PDA

View Full Version : Oct. 6, 2007: Southington installing cameras at lake and high school



Record-Journal
10-06-2007, 12:40 AM
SOUTHINGTON — Town leaders say they are interested in providing more security for residents and business owners and efforts are focused on installing cameras to fight crime.

The town recently received a state grant to place five surveillance cameras on the roof of Southington High School and, as part of the town’s fiscal year 2007-08 budget, members of the Parks and Recreation Department are in the process of installing three “low light” cameras at Crescent Lake.

The cameras at the park are non-motorized and will cost $13,500, Parks Director William Masci said.

In addition, representatives of the Police Department and Town Council have said efforts are in place to acquire grants or other funding for cameras along the town’s linear trail and in areas of downtown Southington and downtown Plantsville.

“It’s not the entire solution, but it’s an effective tool to assist our Police Department,” council Vice Chairman Anthony D’Angelo said. “There have been several discussions and cameras would be placed in appropriate public areas, such as the sections of the Rails to Trails that have seen graffiti in the past.”

Southington is the first area town to actually install cameras, but the issue has been discussed in Meriden.

The Meriden Police Department asked to install a camera on a light pole at the intersection of Pratt and East Main streets in 2005, and City Manager Lawrence J. Kendzior has said the city was looking toward wireless installation in the former Hub if it becomes a park. Neither effort has become a reality for the city.

Town officials in both Cheshire and Wallingford said they are not considering the use of such cameras.

The Southington Police Department and Police Chief Jack Daly have led the way in camera surveillance, but support from members of the council, Board of Education, Park and Recreation Department and several local business networks has been plentiful.

Sgt. Lowell DePalma said cameras would be used as a tool, not a replacement for officers, and would provide several advantages to the department.

It would add a continuous presence to deter crimes in the first place and allow officers to monitor suspicious activity on a more regular basis.

The cameras at both the high school and Crescent Lake will be connected through wireless technology to the police dispatch center at police headquarters on Lazy Lane, where they can be monitored.

Cameras have proved a valuable security asset for businesses, whether as an added deterrent at an industrial site or as a protective, closed-circuit camera at a gas station, DePalma said.

In cases, including the multiple Dunkin’ Donuts robberies that occurred earlier this year, personal security cameras assisted police in identifying and arresting suspects, DePalma said. Along the linear trail, a frequent target of vandalism late last year and into 2007, a temporary camera at one business helped police respond to a robbery in progress.

“We are still in the initial discussion phase for many of these projects,” DePalma said. “We are looking at things conceptually and there is still a lot of work to do. The truth is, technology is moving in this direction, but there will be nothing hidden and nothing secretive about what we are doing.”

The Board of Education has not looked at cameras as an exterior security feature, but if grants can be acquired, Chairman David J. Derynoski believes the equipment could be an asset to the school district’s security efforts.

Businesses in the downtown area also have been supportive of efforts to put cameras in place, with several networking groups working toward providing more security for companies that commit to revitalization, said Art Secondo, president of the Greater Southington Chamber of Commerce.

Secondo said that with the revitalization movement in each center, merchants have requested additional police protection and that cameras be used to improve security.

“It’s an important initiative to look at. It gives the merchants an opportunity to really expand their businesses,” Secondo said.

“Our businesses would be willing to invest more into their properties if they feel that there is less risk of becoming a victim of vandalism.”
The cameras would be installed along both Main Street areas, as well as down Center Street, where many of the businesses are located, Secondo said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut disagrees with the idea and is urging residents to take a vocal stance against it, however. In studies conducted worldwide, cameras have proven to be an ineffective deterrent to crime, said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the Connecticut ACLU.

When London fell victim to the terrorist subway bombings on July 7, 2005, the city had more than a half-million cameras in place, Schneider said. Yet the cameras did nothing to help public safety officials in preventing, monitoring or investigating the crime.

“Cameras have proven to have no deterrent value and they are not effective in providing sufficient evidence for crimes when they are committed,” Schneider said.

“It interferes with the public’s right to privacy, and to fool the public and say they help is a disservice.”

Schneider said downtown cameras are inclined to cause bigger problems rather than combat crime.

If not regulated properly, he said the equipment would provide easy access to acquiring private information, such as which residents are visiting doctors’ offices and other businesses of a private nature.

Council Chairman John Barry said he not only understands the concerns expressed by the ACLU, but shared many of the same thoughts when the idea was first introduced.

Barry said he originally believed the cameras would be a breach of privacy and could be used inappropriately to watch a resident’s movement.

After talking with Daly, however, he said he was confident cameras would be an effective tool for police and would be used appropriately.

D’Angelo said cameras would be placed only in areas where public safety is a concern, and Barry said Daly would have added regulations in place to assure the cameras are used strictly for law enforcement.

“We are very fortunate in Southington that we have been able to live in a safe community, but we also want to keep it that way,” Barry said.

“The goal is to put the safety of the residents first, and everything is still on the table at this point.”

