|
The Lancaster Voice
LCPJ-PO BOX 274
Lancaster, PA 17608-0274
631.512.3018
info@lancastervoice.org
www.LancasterVoice.org
To receive email updates (2-3 per
month), email
info@lancastervoice.org
Coordinator of LCPJ, John Schreck,
email
info@lancastervoice.org
|
Lancaster's Video Surveillance Program
by Bill Adams
 The attention
of the nation was focused on Lancaster for a brief moment due to its
unique video surveillance program. No where else nationally is
blanket video surveillance utilized to surveil whole neighborhoods
with a ratio of one camera to 300 residents. Why Lancaster? How did
this occur without extensive public dialogue? What are the results?
Is it effective? What type of oversight exists at a federal, state
and local levels? All reasonable questions.
This “video safety” program ostensibly
has its roots in the 2001 Crime Commission Report based on utilizing
the principles embodied in Kelling and Coles book “Fixing Broken
Windows” to combat crime . Shawn Dove, in a 1997 review of that book
published in “City Limits “ magazine, called the use of video
surveillance cameras the “antithesis” of the police/community
relationship outlined in that book. The anonymous eye in the sky
versus the rapport established through community based foot patrols.
Proponents of video surveillance claim the cameras don't see anything
a beat cop doesn't see but I have yet to meet the beat cop that can
focus on a license plate a block away, automatically switch to night
vision, and track someone who is ”up to no good” in the words of a
camera operator, from one end of the city to the other all without
moving. This amounts to a
warrantless search. Guilty until
proven innocent through surveillance.
While proponents of the use of cameras
would like you to believe, legally, this is a clear cut issue, it is
far from that. The proliferation of public surveillance has been
allowed to occur due to a void in our laws. While there are legal
protections in place for audio surveillance, no such protections exist
for video surveillance.
The current video surveillance of
Lancaster was the vision of the Lancaster Alliance in 2001. They
conducted a video surveillance feasibility study, an engineering study
of the proposed fiber optic system, and suggested the creation of the
LCSC to implement the program. The time to solicit public input was
before this vision started on the path to the present. Input was
solicited when it was a “done deal”. Legitimate objections were
raise and moratorium of the surveillance was called for but the
installation plowed ahead until the full compliment of cameras were
installed. The dissent was marginalize and the promise of increased
transparency was made but nothing of significance has happened to
date.
Lancaster and the choice of a private
501(3)C as the implementation vehicle were not accidental. Lancaster
has a long history of conservatism and most citizens have accepted
the “video safety” slogan without question. The quasi public/private
status of the LCSC allows their Director and a member of the board to
be City Councilmen at the same time. It also allows for an employee of
Bosch to sit on the LCSC's board while Bosch enjoys the status of an
“exclusive supplier”, something that would not exist if this was a
government run agency. Bosch was deeply involved with this from the
start, calling attention to the Bosch/LCSC link.
Britain has in excess of 4.2 millions
cameras in use getting their start in the mid nineties. The British
Home Office conducted a study in 2005 and found the cameras had no
statically significant impact on crime. Detective Chief Inspector
Mike Neville, head of Scotland Yard's Visual Images, Identifications
and Detections Office, told the 2008 Security Document World
Conference in London that the camera surveillance network has been "an
utter fiasco," and they do not act as deterrents to crime. So why is
Lancaster so eager to follow in their footsteps?
In a recent article in the Intell/New
Era, 1/18/10, Morales said "People were more concerned about what
they didn't know about the LCSC. I think the more information we can
put out, the more factual information we can make available to the
public, I think will dispel the misinformation,"
The facts of video surveillance as
shown by Britain's experience and the US are, they do not deter crime
they displace it. Actually violent crime increased in Lancaster since
the video cameras installation began. They aid in solving a small
percentage of committed crimes. The cost to maintain these systems
when they are installed places an undo burden either directly or
indirectly on the public.
So why did Bosch and Lancaster conceive
and establish the LCSC. Why did the founders of this initiative keep
a blind eye to Britain's actual experience. Look no further than the
profit motive. Compared to the UK and China, the US is an untapped
market place. Bosch needed a showcase for its video equipment.
Lancaster is the only north American city on their website listed as
a successful example of a center city municipal installation of their
equipment. Bosch donated cameras to seed the LCSC and it has paid
off. Recently Morales said “That distinction (Lancaster's is the
largest concentration of cameras, based on population, of any city in
the United States) has brought municipal and law-enforcement
representatives here from across the country to see how the Public
Safety Coalition's program operates. “ Exactly what Bosch hoped for
and with the culture of fear dominating our society these days, video
surveillance is an easy sell.
|
