Crowdsourcing Big Brother In Lancaster, PA

sehlat writes "From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 165 public surveillance cameras are being set up to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition' of volunteers. The usual suspects, including 'the innocent have nothing to fear' are being trotted out to justify this, and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention: '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.'"

Comments

Lived here for years...

[Anonymous Coward]

So strange to see my hometown on the front page of Slashdot...

The Los Angeles Times article states:

"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."

I've lived in Lancaster for years and haven't heard a thing about this. I just searched our local newspaper with no results.

There's no public debate because as far as I know this is the first time it's even been mentioned. I saw the cameras go up, now I know the story behind them... thanks to a random mention on a tech news site linking an article from a newspaper on the other side of the country.

I LIVE in Lancaster and I didn't know!

[Kaitiff]

I LIVE in Lancaster, and I had no idea! They said 'the people didn't object' hell I didn't even KNOW! This is such a horribly bad idea... I thought Britain was Orwellian with their surveillance camera system, but to have put this in place and for most ppl to not even KNOW about it.. that by definition is a police state! Outsourcing it to some agency is monumentally wrong. I think I need a pocket jammer system just to go to the public library...

You've bought the rhetoric.

[mister_playboy]

Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?

Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?

Because you have no accuser to confront in court?

Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?

Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue?

Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement (government-only) fines?

Re:You've bought the rhetoric.

[jweller]

1. Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?
2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?
3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?

These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.

In MD at least, the ticket does go to the car owner, and not the driver. The red light camera ticket I saw had only a picture of the rear of the car, and you could in no way identify the driver.

4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?
Citation needed.

this page has 5 studies that conclude that accidents increase
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/

Re:No different

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

The embarrassment factor isn't a problem. The blackmail factor is a problem. "Oh, councilman Smith. How are you planning on voting on Proposition 32? Really, that's too bad. I'd hate to see this tape of you and your mistress going into a room of that sleazy motel get out into the public view. ... So you've changed your mind on your vote? Wonderful news."

If there were clear rules on when and why people could get access to the camera footage (only after a crime has been committed, only the footage that covers the area where the evidence indicates the crime took place, and only for official police use in investigation of a specific crime) then that would be one thing. Taping all public property 24/7/365 with little to no control over who can access the footage ... that worries me. Power corrupts, and absolute (surveillance) power corrupts absolutely.

Re:Ahhh, Slashdot

[R3d M3rcury]

You can probably blame insurance companies for this one.

Actually, blame the government and car companies for it. It's actually kind of a fun story.

Way back when, the government mandated that the auto industry come up with some kind of "passive restraint system" for cars. Well, of course, the auto industry didn't like this. So the deal was made--the auto industry wouldn't have to have some kind of "passive restraint system" if the states that made up 80% passed a mandatory seatbelt law.

With that, auto industry lobbyists went to work getting all the states to pass a mandatory seatbelt law. The problem is that it actually was a pretty tough sell. The solution was to make it a "secondary enforcement"--the police cannot stop you for not wearing a seatbelt. But if they stop you for something else and notice you don't have a seatbelt on, they can give you a fine. There's usually no insurance issues, points on your license, or anything like that. So as long as you were a "good driver" (and remember that more than 50% of all Americans consider themselves 'above average drivers'), you didn't have much to fear. But it still fit the criteria of "seat belt law", so it counted.

Now the courts eventually threw out this "deal" and said the auto industry had to provide a passive restraint system anyway. Of course, the laws were already passed and it's tough to get a law repealed--especially a law that "saves lives."