|
|
|
|
|
Some wary of surveillance Mayor Edward M. Lambert Jr’s surprise announcement that a plan is in the works to install up to 20 surveillance cameras around the city was met with mixed reactions Thursday. Lambert made the announcement during a Wednesday night Flint Neighborhood Association emergency meeting held to discuss the city’s gang problem. He said the surveillance camera plan has been progressing behind the scenes ever since businesses in the Industrial Park informed him they want to give something back to the city in exchange for its fight to keep a proposed strip club out of the complex three years ago. Lambert said he sees the cameras as a potentially important piece of the Police Department’s efforts to curb violent crime in the Spindle City. During a follow-up interview Thursday, Lambert said the initial investment for the cameras will cost about $80,000, all of which will be paid for by the Industrial Park business owners. The mayor said he hopes to have a "firm plan" for the cameras within a month, and then will schedule public hearings on the matter later this spring. "I want to hear community input on strategy and location, and also address privacy issues and appropriate regulations," Lambert said. "We want to make it clear who has access to the cameras, how soon the tapes are destroyed and the rules about locations for the cameras. "This is not a way to limit officers. We will still be increasing the staffing levels at the Police Department. I just see this as an enhancement of their jobs." The surveillance camera plan was supported Thursday by City Councilors Joseph Camara and Bradford Kilby. But others, including City Council Public Safety Committee Chairman Raymond Hague and Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney with the Massachusetts ACLU, voiced concerns about the plan. "We care about safety as much as anyone, but surveillance cameras have proven to be more of a gimmick than a real tool to prevent crime," Wunsch said. "These cameras are being sold all over the place as a great and inexpensive way to protect the public when in actuality they are not." Wunsch suggested money used for surveillance cameras could be put to better use. She also voiced concerns regarding privacy issues. While proponents say private citizens have no right to privacy on public streets, Wunsch said the enhanced power of technologically advanced surveillance cameras raises a red flag. "People have to ask themselves ‘What kind of America do we want to live in?’" Wunsch suggested. "These powerful cameras raise serious concerns about Big Brother watching us." Lambert, though, said he wants the camera plan to be implemented in the least intrusive fashion possible, and specifically stated he did not want it to be construed as Big Brother. Councilors Kilby and Camara said they support the plan. In fact, Kilby filed a resolution Thursday morning calling on the council’s Committee on Finance to meet "with the appropriate agency engaged in installing such technology in an effort to become more informed regarding the cost and effectiveness of such camera use." "I have read various articles that say this stuff is very effective," Kilby said. "I think it can be especially useful in our high-crime areas." Kilby’s sentiments were echoed by Camara, who said he believes surveillance cameras will enhance law enforcement’s ability to make arrests or identify suspects involved in gang violence. "I don’t see what the harm would be to have surveillance cameras out on public streets," Camara said. "If it also helps to prevent crime, then I am all for it." Hague, however, said he was disappointed by the mayor’s impromptu announcement Wednesday night. "I’m all for public safety, but if we’re all going to work together to combat these issues, then we all need to be a part of it. I was surprised that I wasn’t informed about this plan," Hague said. "I had a meeting with the mayor (Wednesday afternoon), and at no time did he inform us that we were going to add eight new police officers, that a surveillance camera plan had been in the works for quite some time or that a person had been arrested in the murder case. "I strongly believe we should be briefed on issues like this. When it’s expedient for him to talk to us, he does. But when it’s not, he doesn’t, and I can’t understand why." Aside from his complaints about being left in the dark regarding these public safety issues, Hague also called the installation of surveillance cameras a big step that needs to be explored further. "I would say they may have a good use in selected areas, but we can’t go too far with this," Hague said. "We should be vigilant about where these cameras should not be." The issue of surveillance cameras in public places has been a hot topic in many urban areas across the nation, especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Surveillance cameras have been installed in Boston, Revere, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore and many other cities. Proponents of such plans frequently point to last year’s London train and bus bombings, where the four chief suspects were identified by the hundreds of surveillance cameras installed in the major European megalopolis. E-mail Gregg M. Miliote at gmiliote@heraldnews.com. --------------------------------------------------- Please help our fight against the New World Order by giving a donation. As bandwidth costs increase, the only way we can stay online and expand is with your support. Please consider giving a monthly or one-off donation for whatever you can afford. You can pay securely by either credit card or Paypal. Click here to donate. |
