I'm a fan of both anyway, but I'm extremely pleased with the way both have addressed the issue of placing police cameras downtown.
First, Barry Connell. He's been the only person to consistently question the need for the three and soon to be four police cameras downtown, and I appreciate his willingness to speak. I've had concerns myself. I've wondered if the cameras were necessary, and what sort of precedent we're setting with their presence.
Conversations with friends led me to put away - but not throw away - my concerns. I concede cameras provide efficient coverage of our downtown, but I want assurances that the cameras stay there.
And that's where friend, neighbor and right-now Ward 4 Councilor Ed Cameron comes in.
Cameron, in my opinion, has devised a reasonable plan.
In the age of technology, when cameras are becoming more commonplace for such purposes, Councilor Ed Cameron is seeking to ink a new law into the city's ordinances that will require no more be erected for surveillance of the public without getting a review and permission of the mayor and City Council.
"All I want is for there to be some type of public input every time there's going to be a permanent camera installed for surveillance purposes," Cameron said.
Is this a perfect plan? Probably not. People who still have valid concerns about police surveillance won't be happy. But this would at least foster discussion over the inevitable plans to add more cameras in the future as improving technologies and declining prices make them even more attractive to police.
22 comments:
The cameras are not the problem. The storage of the video is the problem. Using software to compare stored images with current images to track people is an even bigger problem. (We won't mention the problem of bored operators scanning the windows of the surrounding apartments.)
A number of studies have shown NO decrease in crime in places covered by cameras. England has them everywhere, to no discernible effect.
The problem of Inn Street can be solved by having the operator get off his desk chair every 20-30 minutes and take a stroll. The distance from the Station to Inn Street is about 500 feet. That shouldn't be too taxing.
The cameras are not the problem. The storage of the video is the problem. Using software to compare stored images with current images to track people is an even bigger problem. (We won't mention the problem of bored operators scanning the windows of the surrounding apartments.)
A number of studies have shown NO decrease in crime in places covered by cameras. England has them everywhere, to no discernible effect.
The problem of Inn Street can be solved by having the operator get off his desk chair every 20-30 minutes and take a stroll. The distance from the Station to Inn Street is about 500 feet. That shouldn't be too taxing.
Dick, you also were an early critic. I commend you for that.
I'm not sure how much time has been spent on the stored image issue, but it's a good one.
As for the impact on cameras, I wonder if they're more useful as a crime-solving tool than a crime prevention.
I suppose a bump in the crime solving rate should eventually lead to a decrease in crime if more criminals are off the street.
Dick, the problem is that the operator (the dispatcher) is often the only person in the station at night.
Ed Cameron
so, even though ed cameron voted both times to install the cameras, he's still got your vote?
Sure thing. I'm not really sure the political will is there to stop the cameras, but this idea would be an effective control.
I'm not sure why Dick's comment comes up twice but I'm afraid to delete one of them in fear I'd lose both.
We're heading toward silliness like this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8670642/Sleepy-market-town-surrounded-by-ring-of-car-cameras.html
with out venturing into the ridiculous, is there anything ed cameron could do that would make you NOT vote for him?
Tough call. I suppose it would depend upon who was running against Ed and what office Ed was seeking. But our politics are closely in line, and he's a huge Sox fan so....
The only area where we've disagreed is on the senior center going to Cushing Park. It wasn't my first choice.
No one ran against him as a Ward 4 councilor, but I'd probably choose him over everyone but myself.
In the at-large race I simply don't see five better candidates.
so, even though he pulled a shanley and came out after the fact and said he wants public input on cameras, despite voting in favor of them twice, without public input, he still gets you vote?
Seriously?
First I reject your "pulled a Shanley" comment as being unfair, but to your point.
Even if Ed Cameron and I disagreed vehemently on this one issue - and we don't - I can't dismiss a worthy candidate over one dispute.
Is this an election or a sand box?
We're not rich enough in candidates to toss out folks over one issue. You look at the whole package, weight the good and bad and make your vote.
