On that L.A. Times story

June 23rd, 2009 10:50 am · 13 comments

…and now I see that Olbermann has given us a “Worse” Person in the World “award” for the security cameras in the city.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqorZkUBh-8

Well, no Keith, they’re not “spying” on one another. Haven’t you ever heard of a neighborhood watch?

Ah well. The whole sort of anti-Orwell business plays well on the left, I suppose - though as always, I will draw the line between surveillance of public spaces and private spaces. It’s one thing for a government to monitor the personal communications of citizens, where there is and must be an expectation of privacy. It’s another in public, where there is no expectation of privacy and where a camera sees exactly what a cop on the beat might see. And if we don’t have a problem with the latter, I just don’t see why we would have a problem with the former.

This said, the fact that a non-profit is in charge of monitoring the city’s cameras, rather than the city itself, is unorthodox. Moreover, combine this with the fact that neither Pennsylvania nor the federal government has passed any laws regulating the use of the cameras, and the potential for abuse would certainly seem to exist.

But the antidote to that is for either the state or the federal government to pass such laws, to spell out exactly what is permissible, and what isn’t. You’ve got to watch it, though - if the video images are deemed “public information,” that then makes them accessible to divorce lawyers and the like, doesn’t it?

Just as you can’t walk into a police station and get into their investigatory files, so too should the digital images to be treated. The idea of a non-profit riding herd over the cameras seems to be eliciting the most surprise nationwide - but the other aspect of this is, if the city itself is going to run it, that requires the city to hire the staff, pay them a living wage, pay them benefits, expand the city bureaucracy.

Do city taxpayers want this?

I am not an advocate for either big government or small government. What I am is an advocate for effective and efficient government, and I think the cameras can fit that bill, allowing cash-strapped municipalities to boost public safety and provide authorities with more investigatory tools at minimal expense. There are trade-offs. But aren’t there always?

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

13 comments Tags: crime

There are currently 13 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog

Artie See
6/23/09
8:42 PM

Have you talked with Joe Morales about this?

I did, for a few minutes this evening. It would be worth your time to do so.

avgwhiteguy
6/23/09
9:10 PM

Artie,

I'd love to know exactly what Mr. Morales says about his cameras tracking individuals into houses and then peering into third floor windows to identify people.

Seems that the whole issue of public versus private surveillance goes out the window when the surveillance goes into the windows. This type of blatant invasion of private property is without question illegal. More importantly it goes directly against what Joe Morales publicly stated when asked if cameras could be used to look into windows of surrounding houses.

Mr. Morales said that the cameras could not look into windows because computer programs blacked out the images.

However Lancaster City Police arrested a robbery suspect last week when he was tracked using CSC's cameras. CSC surveillance employees used the cameras to follow a suspect into a private residence and then peered into a third floor window, spotting the suspect inside the house. Anyone listening to the police radio Saturday evening around 7:00 could have heard the conversation between the police and county radio, who were directing the police while watching the live video stream "pushed" to county by CSC.

Funny thing about it is, all Joe needs to do is say "it didn't happen." No one will ever know because no one will ever see the tapes.

I wonder what else CSC employees have seen during their long, boring shifts watching t.v. sans sound.

Do you really believe that their minds don't wander? Do you really think they aren't tempted? 10 seconds peering into someone's bedroom might provide some great thrills to the bored voyeur.

And you had better believe they can do it, despite Joe Morales' assertions otherwise.

citydweller
6/23/09
10:26 PM

QUOTE (avgwhiteguy @ Jun 23 2009, 09:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny thing about it is, all Joe needs to do is say "it didn't happen." No one will ever know because no one will ever see the tapes.

This is where it all goes wrong. Gil says "It's all good as long as only cops see the tapes". But the real problem is that the cops only get to see the tapes that the private organization chooses to feed them. Then, of course, there are "anomalies" wherein cops are led by the private organization to a location that, according to their own PR, they can't see.

And the can of worms just squiggles more.

LA Times didn't mix the paint, they just opened the can.

salty
6/24/09
7:04 AM

Mr. Smart, you need to give credit to TB posters who practically wrote this piece for you. Several items lifted whole.

Objection to no publicly available feeds is a no-brainer. Potential for abuse is staggering.

What does Mr. Morales have to say about AWG's assertion?

