| Author | Message | ||
     LW Citizen Username: Lrw Post Number: 41 Registered: 10-2005 |
KATHLEEN--I'm already unpopular with a couple of disgruntled posters. But what you're saying is definitely worth considering, whether the people here agree, or not. I've learned one very valuable lesson from MOL: some people don't like hearing the truth, they'd rather you feed into their hysteria, without reason. Heaven forbid you are in dissent with the paranoia, or become offended by their lack of tact. I also have come to realize that some of the complaining posters, are just as destructive to our productive society as the "thugs". | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 287 Registered: 8-2004 |
Much of Kathleen's article makes sense, but this one bit goes very absolutely right to absolutely wrong in two sentences: "The most important intervention and prevention entity in the life of a child is parents." (Yes, absolutely right.) "I mean parents or individuals in parental roles - it could a grandparent, it could be aunt or uncle, . . . " (if we can't get the real thing, yeah) ". . . it could be the state." NO, IT COULD NOT. It's just not possible. How is "the state" going to fill the role of a parent -- you know, someone who loves you unconditionally, will always support you, knows you well enough to call you on your excuses, earns your trust and confidence by their constant devotion to you? Most parents would rather die themselves than see their children buried. How is "the state" going to duplicate that intensity of devotion? An aunt or uncle or grandparent might, but not some state institution. I certainly agree with the article that the problem is hard and that there are no easy answers. But the idea that the government can replace a parent is just wrong. We ought to focus on making sure kids have parents, and good parents, rather than trying to replace parents, because the latter is simply impossible. Which is why the ordinance holding parents responsible for their kids' repeat offenses is the one ordinance that could help. We ought to send the message that parents are the key to getting these kids on the straight and narrow, and when they refuse to help we ought to give them a reminder to get on the job. As for the other ordinances, it does seem to me that we already have law for most of that stuff, and what we need is more active enforcement. It doesn't matter if we have a "gang" problem, either -- we have kids behaving badly, and in ways that could lead to worse, however we call it, and we ought to do something. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4494 Registered: 9-2001  |
I'm “sad” to say the Honeymoon is over... Last night the benches were all but empty at the Township Committee meeting. Where was everyone last night when Chief Cimino gave his presentation on security cameras for use in Maplewood? IMHO, the presentation was well done and pointed to the many advantages this technology will provide our community. I believe FOX NEWS must have orchestrated the fair and balanced public debate, as only two of us stood to speak about it during the first Public Comment session. I spoke in favor of using cameras throughout the town, and another fine gentleman spoke against the use in the Village... It's worth mentioning that Ian Grodman asked the Chief if he could quantify the use. I immediately thought, hey, where else can Maplewood hire anyone to work 24/7, year in and year out, for a one-time fee of only $10,000, with no benefits, no sick days or vacation, and no retirement pension obligations? BTW, what I believe will be the number one argument against the use of cameras will be the “Big Brother” issue. Therefore, I ask anyone who raises this objection to point to an example of where and when any government entity has ever abused the use of video surveillance equipment and evaded the public trust on privacy? In return, I will be happy to point to hundreds of examples of how the use of security cameras will make us safer... What say you? | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 900 Registered: 2-2002 |
I'm wondering how come Art and I were the only two schmucks to show up last night to speak and should I be more worried about the town or myself in this regard? | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 249 Registered: 11-2003 |
Listen Pal, you don't speak for the town. By my tally of those that commented last night it was 3-1 against the ordinances and cameras. Apparently you and steel tuned out at some point. Strangely there also seemed to be more people speaking against those same measures at the special meeting last week. So your question is a good one: Where was everyone? Where was everyone so gripped with fear of the specter of crime looming over our fine town? Although we may have some trouble spots that could benefit from increased law enforcement, the proposed ordinances and cameras will not solve those problems. Please fill me in on the public safety issues in Maplewood Center? An over abundance of teens and tweens on a Saturday night? Sure they can be annoying, but I'd put them on about the same threat level as the scourge of illegal B&B's I've heard about in town. Take a deep breath steel, you are not alone. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 901 Registered: 2-2002 |
Holy crimminy gj1, -You mean more people showed up for late public discussion part II? -That would be some good news. -I'm asking because at the time that I had left, Art and I had been the only two to speak to the ordinances and there was no one left in the audience. (except two ladies who were knitting.) | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 601 Registered: 8-2001 |
