 
|
This historic town, where America’s founding fathers plotted during the Revolution and Milton Hershey later crafted his first chocolates, now boasts another distinction.
It may become the nation’s most closely watched small city.
Some 165 closed-circuit TV cameras soon will provide live, round-the-clock scrutiny of nearly every street, park and other public space used by the 55,000 residents and the town’s many tourists. That’s more outdoor cameras than are used by many major cities, including San Francisco and Boston.
Unlike anywhere else, cash-strapped Lancaster outsourced its surveillance to a private nonprofit group that hires civilians to tilt, pan and zoom the cameras — and to call police if they spot suspicious activity. No government agency is directly involved.
Perhaps most surprising, the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate about whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy.
“Years ago, there’s no way we could do this,” said Keith Sadler, Lancaster’s police chief. “It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and ‘1984.’ It’s just funny how Americans have softened on these issues.”
Given this guy’s name, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at his comment.
But Jack Bauer, owner of the city’s largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network “a great thing.” His store hasn’t been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby.
“There’s nothing wrong with instilling fear,” he said.
It’s not surveillance videos that bother me, it’s what corrupt government does with it.
Since I don’t trust it, I don’t want it directed at citizens.
Surveillance of government officials and the police mob on the other hand should be mandatory.
The Bush fascist regime
Eight years with Bush made people numb.
“There’s nothing wrong with instilling fear,” he said.
“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself.”
FDR
I believe that statement is quickly losing its appeal . . .
I just can’t stop thinking about how stupid that picture is.
It’s just funny how Americans have softened on these issues.
No shit!
The sad thing is, when you just sit back on your fat asses and let them get away with it, without even bothering to utter a peep of protest, it will get worse and worse and worse.
It’s inevitable. Look at Formerly Great Britain.
Softened?
Land of the Free, my ass! Home of the Brave, my ass! It’s time to change the anthem.
#5, really though, it’s not very consistent to get indignant about the government wanting to always keep its eyes on people at the same time they are standing around demanding that it provide them with everything.
“outweigh the loss of privacy”
There is no right to privacy in public places, but there are many ways to waste public money!
I see a market for high power pellet pistols.
I think this one would do.
And you guys are paying for all of this not this Jack Bauer moron!! Why can’t he buy the cameras himself, freaking cheapskate!
It’s what happens when populations aren’t allowed to protect themselves…they have to depend on the government to do it for them. Government ‘protection’ always leads to problems and like #1 says…who’s watching the watchers?
Finally, a topic that applies equally to no matter which President is hated.
What do you mean we aren’t allowed to protect ourselves? Police are hired and paid for by taxpayers… you and I. Do you pay a plumbers salary and then do all your own plumbing? Would you pay for a team of lawyers and then proceed… no demand… to represent yourself?
As populations get more concentrated, it becomes more difficult to maintain a safe standard of living. Having the people you hired install cameras in public places makes perfect sense. All the hand wringing over loss of freedom is bullshit. I am more free in walking down a street with security cameras than I am without. Tell me how a government official could use that against me if I’m a law abiding citizen?
The government isn’t some outside entity. They are hired management of USA citizens. If they get too personal and cocky, there are democratic ways to correct that. Putting a gun in everyones hand isn’t reasonable. It’s a stupid idea that should have died with in wild, wild west… pilgrim.
Dialing 911 works every single time and Always prevents a crime from happening.
Not.
So many horror stories, not worth documenting.
On the other hand Smith & Wesson does work every time and usually – granted, not always – but usually does a superb job in preventing a crime.
Cameras will provide great pictures of crimes being committed and do absolutly nothing to prevent crimes.
Everyone is Not forced to carry a firearm, it’s a personal choice. But surveillance is forced on everyone – with no personal choice.
I know Lancaster. Ten or 15 years ago, it was like the next city to the northeast on Route 222, Reading (Pennsylvania). People were afraid to go downtown. Their fears were well-placed. Personal property crimes and assaults were higher than the national norm for cities of their sizes. Beautiful, historic buildings were basically abandoned to gangstas and miscreants of all size, shape, and ethnicity. Drugs drove these crimes.
Shopping moved to Lancaster’s Park City Mall and Reading’s Berkshire Mall, both suburban centers, and the two cities’ downtowns lost assessed property value. Reading sought and received funding for corporate towers and a hockey arena, but the downtown area still emptied after 6:00.
A few months ago, I was looking at properties in both cities as places to live. Lancaster looked like a very nice, livable place – new construction, remodeled or rehabbed offices turned into residences, leafy green trees, a central farmers’ market, and of course the city square. Reading, on the other hand, looked terrible. A new IMAX theater which was supposed to bring suburbanites into the city had a riot on its recent inaugural night. There’s no train service to anywhere, and Lancaster has express service to Philadelphia and New York. The housing stock remains, for the most part in good shape. It’s simply that Reading is just another stop on the drug route between New York and Washington, DC and the rats who hung onto that enterprise were chased from there up the road.
I’m not claiming that cameras are a great idea, but I also don’t hear people complaining very much about Google’s Street View. It shows my current neighbor standing in front of his house smoking a cigarette. Big deal — but might that not boost his insurance rates if insurers went even more deeply into peoples’ lives?
