable camera in his shop after all.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Oh, and one more thing. Notice that it's NOT a public official or a publicly paid for person or persons who are watching, it's a PRIVATE company PAID for by those that are being spied on. They have NO accountability, do they? They have anonymity and will not be named. This is open to abuse and corruption just like everything else is. You think these people will be above board and honorable at all times? Fat chance. This system will be abused, mistakes will be made, and people will lose their freedom and very possibly their lives due to it.
And who is it that owns these private companies? People who are already FAR too wealthy and have NO respect for your life or your country.
This will be an authoritarian disaster, mark my words. NO good will ultimately come of it.
Let me get this straight. They set up all these cameras in order to monitor all the citizens of the town and, presumably, to then identify any perpetrators of wrongdoing.
But they won't release the names of the people doing the watching?
Oh, the air is thick with irony!
/start sarcasm
But, but.... how can the government protect us if it cannot see what's going on?
/end sarcasm
Amazing, isn't it, that in one of the least crime ridden areas of the country, they have been able to scare people enough that they are willing to give up their rights to be left alone and live like adults? Just astonishing that in a country that is supposed to be "free" that we insist on NOT being so.
Let them do this and the next thing will be cameras in your house to make sure you're not breaking the law THERE, too. Call me reactionary or paranoid, but I'm old enough to know that if you give someone an inch, they will screw you for a mile.
Another thing is this: The righties aren't willing to let you have single payer health care because it's an intrusion on your freedom, but they are more than willing to put you in a country where we are watched 24/7. How much more of a totalitarian state do you want?
For Christ's sake, folks, life is dangerous. You can be killed by walking across the street at the wrong time. You can slip in the bathtub and die. You can be injured by falling off a ladder. You can be electrocuted by removing a light bulb if you're a klutz. ANY of those things is more likely to happen to you than a "terrorist attack". You can NEVER make life 100% safe, nor should you try. And to allow ANYONE to spy on you 24/7 AND CHARGE YOU FOR IT, too, is a 100% sure fire remedy to any freedom that they tell you they are "protecting".
This is all the right wing paranoia and a desire to keep YOU away from THEIR money and power. That is the explanation of their authoritarian streak. It's all about keeping YOU out of THEIR business, while they spy on YOU. It's all about putting more of US in jail while they do everything to keep themselves OUT of it. Meanwhile, they are the ones who own the prison systems, the politicians, and the industries that are shafting YOU out of everything you have.
Authoritarians want to keep THEIR power intact and remove any that you might have to fight back. Why do you think the republicans are so rabid and insane right now? They see an end to what they have built up for the last 29 years, and they see that as the end of their lives as they LIKE them. It doesn't matter to them that they have RUINED the country, that is a small price to pay for them because THEY aren't paying for it. YOU are.
Cameras in a small town are nothing but a(nother) power grab by those who hate YOUR freedoms. What a shame. We USED to have a country, now we are heading towards, like article says, a land of open air prisons.
If you live in an apartment building, you already have cameras in the parking lot, the lobby, and the hallways.
You should also remember that every move you make is already tracked- via your credit, atm, discover, store loyalty, and airmiles cards.
We're microchipping petsd and kids - soon it will be everybody. As for a drivers licence, you'll be required to renew your microchip every 5 years.
It's all getting very air-tight, very claustrophobic. Back in the 60's there was a French movie called "Alphaville". Might be interesting to look at if you can find a copy. Also Soylent Green, Children of Men, Logan's Run, THX 1138.
But in England, street crime was so bad (they say), they installed cameras everywhere. The street crime rate went down. Be interesting to see whether that was actually true.
Bystander, ThomasJefferson, WJM have some excellent points.
(A paint-ball gun could also prove useful, or a generous dollop of K-Y or Vaseline.)
It's a tough call. When driving on I-95, I often wish there was a cop around to catch the crazy sombich that cut me off or the slowpoke in the fast lane. A camera could do it and issue tickets. But yeah, its opening a can of worms. Maybe if they were restricted to highways... but you know some conservanazis are going to start using them to regulate morality.
I'm sure Cruz would love to have the city install a camera right in his shop - that way he wouldn't have to pay for it himself.
That said, the streets are public spaces where anyone and everyone can watch and see what everyone else is doing. Cameras in the streets aren't a challenge to freedom at all. Not the cameras theselves. What may be a challenge to freedom is who is watching and with what intention and to whom this person is answerable.
Besides, how is a camera on the street different from a cop on the beat? An authority figure is watching, either way. I'd rather have a cop - a nice one, not one of these militarized tazer-crazed Judge Dredd wannabees - I'd love the streets to be human again.