Fit 2 Print
10-08-2007, 01:15 PM
When is enough, enough, when it comes to "the seeing eye" monitoring human behavior?

Chris P
10-09-2007, 01:56 PM
Well let me terll you England had these cams before 911 and now Holy seeing eye!!!!!!!!.

Criminals hate cameras and some who value security over "public" privacy will feel more at ease at the fact criminals try to avoid cameras and may go elsware to commit their crimes.

john12774
10-09-2007, 06:11 PM
People only have a problem with cameras if they are doing something wrong...

Fit 2 Print
10-10-2007, 10:55 AM
With regard to John's comment, would he not object, then, to a surveillance camera in his office, focused on his desk, so his manager could monitor all his personal habits as well as work performance?

catnap
10-17-2007, 02:44 PM
I agree with Fit 2 Print - there is more behind this then just security - it's Big Brother. I do not want my every move in my life monitored, and saying that doesn't mean I have anything to hide, its about personal privacy - and feeling safe, not only from criminals...but the police and our government. And I hear inside talk, the cameras are not so much to keep out crime...its to keep out "riff-raff" - ya know people from Meriden...(I'm from Meriden) - but grew up in Southington.

SgtSludge
11-08-2007, 12:19 AM
People need to understand that you are a criminal until provin not to be. The state of CT has become a hotbed of crime in the last 10 years. Of course the local police all report crime is down but at the same time they complain they need more officers? Anyone see a problem with that?

At the rate this country is going America will become a prison state in no time at all. No wonder our Govt supports China! Get used to it. Already our kids are treated like prisoners in their schools under the "lie" of saftey/Security. Ever feel like your visiting your kid in jail when you go to their school during normal buisness hours???

Scouter
11-08-2007, 12:51 AM
The ACLU is great about taking a fact and spinning it to meet their needs. How can you use an example of how half-million cameras did not deter a determined and suicidal bomber from accomplishing his mission from on high and compare it to catching a high school student who spray paints on trees on a linear trail? The motivations are different. When you talk about deterance you are talking about the common criminal not necessarily those who will commit a crime regardless of the risks.



The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut disagrees with the idea and is urging residents to take a vocal stance against it, however. In studies conducted worldwide, cameras have proven to be an ineffective deterrent to crime, said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the Connecticut ACLU.

When London fell victim to the terrorist subway bombings on July 7, 2005, the city had more than a half-million cameras in place, Schneider said. Yet the cameras did nothing to help public safety officials in preventing, monitoring or investigating the crime.

“Cameras have proven to have no deterrent value and they are not effective in providing sufficient evidence for crimes when they are committed,” Schneider said.


There was a poll on CNN, I can no longer find the link to it (yes how convenient) that said that 57% of Americans believe in giving up some of their personal freedom if it was a matter of personal protection and self preservation. I would rather have cameras in all public settings watching everything because it would add another layer of personal protection when in public.

There was talk about trust in government and that can be addressed by ensuring that the digital recordings are deleted on a regular basis, perhaps every 30 days and that still criminal penelties are in place for misuse of the monitoring system. If there are appropriate checks on what the "government" / police department can do and when they can do it there are controls in place that should prevent abuse. When you are in a public place you can be watched or followed without cameras being installed so what would the difference be? I don't see the government going out and buying pin-hole cameras to place in the nose of teddy bears and distributing to the populace for free in order to monitor our actions. If cameras are well marked and identified people know the cameras are there and act accordingly and in theory appropriatly.

On the flip side if the camera is up and not working and something happens what a liability that would be for the city or town to handle. Someone who felt comfortable being alone at night in the Hub Park (distant future) of Meriden because they were near a camera is mugged. If the camera was not functional they certainly would have a case about the government misleading and providing a false sense of protection. What a debacle that would be.

If I am in public feel free to watch me. I'm not doing anything wrong.

eds
11-08-2007, 07:53 AM
Cameras in places where people expect to have a modicum of privacy is just wrong. But when you are on the street, its no different if a cop is directly watching you or using a camera.

It goes back to property rights. The person who owns the land or building or property has a right to put up any cameras they want to. The town, and by extension, the public owns the streets. There should be a referendum if there hasn't been already, and the towns people should vote to either have or not to have cameras installed in public places.

As far as high school goes, who owns the property? The public does. All persons who have reached the age of marjority should, again, be able to vote in a referendum to install or not to install.

It really is that simple. If the public feel that it is beneficial then who is the ACLU to say different? It's our community and it should be our decision.

Personally, any camera in a public place, in my opinion, is not big brother. When you step outside of your house, you have no privacy. You are in the public eye. That's why its called public and not private. I can watch you in your yard if I want to. There's no law against it. I cannot deliberate peep into your house, like a peeping Tom.

I can legally take your picture in a public place. If it is newsworthy I can publish it in a newspaper without your permission. However, if it is not newsworthy I cannot profit from your image. In that case, I can still take a picture of you. I just can't sell it unless it is newsworthy. Freedom of the press. (Does anyone else see the irony of this point and this forum? :D)