 
|
This historic town, where America’s founding fathers plotted during the Revolution and Milton Hershey later crafted his first chocolates, now boasts another distinction.
It may become the nation’s most closely watched small city.
Some 165 closed-circuit TV cameras soon will provide live, round-the-clock scrutiny of nearly every street, park and other public space used by the 55,000 residents and the town’s many tourists. That’s more outdoor cameras than are used by many major cities, including San Francisco and Boston.
Unlike anywhere else, cash-strapped Lancaster outsourced its surveillance to a private nonprofit group that hires civilians to tilt, pan and zoom the cameras — and to call police if they spot suspicious activity. No government agency is directly involved.
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.
“Years ago, there’s no way we could do this,” said Keith Sadler, Lancaster’s police chief. “It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and ’1984.’ It’s just funny how Americans have softened on these issues.”
Given this guy’s name, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at his comment.
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.
LibertyLover, you are watching too many spy movies, LOL. If what you illustrated happens in the USA, security cameras in public places are the least of your worries. If you’re not breaking the law, video has zero evidence value.
So perhaps Lancaster is a good place to live for people who are willing to accept that kind of control in exchange for giving up some of their personal freedom. Lord knows we don’t have any when we use our computers or talk on wireline or wireless phones. This is simply an extension of it.
The next phase in the UK is the use of hooded sweatshirts to disguise miscreants. “Hoodies” are getting away with a lot and defeating the purpose of the cameras.
It really is a judgment call. The country is large enough and varied enough to allow for different environments for everyone. If people in Lancaster allow it to happen, they must want the order the cameras are supposed to bring. And as I originally said, it is a much nicer place today than its neighboring city, Reading.
I once read a science fiction story, part of which involved cameras on every corner that anyone could see the output of. Lots of citizens watched when they had time and crime was greatly decreased. Sounded like a good idea at the time. Of course, that was decades before solid state cameras got cheap and before the the Internet.
That was also before I read “1984″.
I rather like the idea that it’s _not_ the police watching in Lancaster, though as the full article says, they do have to be careful to keep out various voyeurs or people with axes to grind or burglars and other felons looking for targets.
What if all such cameras were available on the Net? Would enough people watch to make a difference? Would they get involved by contacting the authorities if they witnessed trouble? How many would be criminals looking for opportunities?
I used to live in an apartment complex where a bunch of the neighborhood kids got the idea that it was fun to play with the soft drink machines by loading the slots with pennies and slugs and then trying to get out the quarters unsuspecting people would put in. The machines were right behind the complex’s office. I thought putting a cheap camera on the machines with a monitor in the office would stop the problem. I never got around to suggesting it, though, as we moved about then to be closer to work. The point is, there are situations where cameras can help, with little danger of oppression.
On the other hand, there are few more chill-inducing phrases than “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
#21, I’m not so sure we haven’t got to that point by now. The No Fly List sure limits travel and for things no more serious than speaking one’s mind without the ability to appeal the ruling. Now they don’t have to know what you are saying, only that you are hanging out with people who spoke “their” mind in the past.
I hope you’re right. I hope we never see a situation such as that. However, 24/7 surveillance makes it much harder to avoid it.
#11
“..Tell me how a government official could use that against me if I’m a law abiding citizen?..”
Fortunately the corrupt cops getting arrested every year aren’t smart enough to photo-shop images like AP reporters. At least the ones getting caught aren’t…..
#23 Might be on to something.
Interesting variation, public broadcast. A variation of the old small village reaction to hearing/seeing something bad happen.
Though a bit creepy, Google is doing something similar, all on public property. With lots of people watching you have multiple personalities with multiple motivations. This constant ‘conflict’ self-corrects to a neutral position – or a battle