Steel, Last night I grabbed my power point presentation, jumped into "VroomX2" and started backing out of the driveway. I was backing up in quite the hurry when a white female jogger with an overweight child in tow started whaling on my ride. By a stroke of luck, a black car was idling nearby playing loud music. I gave the universal hand signal for "roll down your window" - the driver rolled down his window and called me racist. Now I was really late. I tore through Maplewood village and was stopped doing 60 in a 20 MPH zone. they didn't have a camera so I sweet-talked my way out of that one. Merging onto Valley street there was a group of kids walking 17 abreast and wearing colors. By the time all 17 crossed the Municipal Building lights were flickering out. Next time I so got your back bro. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 902 Registered: 2-2002 |
I always like a good story. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 390 Registered: 3-2005 |
I think "oversell" is part of the story (good or not). We just had a campaign, where the incumbent Mayor ran on a platform of touting his success in public safety, and scarcely were the ballots counted (re-electing him) when what we all get in the mail is an invitation to an emergency public safety meeting, asking everybody to drop everything and come to Town Hall to hear about a crime wave and dire gang threats to the town. Many people showed up, of course, only to hear some rather general information about gangs -- and not even gangs here, but in Lakewood and Irvington -- and a numerically small increase in robberies. Talk of the gang "presence" didn't seem connected to ordinances proposed, especially about the nusiance factor of kids walking in too-large packs after school. I think this is a community of sophisticated people, who didn't need to be told that policing is not the answer to keeping at-risk kids away from gangs. For that we need after-school programs that give them the respect and ego-satifying chance to be "somebody" that gangs are offering them, instead of a sense that since everybody already suspects they are criminals, what have they got to lose by acting like them? Last night's TC presentation cleared up some mysteries as to why last week's "public safety meeting about gangs" never connected the dots between robberies, etc. and gangs in Maplewood. (The connections aren't established.) But it still failed to explain why anybody in authority sees any relationship between the proposed ordinances and reducing the reported "gang presence" in Maplewood, or even reducing the kinds of crimes most of us worry about when we worry about dangers to our safety in Maplewood. I continue to believe, from reports I have heard from upset people, that some residents and drivers in town are experiencing menace from teenagers and some property owners in town are experiencing a degradation of their immediate neighborhoods and property values because of crime or aggressive behavior from people in their immediate neighborhood. I still haven't heard what will be done to alleviate those problems, and I've heard some proposals I think could aggravate those problems. The issues of cameras need much more discussion than the time allotted them last night. The chief gave something of a sales pitch for buying them, but he arrived after the public had raised questions about their use and his presentation raised more questions than it answered. The mayor previously said this is only the beginning of a long discussion that will continue to reach out to all the community (and I hope South Orange too), and I commend him for recognizing that. The simple gloss that is being given to issues like cameras and severe sentencing of minors, plus the complexities of reducing the allure of gangs, has to be converted to a far deeper discussion. In the meantime, I'm wondering why more living human police can't be deployed to Jacoby Street and why CHS isn't being asked to help organize an assembly or study groups with the Maplewoood and South Orange authorities about getting more cooperation from the students when it comes to refraining from walking in the road and sticking to the sidewalks. Has anyone ever asked the kids why they do it? Has anyone thought of asking one of the social science classes at the school or the school paper {or CCN) to take it on as a journalism project? | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 290 Registered: 8-2004 |
I'm with Kathleen on the assignment of more officers to Jacoby (and other hot spots). I don't understand why we don't have beat cops in those areas and the parks, and working around the schools to keep an eye on the kids. A good beat cop will know the neighborhood in a couple of months, and then they'll know the sheep from the goats and be able to react accordingly. That to me is a lot better than cameras. It will be more effective, and it won't create a precedent for general surveillance. I wouldn't oppose cameras in all circumstances, but I'd like to see other stuff tried first. I don't agree that this is some effort to exagerate the problem or oversimplify its solution. A law enforcement response, handled properly, will go a long way to getting this under control. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 9903 Registered: 5-2001 |
From several informal talks with local police officers I think that the MPD already concentrates their patrols in areas where there has been recent criminal activity. Having officers walking a beat is interesting, but I think the current thinking is that it is inefficient since the officers on fixed stations aren't available for emergencies. I don't have a problem with cameras. Heck, in effect Jamie already has one going at the intersection of Maplewood Avenue and Inwood Place and we can all watch it.  In Europe these cameras, which are widely deployed, have proven helpful both for crime prevention and apprehension of criminals. | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1356 Registered: 6-2001 |
