« THE NAKED AND THE NUDE | Main | The Woodbine Crime Watch »
Boston's Crime Cameras
If it's good enough for Boston...
Today's Boston Globe features a front page, below the fold, story about the City of Boston's plan to install digital surveillance cameras in high crime areas and mentions the intent to allow the police drug unit to access the cameras if requested.
Digital Crime Camera - Lane Turner/Globe Staff
The globe quotes Boston Police Commissioner Kathleen M. O'Toole: “We hope to be creative," she said in an interview. ''If the drug unit wants to monitor cameras in the areas where there's been drug activity, they can do that."
Of course the usual debate got underway among the usual suspects:
“Sarah Wunsch, a staff lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said yesterday that cameras have not been effective in combating crime in Britain, where they have been commonplace since the 1990s. She also said the public should be concerned about the cameras' power to give the government more information on individual habits.”
'We're talking about the government and the police choosing to use high-powered surveillance cameras out in public, where people think the government is not spying on them,’ Wunsch said. 'We will turn into a very different society . . . ' Who are you meeting with? What book are you reading?' Americans ought to think about it.”
O'Toole said she has been responsive to the ACLU's concerns, saying the department agreed to dispose of tapes from the cameras after 90 days.”
In Boston, shootings are up 28% and the police force is down nearly 200 officers from 5 years ago. Chinatown will be the first Boston community to get the cameras.
Could it be good for Mt. Hope?
I know where I would put cameras in Mt. Hope. But let’s let our bloggers debate the issue. Would you put cameras in Mt. Hope? Why? Why not? Where would you put cameras in Mt. Hope. What type of crime would you like to deter? Would you contribute funds toward cameras if the money went only to Mt. Hope law enforcement? How long do you think the records should be kept. Do you think cameras would deter drug dealing in Mt. Hope? What if perps wear hooded sweatshirts, shades and caps and thus cannot be identified on camera. Thugs are smart and have thus far learned to operate successfully right under the police’s nose. Would cameras really be effective in Mt. Hope?
Read the Globe story, High-crime areas to receive cameras, below.
Peter Cassells & John Twomey contributed to this post
Cty to use cameras in bid to fight crime
Chinatown, other sites to get device
By Suzanne Smalley, Globe Staff | November 19, 2005
By January, Boston will install about 40 sophisticated surveillance cameras in Chinatown, along Boston Harbor, and in high-crime areas, probably including Dorchester, Mattapan, and Roxbury.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino said yesterday he believes the digital cameras can be an effective tool against crime. ''Any technology or any operation that we can use that will help us combat violence in the streets of our city, we're going to look at very seriously," he said in an interview.
Police Commissioner Kathleen M. O'Toole said yesterday that the city eventually plans to link its cameras with others already in transportation hubs, housing developments, and private businesses to help stem a surge in crime.
''We hope to be creative," she said in an interview. ''If the drug unit wants to monitor cameras in the areas where there's been drug activity, they can do that."
The cameras to be installed in coming weeks were purchased for and used during the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, but have been shelved since. Police originally said the cameras would go up in Chinatown in February.
The delay, officials said, involved getting permission from businesses and homes to mount the cameras, as well as the technical difficulties of wiring the cameras.
Civil libertarians, however, said Boston should keep the cameras on the shelf.
Sarah Wunsch, a staff lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said yesterday that cameras have not been effective in combating crime in Britain, where they have been commonplace since the 1990s. She also said the public should be concerned about the cameras' power to give the government more information on individual habits.
''We're talking about the government and the police choosing to use high-powered surveillance cameras out in public, where people think the government is not spying on them," Wunsch said. ''We will turn into a very different society . . . 'Who are you meeting with? What book are you reading?' Americans ought to think about it."
O'Toole said she has been responsive to the ACLU's concerns, saying the department agreed to dispose of tapes from the cameras after 90 days.
On Halloween night, Chelsea became the first Boston-area municipality to activate a digital camera surveillance network. It plans to install 27 cameras to cover the entire city.
In Chinatown, some residents said they are happy to be the first community that would get the cameras. Officials said the neighborhood will get eight or nine cameras in the next month.
Karen Chen, a community organizer with the Chinese Progressive Association, said residents are concerned about possible privacy infringements, but most are more worried about their safety.
A preliminary count of two homicides, 211 robberies, and 292 aggravated assaults through Nov. 13 in the police district covering downtown and Chinatown has left residents unnerved. Citywide, shootings increased by 28 percent through Oct. 23, compared with the same period last year.
