Video Surveillance

Matt Drudge has several links on his site about the expansion of video surveillance in our larger cities. Some of which I can understand, others - I’m not so sure.

I have been an advocate of video surveillance since the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. With the rising threat of terrorism and the expansion of the drug trade in our communities combined with murder and every day crimes which go unpunished; as well as the ever decreasing size of our available law enforcement community, I see video as a low cost return to having a foot-beat cop on every corner. But I draw the line at the invasion of private property.

In Chicago, the cities minority communities have embraced the concept of video surveillance in public areas. Even though the vast majority of cameras which have been installed to this date have been in predominately minority areas.

The poll of 700 voters, conducted Feb. 10-13 by Market Shares Corp. of Mt. Prospect, found that eight out of 10 respondents favor the video security network.

The support cuts across racial and ethnic lines, with 80 percent of white respondents, 77 percent of African-Americans and 83 percent of Hispanics saying they like the cameras.

The poll has a 4 percentage point margin of error. SOURCE

But the plan by the city to require cameras in the parking areas and inside business open for more than 12 hours per day seems a bit extreme. It is my belief that video surveillance of the property itself should only be encouraged by insurance companies through the use of discounts on premiums not through a city mandate. Coverage for losses due to robbery or vandalism should be limited and expensive coverage without video surveillance. Same with liability for injuries occurring inside or outside of the business where a camera could have identified the actual person responsible.

Security is becoming a problem in this nation I will admit. And we do need to use technology to our advantage. However Houston’s proposal to require video cameras in private homes if the police are called to that address repeatedly is a severe infringement on personal liberties. If a location has a history of drug activity, that specific address needs to be the target of an investigation. The same applies to other crimes or criminal activity.

The plan to install video cameras on the Santa Monica Pier has also made news. It was discovered that some suspicious activity was taking place around the pier. Individuals were taking video footage and pictures of the pier, support facilities, security devices, and access roads. Items which would not be of interest of the common tourist. This has led to the belief that terrorists may be considering the pier as a target. The Santa Monica Pier draw thousands of visitors daily. It would be a massive casualty target should it become one.

I agree that the use of modern technology should be implemented. But it should be used responsibly. Placing cameras in private homes which have become problem locations is not the answer. The answer to that problem is more police presence and a more strict application of the law.

The common areas of large apartment complexes and public housing projects should be monitored. But I think that should be done by security personnel and taped for the use by police if needed. The same with private businesses at risk. But requiring private businesses to have cameras shouldn’t be a legal issue. It should be a financial incentive. Lets face it, if having the cameras will save you money on your liability and theft coverage, you’d install them. And if you don’t, I guarantee that the crooks will know soon who you are and your losses will increase.

Places of habitation should never be places of monitoring. Common areas for security purposes, yes. But the actual living quarters - NEVER! Public streets, buildings, and parks definitely. We have lost them to the criminals and the neighborhoods that they are supposed to serve deserve them back.