For anyone intersted in reading the rest of the article, it can be found at http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/ South Orange, New Jersey In 1994, the South Orange municipality approved the installation of 7 CCTV surveillance cameras to promote public safety in parking lots, intersections, and parks. The project cost $10,000 and was funded through a combination of federal grants and municipal funds. Currently the system is monitored 6 hours per day, but police are preparing a federal grant application in order to fund 24 hour-a-day monitoring. According to South Orange officials, crime has decreased since the cameras' installation. Police Chief Thomas Andrew states that as a result of the surveillance cameras, auto theft is down 40 percent in the district and people in the community generally feel much safer walking the streets. South Orange officials are considering expanding CCTV video surveillance to the city business district, much like their neighbors in Newark. Table 8 CCTV Program Information-South Orange, New Jersey Site Downtown Area Parking Lots, Streets, and Parks Dated Installed 1994 Hours of Surveillance 6 Hours a Day Type of Surveillance Active Monitoring Funding Source Federal Grant And Municipal Funds Implementation City Officials and Local Police Reasons For Its Use General Crime Prevention Results Auto Thefts Are Down 40 Percent Source: California Research Bureau/California State Library, 1996 | ||
| C Bataille Citizen Username: Nakaille Post Number: 2300 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think it's pretty simplistic to assert that the reason that auto theft is down is because of the cameras. How about the state-wide task force that centered on Essex County? Anyone remember the helicopters circling overhead helping to track the stolen vehicles? I'm sure the cameras were useful in apprehending culprits, but they were certainly not the only intervention used. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 250 Registered: 11-2003 |
Ditto. Correlation does not imply causation. Let's see real evidence. Chief Cimino was unable to provide any evidence whatsoever when asked to do so after giving his sales pitch. But then again, maybe the cameras are responsible for all the "COMING SOON" projects in South Orange? | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 903 Registered: 2-2002 |
But Mom! -All the other cool kids have cameras! Please Please Please it's the only way I'll ever feel safe! Since when did it become an American virtue to be swept along with a tide, to do something simply because a lot of other people are doing it? I've been doing a bit of reading on this subject and have discovered that everything changed on this issue since 9/11. There used to be MUCH more opposition to spycam use. Now so many people are so eager and so willing and so complacent that they even consider it NORMAL to have themselves under constant surveillance and scrutiny. 3 kinds of photo ID, face recognition scans, random searches, questions, questions -who are you? what are you doing here?, on and on. People actually consider the serious erosion of one of the cornerstones of the Constitution, our right to privacy to be the natural passing of a "quaint" idea. They have given up. And the truly amazing thing is that they bend over like this under the banner of "protecting freedom" and see absolutely no irony in the statement. -That a person's sense of personal freedom should now be forfeited for the illusion of personal safety. ________________________________________________ From an article from CBSNews web site just yesterday: "The average Londoner is caught on film about 300 times a day, and no terrorists have been caught by the cameras' use," says Maryland Congresswoman Connie Morella. Everyone assumes that it was the cameras that caught the London bombers simply because they saw some pictures on TV of suspects from the cameras. The police did manage however to drill a guy in the head who was totally innocent of any wrong doing. We know the experience in other places -- such as London -- that without public oversight these cameras can proliferate like rabbits. In England, there are literally cameras everywhere – 2 million of them. __________________________________________________ As our own Chief Cimino honestly confessed Tuesday, (like a good lawyer Ian Grodman asked only a question that he already knew the answer to), -that there are No objective studies that can be pointed to to show a drop in crime based solely as a direct result of the use of cameras. While I'm at this I'll throw out another controversial nugget. I personally don't care even if they DO work. -There I said it, -(not that I believe that there is at all remotely a need for them in the village). Lot's of things would "work". We could have a phalanx of armed guards up and down the street and tanks at the intersections and it would "work" but is that "quality of life." you seek? Will you feel better then? Will you be better then? Will you feel better about the fishbowl that you will have created for yourselves to inhabit? I've started to become convinced after reading and having discussions including with Art and others that there are three types of people in regard to this issue. 1. Those who crave and are comfortable with anonymous spycams peering at them and recording their daily activities in the otherwise harmless course of their lives. 