Criminals can wait till the cop turns the corner if they want to knock over an old lady with a fat pocketbook. With cameras in the street, all they have to do is get hold of the schedule. Staff shortages in the observation rooms will make it impossible to watch any street all the time. The records will be incomplete because budget shortages will make it necessary to erase data every day.
Yes, we are moving toward Total Citizen Surveillance and Total Citizen Transparency - the wealthy will have their isolation, their privacy, and their private security forces to protect them, as always. The TCS in the form of biometrics, body scanners, and data files is already in place at border crossings and in airports.
If this were China, it wold be more worrying to have cameras in the streets, but this is America, where nothing works properly anyway.
Or the criminal who does not want to be seen can just set up an inexpesive laser pointer pointed at the camera. Most cameras cannot handle the overload and the observer can then not see a thing.
These cameras are like locks: they keep honest people honest but will have little effect on real criminals. Their main result will be the suppression of legitimate rights such as the right to assemble and the right of free speech.
How far away are the monitors in every home ala George Orwell's 1984? Those monitors will keep us safe because then we can watch the criminals counting their stacks of ill-gotten goods.
How far away are the monitors in every home ala George Orwell's 1984?
They are already there. Have been since the early ninetys
Pete
Not to give you guys stomach acid,
But my field of study was Computer science, and it's absolutely child's play to switch a computer's mike and built in camera to "hot" all the time. Or to spin the hard drive. In cooperation with the Fortune 500, you know this is pre-arranged between the manufacturers and the government. In fact new HP laptops take the fingerprint of everyone touching the screen. Billed as a way to secure your computer from intruders, it really works the other way around. Just what I want is my fingerprint scans sitting around on my hard drive for any rif-raf to swop into the files of an open murder investigation. When you consider the fact that a full third of convicts behind bars did not match the DNA evidence stored in their case folders when PCR comparison came out, you understand that this is a very real threat.
So guys,
Don't put anything on email or hard drives that you wouldn't show to your grandmother. But at the same time, realize that the ability to sift through 150 million Americans private "persons and papers" is a gigantic task. So bore em to death. They are not supposed to be looking at your private stuff anyway.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
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.
A computer is a personal effect that contains virtual papers, and the crazed bushmonkey's decision to allow the government to snoop in it is a violation of the Constitution. In 1770 Boston, we put our foot down and said "No troops in the town streets" (the Boston Massacre). These cameras in PA on every street pole are "virtual troops." In 1776 we said via the third amendment "No troops quartered in our houses". Any of the 15 intelligence agencies hot wiring your built-in laptop computer camera and mic is equivalent to a "virtual government monitor" being quartered in your house.
I say make private sub-contracted company cameras illegal. These are public streets (not private) and the tapes must be accessable to the public, not a faceless corp from hell. So what if crime happens? Liberty and perfect safety just don't go together. If you yearn for perfect safety, you'll wake up in a totalitarian police state. You have perfect safety from street crime in North Korea. Is it worth it?
TJ
"True Loyalty" [cannot exist] "in an arbitrary government"[because true loyalty] "is founded in the love and possession of liberty...The true object of loyalty is a good legal constitution, which, as it condemns every instance of oppression and lawless power, derives a certain remedy to the sufferer by allowing him to remonstrate his grievances, and pointing out methods of relief when the gentle arts of persuasion have lost their efficacy." - Samuel Adams, "Loyalty and Sedition" - 1750.
At the same time Lancaster is setting up this system to view its public the city is clamping down on Food Not Bombs. Lancaster is one of many American cities telling Food Not Bombs that they can only provide vegan meals with the hungry if they remove banners and literature about peace and social justice. In each case an "anonymous caller" reports the fact that a group Food Not Bombs is handing out meals. In most cases the caller turns out to be in support of the military, often military contractors. In Lancaster the health department showed up but instead of being concerned about the food they told the volunteers they had to remove the literature and banner.
Last month Food Not Bombs discovered a volunteer in Washington State was a military spy. The RNC 8 which were Food Not Bombs volunteers had their cook houses raided before the Republic National Convention and charged them with felonies. The FBI and Ramsey county police infiltrated Food Not Bombs in the Twin Cities for a year before the conference.
Please visit www.foodnotbombs.net/spy.html to see the details.
Thanks
Either the police are lazy or they've given up because there is so much crime. Now the city is a big Wal-Mart parking lot. Remember, Pennsylvania is home to the Keystone Kops and a cracked bell.