Slashdot Mirror
Cambridge, Mass. Moves To Nix Security Cameras
An anonymous reader writes "Citing privacy concerns, the Cambridge, Mass. City Council has voted 9-0 to remove security cameras scattered throughout the city. 'Because of the slow erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11, it is important to raise questions regarding these cameras,' said Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge city councilor. Rather than citing privacy, WCBVTV is running the story under the headline 'City's Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands.'"
Additionally, often things like city wide security and red light cammeras are not monitored by actual government employees but companies sub-contracted out to do the job. Canceling the contract generally has a penalty involved.
The cameras were bought with a DHS grant, which my have to be repaid.
It isn't stated explicitly, but it appears that the city used part of the grant already to install the first few cameras.
It isn't that the physical removal will cost money, but that they may have to reimburse the feds for the grant money now that they have opted out of the program.
Also, this is not certain -- which is why it "may" cost thousands.
Except cameras don't catch people "redhanded". If they catch people at all it's almost always after the crime has been committed and the criminal has fled. Beyond that statistics show that public surveillance cameras do not reduce crime. Many studies of surveillance cameras have shown this to be the case.
CCTV Cameras
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/cctv_cameras.html
Christ. Ever heard of the IRA? They're a recognized terror group residing within the UK.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
While we are discussing costs, let me get this straight - $264,000 spent thus far, and there are only (6) cameras installed. At an average cost of $44,000 per camera I would $hitcan this program too.