2. Those who are not. 3. Those who pay no attention at all. The village does NOT need cameras even on a bad day. However, if the people of Maplewood create by either affirmation or inattention the new and forever use of spycams I hope that there will be at a minimum an official policy resolution, (that most other cool-kid cities have done), to address and regulate some of the important issues surrounding their use including: (and it may seem like a lot but hey, guess what, -if you are going to insist on cameras then ALL OF THIS comes into play with the territory). * Surveillance cameras should be used only where conventional means for achieving the same objectives are substantially less effective than surveillance and the benefits of surveillance substantially outweigh any reduction of privacy in the existence and use of the system. * The use of a surveillance camera should be able to be justified on the basis of verifiable, specific reports of incidents of crime (e.g. vandalism, theft), safety concerns or other compelling circumstances to ensure that covert surveillance is the only available option and that the benefits derived from the personal information obtained would far outweigh the violation of privacy of the individuals observed. * In designing a surveillance system and installing equipment, the following guidelines should be kept in mind: * Recording equipment such as video cameras should be installed in identified public areas where surveillance is a necessary and viable detection or deterrence activity. * Recording equipment should not be positioned, internally or externally, to monitor areas outside a building, or to monitor other buildings, unless necessary to protect external assets or to ensure personal safety. Cameras should not be directed to look through the windows of adjacent buildings. * The use of surveillance should be restricted to periods when there is a demonstrably higher likelihood of crime being committed and detected in the area under surveillance. * The public should be notified, using clearly written signs prominently displayed at the perimeter of surveillance areas, of surveillance equipment locations, so the public has ample warning that surveillance is or may be in operation before entering any area under surveillance. * The signs should identify someone who can answer questions about the surveillance system and include an address or telephone number for contact purposes. * Only authorized persons should have access to the system’s controls and to its reception equipment. * Reception equipment should be in a controlled access area. Only the controlling personnel, or those properly authorized in writing by those personnel according to the policy of the public body, should have access to the reception equipment. Video monitors should not be located in a position that enables public viewing. Written policies on the use and retention of recorded information should cover: * Who can view the information and under what circumstances? (e.g. because an incident has been reported or is suspected to have occurred); * How long the information should be retained where viewing reveals no incident or no incident has been reported? * Can these recordings be shared with other federal, state and county agencies without the knowledge of the local governing body? * Will there be a subsequent review to determine whether the cameras are still desirable? _____________________________ PS: If you do not speak up you will also now be a criminal if you dare to take a stroll, or jog, or walk your dog in the street. You may not legally stop in your car to chat with a neighbor. You will no longer be able to legally walk through the park with friends or family at night. You will also be subject to a $1,000 fine or six months in jail. Have fun. Smile, you're on camera. Carry on. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 9909 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cathy, I think 1994 was before the joint auto task force (which is county by the way) was formed. I don't know if SO participated, but I believe MW didn't. Steel, first nobody is talking about "spycams". My understanding is that they will be in plain sight. I agree with most of your precaustions, btw. I don't think the tapes should be used for purile purposes (Yah gotta see the jugs on that woman, etc.). | ||
| LW Citizen Username: Lrw Post Number: 51 Registered: 10-2005 |
KATHLEEN--I attended CHS several years ago, and I used to walk home with other kids, so perhaps I could shed some light on our walking "patterns". The main reason why there were such large packs of students was because a lot of kids walked home, especially as underclassmen, before obtaining a license. By the time you were a junior, if you didn't drive and have a car, you had enough friends to give you a ride. It definitely wasn't cool to walk home as an upperclassmen, but it was the highlight of the day as an underclassmen. However, not many Blacks had cars, or our parents to pick us up after school, which I noticed alot more of our white counterparts did have. I must mention the distinction between the two main groups of students who did walk home: the mostly Black, SO residents, who walked north on Academy; and the mostly Black, Mplwd kids who walked east on Parker. I never really walked in the street, from what I remember guys did that more frequently than the girls. Although I must admit that the task of crossing the street could easily take awhile because not only did we walk verrry slowly, we walked on a diagonal, and all crossed together; thus, in hindsight, blocking the street. As teens, who have the tendency to be very