Keeping an eye out

Seems New Bedford has gone big time with the eye in the sky concept.  Cameras throughout the city.  The Standard times has an article worth reading in today's edition.

Least you start jumping out of your seat about this new intrusion, note that it is not really new.  As reported in the article, "The use of cameras to monitor the city is not new. Police have been using the technology for the last six years, according to Lt. Richard Netinho, who is in charge of the Police Department's Management Information Systems."

I suppose the impetus for the newsworthy piece at this time, is the fact that it was a feed from surveillance cameras that put into motion the events that lead to the shooting death much in the news a number of weeks ago involving a teenager and the New Bedford police.

I know, one's very first thought is the "Big Brother" argument. Yet is this really Big Brother?

Cameras in public places and neighborhoods (note: public), is not in my mind a per se violation of any one's right to privacy. We all ready voluntarily give up that expectation just about every time we walk into a store, bank, and most larger buildings.

When you are out in public, you really don't have an expectation of privacy.  Certainly you shouldn't have the right to expect that because you may be walking down a seemingly deserted public street, you can break the law because no one is there to see you.

Is there a potential for abuse in the  use of cameras?  Sure there is.  It will probably happen too.  That does not make it a bad idea.  Every system and process is subject to abuse.

Perhaps we would all prefer an officer on every street corner 24/7.  Having set of human eyes there to deter.  I see this as the next best thing given the economic realities.

There are quotes from someone in the ACLU in the article:

"We live in a democratic society and people should know how the police are using these tools," she said. "We need to know what is really going on behind the scenes." She also said there are conflicting studies on whether cameras prevent crime or merely displace it to areas where there are no cameras.

How the police are using these things are pretty clear, at least to me.  Do we need to, or should we really know what is going on behind the scenes?  The statement kind of automatically assumes the police are up to no good.  To that end, I guess it depends on what you feel is no good.  


Could the cameras be used to track some one's movements.  Sure, and would that be any different than putting someone under surveillance?  


Yes I can delve into the potential abuses.  For the vast majority of which, the abuses are the same as those that could occur without the cameras, just would be more labor intensive.


If in fact the cameras only displace crime, is that a bad thing?  If displaced, would the police than be able to target the "new" areas with more personnel?


The courts have created a pretty long list of where a citizen does and does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  The use of the cameras isn't going to shorten that list.  


The New Bedford Police chief as quoted in the article sums it up best I think, and I think for most of us:


"People who are living their lives, not breaking any laws, have nothing to fear," he said. "I'm not interested in invading their privacy. I'm interested in preventing crime and then solving those we don't prevent.".