Cameron's positive vastly out weigh any negatives, in my opinion.
then clearly, the issue of police cameras wasn't important to you
If you playback the meeting minutes of the discussion about the Inn Street camera, you'll recall I also questioned the need for the camera at the initial meeting. But after the budget and finance committee met and Councilor Cronin number-crunched the annual cost of a patrol officer in contrast to the cost of the camera, I was sold on how to vote. That, and the fact the business community wanted it (and I had attended an Inn Street business meeting about the issue last year).
So, beyond your votes for Barry and Ed, what are your thoughts on the other three at-large seats? Any questions for me?
By your measure anon....so the fourth camera passed 8-2, other than Barry Connell will you vote for any sitting councilors over this transgression? (You could vote for Greg Earls if you live in Ward 2 as he was the second.)
Hi Ari,
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm going largely by the DN reports. I do recall Tom Jones also had an issue, but his concerns not surprisingly seemed to center more around the propriety of the spending than the presence of the cameras.
Connell clearly had the biggest issue with the cameras.
As for the other three votes, I'll be honest I haven't decided yet. I've got five votes and have only committed two of them. I'm eager to hear what the other candidates have to say.
I did vote for you two years ago. I thought you'd bring a fresh voice to the council with some innovative ideas.
Frankly, you haven't met my expectations but perhaps they were undefined and unreasonable.
What grade would you give yourself for your first term?
What sort of fresh voices or innovative ideas were you expecting, Tom?
My 2009 campaign platform was specific that I ran to 1) foster s sustainable future (which I met through supporting "green" legislation), 2) restore fiscal accountability (which is an ongoing process through my questions on the budget and finance committee), 3) improve transportation and parking (which caused me to convene meetings with transit providers and waterfront business owners, leading to a soon-to-be-published guide on transit options in the city), 4) promote government transparency (which is most evident in my blog, email newsletter, facebooking, tweeting, and other methods of reciprocal communication, such as your blog here), and 5) listen to you and work together (evident by my listening much more than saying).
What grade would I give myself? Judging by praise from many residents, a B+ with room to improve. Hence my campaign for re-election.
tom, no I won't. the simple fact we live in a state that will arrest you for video taping the police as they go about their duties, and yet allows the government to monitor its citizens as they go about their lives is reason enough to vote for anyone that supports the cameras.
*to not vote
Here's the company we're in. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/02/china-surveillance-cameras
Sorry for the late replies....
@anon, certainly your right to note vote for any of the approving councilors, but that limits your choices.
I'm curious. How far did you go to express your feelings about the cameras? Did you attend the meetings? Call the councillors? Right a letter? I haven't sensed a lot of outrage about the cameras.
Ari,
Apologies to late reply to you too...
Just going through your platform,
1) foster s sustainable future (which I met through supporting "green" legislation) I don't recall the legislation, unfortunately. What did it do? Did you propose it or support it?
2) restore fiscal accountability (which is an ongoing process through my questions on the budget and finance committee)
This is one of those instances where those of us in the cheap seats don't see. What have been the fruits of your questions? Any concrete examples of better accountability.
3) improve transportation and parking (which caused me to convene meetings with transit providers and waterfront business owners, leading to a soon-to-be-published guide on transit options in the city)
Interested in seeing the guide. I assume I'm aware of all the transit options without the guide, but I could be wrong.
4) promote government transparency (which is most evident in my blog, email newsletter, facebooking, tweeting, and other methods of reciprocal communication, such as your blog here),
I appreciate your taking the time to explain yourself but I don't really see this as government transparency but rather public official transparency, which is still a good thing.
Are there any measures that can be - or need to be implemented - to make the government itself more accountable. I don't have any suggestions at this point but this is your issue. (Ed Cameron, for example, proposed putting candidate donation info on the city web site. I guess that would be one.)
And I'd like to restate, I appreciate any councillor who takes the time to explain him or herself to voters. It's time well spent as far as I'm concerned.
5) listen to you and work together (evident by my listening much more than saying).
Works for me. Thanks.
Post a Comment