Lisa Armellino
6/24/09
9:16 AM

I'm sure that Mr. Morales sees plenty of good, I mean, he makes $90,000 a year being the face of this project.

charlie_crystle
6/24/09
3:38 PM

Gil, you gotta get on the right side of this. The cameras are bad for the city, bad for democracy, and bad for rock and roll.

salty
6/24/09
5:29 PM

QUOTE (avgwhiteguy @ Jun 23 2009, 09:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only way the public knows anything about this, is AWG's testimony of what he heard. That is not in line with this promoting safety, is it? By extension of the argument "if you're not doing anything bad, what have you got to hide?", why not have the feeds public, so there are more eyes on? We could use them to follow the followers, for starters. And some other people who'd like to keep the image of sqeaky clean they've managed to foster.

Is a handed over image good enough for a probable cause warrant? Are windows and doors blocked? Why are some obvious instances of criminal activity being ignored?

avgwhiteguy
6/24/09
11:35 PM

QUOTE (salty @ Jun 24 2009, 05:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) I asked a district judge (former ADA) I know this question and was told that the answer is typically NO. In order for a judge to issue a warrant, probable cause must already be determined. The surveillance footage, while voluntarily transferred from from the CSC to police, does not maintain a "chain of evidence." This fact alone calls into question the factuality of any images depicted in the footage. For a warrant to be issued, the footage could be a contributing factor, but is very unlikely acceptable as a sole factor in determining probable cause.

2) No. They are not, or if they are, the feature can be turned off. As stated before, CSC cameras were recently used by a team of county radio dispatchers and police officers to identify and apprehend a suspect who was viewed by cameras not only on the ground and in public, but after having entered a private residence. This individual was eventually identified after being viewed in a third floor window.

3) Because the appearance of crime does not necessarily mean a crime has, is or will be committed. These cameras are not a substitute for good, old-fashioned police work. In most cases, investigators on the street must still develop cases using methods that are many years old. Cameras, when used correctly, are nothing more than a tool in the detective's toolbox. They are not a crime stopper, and as demonstrated, are not even a crime deterrent.

Folks, there are quite a number of serious issues surrounding these cameras. The most obvious of which is that the monitoring of the cameras is done by individuals unaffiliated with any governmental agency. These people are not accountable to the public. They are nothing more than video vigilantes. History has shown that eventually vigilante justice loses perspective and goes too far. In the case of these cameras, the abject violation of private property rights demonstrates that these cameras have already exceeded the threshold of acceptable use.

Until and unless CSC releases access to their video (archived and live), we should all be extremely wary of the potential for these cameras to be looking into our bedrooms, bathrooms, backyard hot-tubs and any other area within our private properties that are otherwise off limits to the government.

Let us make no bones about this situation. In name, CSC is a NGO non-profit private business. In reality, it is a covert agency of law enforcement, completely lacking accountability, completely lacking any oversight, of its own admission lacking defined training and procedures.

And then there is the conflict of interest surrounding Joe Morales. Joe is not only the paid executive director of CSC, he is a paid city council member for Lancaster City. He is the chair of the public safety committee for council. Public safety committee has oversight of the police and fire departments.

Council approves expenditures (like money spent to install cameras). So Joe Morales has a say in whether and how much the city gives to his private business. Would we be ok if Artie See sat on council and was able to approve payments from the city to his Convention Center Consulting firm? Of course not.

So why do we accept it from Joe?

Would we accept a police officer having the ability to turn a camera and zoom into our homes? Would we allow our government, be it federal, state or local, to create a video record of our movements?

So why do we accept it from a private corporation that of its own admission acts as a proxy for law enforcement?

I have long been a vocal and adamant supporter of the efforts of law enforcement. My posts on this board represent a record of that. Even for me, the camera program in Lancaster goes entirely too far.

charlie_crystle
6/25/09
9:46 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wa...story?track=rss

State and local officials also had serious concerns about the program's potential intrusiveness, according to the Homeland Security official and Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Assn.

"To my knowledge, this is the first opportunity major law enforcement organizations have had to participate in this significant and complex initiative," Bratton said in a June 21 letter to Napolitano. "In our view, the NAO is not an issue of urgency. . . . Our goal is effective sharing of law enforcement information that protects the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. . . ."

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) had recently introduced legislation that would prevent Homeland Security from using space-based satellite imagery for domestic surveillance. Harman, chairwoman of the House Homeland Security Committee's intelligence and terrorism risk assessment subcommittee, cited privacy issues.

"Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if one of these satellites were directed on your neighborhood or home, a school or place of worship -- and without an adequate legal framework or operating procedures in place for regulating their use," she said in a statement when she introduced her bill. "I dare say the reaction might be that Big Brother has finally arrived, and the black helicopters can't be far behind."

gsmart
6/25/09
10:54 AM

QUOTE (charlie_crystle @ Jun 24 2009, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gil, you gotta get on the right side of this. The cameras are bad for the city, bad for democracy, and bad for rock and roll.

Disagree entirely, bud. As noted in the link to Will Bunch's piece yesterday - you do realize that a newspaper photographer has the right to stand on the street outside your house and take pictures of you in your yard, or people on your doorstep, right?

You do realize that you have the right to stand on the street in front of your neighbor's house and watch who goes in and comes out, right? That you could in fact put up your own private video camera, aim it at your neighbors door and record the whole thing yourself, and that so long as the camera is in the public right of way or on your property, and you aren't peering into windows - that's legal.

Your "backyard hot tub?" If your neighbor can see it from his property, or the street - he absolutely has the right to sit and watch. And maybe he does.

Not to say that the cops wouldn't come hassle you about this - ask Ron Harper - but whether you believe it to be "creepy" or not, it's legal.

No - the cameras will no "prevent" crime. But they are indeed another tool in the toolbox, and a valuable one.

And look again at Harman's statement:

"without an adequate legal framework or operating procedures in place for regulating their use,"

That's what is neeeded, a legal framework - which doesn't currently exist. That is the problem here; and it's something the state needs to address very soon. And will.

salty
6/25/09
4:18 PM

Do tell. What does the State have in mind, that you have some inkling of, that you didn't just blurt out right there? Done deal, eh? Is that the impression you were aiming for?

avgwhiteguy
6/25/09
5:46 PM

QUOTE (gsmart @ Jun 25 2009, 10:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gil,

A larger issue is the use of the video. Here we have a private organization conducting surveillance on the behalf of a government agency. The whole purpose - as stated by CSC and its representatives - is not to prevent crime, but to obtain evidence in order to prosecute individuals. Our government has enacted means for the public to gain access to information in government possession. As you well know your paper uses FOIA and Open Records requests on a regular basis.

In the CSC camera case, no such opportunity exists. We are facing private surveillance of an entire population, by a proxy of government, without any oversight of the private company by the population. This fact alone should be troublesome.

The fact that these tapes are archived and could create a record of a person's movements without probable cause or reasonable suspicion violates every tenant of law enforcement procedure. No judge would ever allow targeted electronic surveillance of a suspected criminal without a warrant. Seems like this could be an end around for law enforcement's need to obtain warrants for surveillance.

Even if Joe Morales and his crew state "oh, we would never do that," without public access to the tapes, no one will ever know if they do.

skeptic2
6/26/09
2:42 AM

QUOTE (avgwhiteguy @ Jun 25 2009, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gil, A larger issue is the use of the video. Here we have a private organization conducting surveillance on the behalf of a government agency. The whole purpose - as stated by CSC and its representatives - is not to prevent crime, but to obtain evidence in order to prosecute individuals. Our government has enacted means for the public to gain access to information in government possession. As you well know your paper uses FOIA and Open Records requests on a regular basis. In the CSC camera case, no such opportunity exists. We are facing private surveillance of an entire population, by a proxy of government, without any oversight of the private company by the population. This fact alone should be troublesome. The fact that these tapes are archived and could create a record of a person's movements without probable cause or reasonable suspicion violates every tenant of law enforcement procedure. No judge would ever allow targeted electronic surveillance of a suspected criminal without a warrant. Seems like this could be an end around for law enforcement's need to obtain warrants for surveillance. Even if Joe Morales and his crew state "oh, we would never do that," without public access to the tapes, no one will ever know if they do.

That some public money was used for this project forms a basis for a legal challenge to force release of the video. My sense is that statements are being made here that are not based on legal precedent. Just stating that LCSC is a NGO exempt from laws like the FOIA when it is essentially conducting a law enforcement activity and accepting some government funding is one. Certainly if federal money was involved, you could be pretty sure that accepting the money would bring a number of laws into play.

The other fallacy is that the city is going to be held harmless if something goes wrong. Again if the LCSC is doing something normally done by government with the city's knowledge and assistance, why wouldn't the city share in the responsibility? Certainly just choosing to abdicate responsibility for oversight isn't going to help the city's case.

View Topic | Comment on this blog

On that L.A. Times story

June 23rd, 2009 10:50 am · 13 comments

Lancaster blogs

More Smart Remarks