Others said cameras aren't enough to fight crime.
''I think much more police officers would be helpful," said Tim Ruan, the former administrative director of the Chinatown Residents Association.
The department's patrol force of about 1,300 is down nearly 200 from five years ago, a decline the city attributes to federal and state funding cuts.
Police Superintendent Robert Dunford, who is spearheading the camera project, said the technology is intended as a tool to help police prevent and solve crimes.
''If we had a crime and we knew the area had been under surveillance, obviously we would pull the tape and we could identify who had been in the area prior to the event," he said.
Dunford said the cameras will also be used to help determine police deployment. He said there are thousands of cameras in the city to potentially link with, and he cited Chicago as a model.
Jennifer Martinez, a spokeswoman for the city of Chicago, said there are roughly 2,000 cameras in Chicago's network, which covers housing developments and transportation centers, but not private businesses.
Andrew Velasquez, director of the Office of Emergency Management and Communications in Chicago, said city officials believe the cameras, which were installed starting in 2001, are partly responsible for a decline in crime. Chicago reduced its homicide rate by 25 percent last year, resulting in a 38-year low.
''Having that extra set of eyes and ears out there has contributed to the Chicago Police Department's crime-fighting strategy," Velasquez said.
Two dozen cameras are outfitted with gunshot detection software. ''There are acoustic sensors built into the cameras, so if there's a gunshot detected within the vicinity of the camera, that camera will focus on the area where there has been a shooting," Velasquez said. ''There will be an alarm or an alert to tell the person watching."
O'Toole said she hopes to buy more cameras for Boston soon and is looking for ways, including donations from businesses, to pay for them, since federal homeland security money only covers the cost of the 19 cameras to be placed along the harbor to help guard tankers carrying liquefied natural gas against terrorist threat.
She said she only wants to put cameras in areas where there is strong community support for them.
However, she said the issue is raised at most crime watch meetings, suggesting widespread interest.
Posted at November 18, 2005 01:44 AM
Another thought occurred to me regarding the use of surveillance cameras on public property:
Such cameras are now quite common on private property -- virtually every store you enter, certainly every bank and ATM machine, and others. One bank I was a customer of before moving to this charming neighborhood had a sign posted at its entrance: "please remove sunglasses and hats when entering." Methinks that is so you will show off better on their security cameras.
Granted, there may be a requirement that signs be placed on such premises, but do we really need to have such warning signs in outside, public areas? I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I believe you lose all expectation of privacy in public areas.
Posted by: Peter C. at November 21, 2005 12:01 PM
Nearly every day I find myself using Billy Taylor Park in one way or another. From time to time, when I linger for a few minutes, I notice people 'moving on'.
Regarding the placement of cameras in the area, would it not be more effective (and community building) for people to gather at the park during common times of 'activty', rather than coming up with an elaborate technical solution?
The '6-11' market at the corner will be installing a new coffee/drink station this week. It is a fine park and, in my opinion, people from the neighborhood should use it in the same way people do Lippet Park -- as a gather place, a place to walk the dogs, throw a frisbee, catch some rays.
-- Brian Laferte, a.k.a 'Super Frog Saves Tokyo'
Posted by: Brian Laferte at November 21, 2005 05:46 AM
I am with you on this one. I have the utmost respect for people who speak their mind and are not afraid to be labeled "politically incorrect".
Posted by: Irene at November 19, 2005 05:48 PM
As you know, I'm in favor of placing surveillance cameras to rid our neighborhood of drugs and other crime. I'd like them in and throughout Billy Taylor Park, to prevent drug dealing, muggings, grafitti and what have you. I'd also place them outside the "inconvenience" store at the Crossroads. The police needn't broadcast the fact that the cameras are there. That would cut down on the hoods, dark glasses, baseball caps pulled low (of course they all wear them askewed or backwards anyway), etc.
Yeah, I know I'm gonna get comments like "Guess I shouldn't wear hooded sweatshirts, sun glasses or baseball caps around the Crossroads or in the park." Well, you are correct, sir, unless you want to pose for the cameras.
Usually, I LOVE the ACLU, but not on this issue. They are clearly in the wrong, in my opinion. As wrong on this as winning the fight a few decades ago for the Nazis' right to march in Skokie, Ill., a heavily Jewish suburb of Chicago where Holocaust survivors lived.
Who should pay? Depending on what they cost, I'd happily chip in. We're not talking network TV quality cameras here, folks.
Posted by: Peter C. at November 19, 2005 04:19 PM