The damage is done; we’ve lost our privacy. I must admit to feeling a little creeped out over the article when I read it in the NYT, but at the same time I felt comfortable thinking that an investment in a condo would not turn into a financial sinkhole.
So I say, go ahead – turn on the lights and let the rats scatter.
Re #13, vesuvian…but might that not boost his insurance rates if insurers went even more deeply into peoples’ lives?”
There is no damage done. If smoking were a factor of insurance rates, then your neighbour would be asked that up front upon application. If it’s not a factor, then seeing your neighbour on Google will have no effect at all. Regardless, it would cost insurance companies far more for the manpower to be searching Google street view for a near impossible chance of finding a client of theirs breaking a rule, than any benefit they might ever extract from it.
Absolute security is never worth it’s price to freedom. It never is. And yes, our founding fathers understood this quite well. They would be appalled. I’m appalled. Everyone but fascists should be appalled. Scratch that. Everyone who isn’t appalled is either a fascist or ignorant.
This is something worth fighting against.
This would do a better job.
For taking out cameras please do not use use that rifle. That thing can shoot through most brick buildings and lightly armored vehicles. There is no way to be sure of your backstop.
I don’t like the thought of being watched all the time but parks and such need to be watched all the time.
The problem is I would like some location I can let down my guard and be myself and take off all my cloths and run in circles and scream if I wish to. This is very hard to achieve in real life any more outside one’s own bedroom.
4 murders in a city of 55,000! No wonder they want better security. Where I live (York region, Ont) we have a population of 1,000,000 and last year had one murder. One too many.
A city of 55,000 should have 4 murders every century. Maybe it was a bad year.
#13
With results like that, it is very hard to argue about the loss of freedoms…there doesn’t appear to be any.
An old argument: Do you do whatever you need to get the job done. Or do you struggle against long odds to do what you feel is right?
#11, Tell me how a government official could use that against me if I’m a law abiding citizen?
“So, tell me Mr. R, why have you been hanging out with members of the opposite party? You do know they have a very, very bad reputation in these parts. There’s no use denying any wrongdoing. We have evidence that shows you consorting with “them” 18 times last month.
“Oh, you want your lawyer? We do, too. How coincidental! We’ve got pictures of him driving around with a very young woman. Does this look like his wife to you? No? I wonder if his wife knows about that?
“So, tell me. What do you guys talk about when you go for your strolls?”
Nope, no way it could be used against a law-abiding citizen.
LibertyLover, you are watching too many spy movies, LOL. If what you illustrated happens in the USA, security cameras in public places are the least of your worries. If you’re not breaking the law, video has zero evidence value.
So perhaps Lancaster is a good place to live for people who are willing to accept that kind of control in exchange for giving up some of their personal freedom. Lord knows we don’t have any when we use our computers or talk on wireline or wireless phones. This is simply an extension of it.
The next phase in the UK is the use of hooded sweatshirts to disguise miscreants. “Hoodies” are getting away with a lot and defeating the purpose of the cameras.
It really is a judgment call. The country is large enough and varied enough to allow for different environments for everyone. If people in Lancaster allow it to happen, they must want the order the cameras are supposed to bring. And as I originally said, it is a much nicer place today than its neighboring city, Reading.
I once read a science fiction story, part of which involved cameras on every corner that anyone could see the output of. Lots of citizens watched when they had time and crime was greatly decreased. Sounded like a good idea at the time. Of course, that was decades before solid state cameras got cheap and before the the Internet.
That was also before I read “1984”.
I rather like the idea that it’s _not_ the police watching in Lancaster, though as the full article says, they do have to be careful to keep out various voyeurs or people with axes to grind or burglars and other felons looking for targets.
What if all such cameras were available on the Net? Would enough people watch to make a difference? Would they get involved by contacting the authorities if they witnessed trouble? How many would be criminals looking for opportunities?
I used to live in an apartment complex where a bunch of the neighborhood kids got the idea that it was fun to play with the soft drink machines by loading the slots with pennies and slugs and then trying to get out the quarters unsuspecting people would put in. The machines were right behind the complex’s office. I thought putting a cheap camera on the machines with a monitor in the office would stop the problem. I never got around to suggesting it, though, as we moved about then to be closer to work. The point is, there are situations where cameras can help, with little danger of oppression.
On the other hand, there are few more chill-inducing phrases than “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
#21, I’m not so sure we haven’t got to that point by now. The No Fly List sure limits travel and for things no more serious than speaking one’s mind without the ability to appeal the ruling. Now they don’t have to know what you are saying, only that you are hanging out with people who spoke “their” mind in the past.
I hope you’re right. I hope we never see a situation such as that. However, 24/7 surveillance makes it much harder to avoid it.
#11
“..Tell me how a government official could use that against me if I’m a law abiding citizen?..”
Fortunately the corrupt cops getting arrested every year aren’t smart enough to photo-shop images like AP reporters. At least the ones getting caught aren’t…..
#23 Might be on to something.
Interesting variation, public broadcast. A variation of the old small village reaction to hearing/seeing something bad happen.
Though a bit creepy, Google is doing something similar, all on public property. With lots of people watching you have multiple personalities with multiple motivations. This constant ‘conflict’ self-corrects to a neutral position – or a battle 🙂