non chalant or self-absorbed, we didn't really notice approaching traffic, and I don't really remember pissing off any motorists, though I'm sure I did. Anyway, I remember Academy as a fairly non-traveled road, other than by the other students in cars. Afterall, you didn't catch us walking in the street afterschool as students in SOMS, because you knew you'd get hit on SO Ave. While I did not really walk in the street, I may have occassionaly walked on the edge of someone's grass. But you see this was not done consciously, as none of our habits were, it's just that it might be four or five of us girls talking, and how could we hear what the other one is saying if we walk in a single file line? And God forbid, as an adolescent, you miss one word of your girlfriend's high school drama. I'd be remiss if I didn't also tell you all about the grief (I say grief sarcastically) that the MPD caused us by demanding we walk on the sidewalk. Which is why I don't understand where the police are now, because they were sure there for us most days. I don't get the whole ordinance thing either because walking in the street got us tickets; I mean the cops would actually be outside to stop us, ask for our information, then hand us our ticket. I'm not making excuses for our actions, just trying to give others a little insight. Looking back now, I see it as another phase that kids go through. So I used to walk in the street when I was 14, but I don't do it now in my 20s, luckily, I've grown out of it, and hopefully they will, too. I know now that it can be extremely annoying to a motorist, but I just remember when I was a "snot-nosed" kid who didn't think about how some of actions affected those surrounding me. But an ordinance is not the answer. If you want to deter jaywalking, put the police out there to hand out tickets, let them do their jobs. That's what you're paying for, right? | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 251 Registered: 11-2003 |
I agree LW, let's enforce the laws we already have, not create new laws that in effect criminalize conduct which may be perfectly innocent and not a threat to public safety. BobK - I'm not quite sure how a "spycam" and a surveillance camera differ. You may not have a problem with cameras, but I do. Particularly in Maplewood Center, where is the public safety threat? I don't wish to be surveilled and have my actions recorded by a government agency when I go to buy a gallon of milk or perhaps something more sinister like going to see a viewing of "Fahrenheit 9/11" (which btw, I haven't seen  ). Chief Cimino seemed almost giddy about the technology and how the resolution was so good it could read the denomination on bills. The MOL cam is a complete joke in comparison. Still, I'm not impressed. When did we become such cowards begging for increased government intrusion into our lives, not to mention increased taxes? Chief Cimino was also quick to note that the police department may be able to get Federal grants to help with the costs of cameras, but where do you think this money comes from? The Tooth Fairy? If you weren't aware New Jersey already pays out FAR more in Federal taxes than it gets back in return. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 904 Registered: 2-2002 |
BobK. -Personally I consider any surveillance camera to be a "spycam", (I mean seriously, it's a camera and it SPYS on you), -but more directly to your assumption that nobody is talking about your narrower definition of a spycam I am afraid that you are incorrect on that point. -At last Tuesdays meeting after my little halting speech, the mayor specifically asked me how I would feel if cameras in the village were hidden and would that thus change my concern that people would unnecessarily feel that they were in a dangerous place by being in the village. Frankly I was a bit taken off guard by the question as I thought that a great deal of the touted "benefits" of surveillance cameras is the "deterrent factor". Apparently all things are being considered, -including I hope NOT having cameras in the village at all. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 252 Registered: 11-2003 |
steel, I find it a bit chilling that the mayor would even put forth the idea of hidden cameras in the pulic space. It then becomes not "we're watching you there," but, "we might be watching you anywhere and everywhere."  | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4506 Registered: 9-2001 |
Here's 2 the Cameras.... I can't wait, it's going to be so much safer! This idea has broad support and is one fight we will surely win.  | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 253 Registered: 11-2003 |
Here's 2 a Brave New Maplewood. Community, Identity, Stability! | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 905 Registered: 2-2002 |
 | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11218 Registered: 1-2003  |
I'll probably oppose the cameras, but first, I need help (as if you didn't already know that). What does a camera do that a person on foot -- perhaps a police officer -- can't already do? What can the camera see that the officer can't? What do you do in public that, when caught on camera, was, in retrospect, a private act, to which you had a right for others not to see? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 9912 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom, a camera is there 24/7/365. The ten or so police officers on the street at any one time can't be everywhere at once. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 254 Registered: 11-2003 |
First, I'd like to see evidence of a real and increasing danger to public safety and proof that surveillance cameras will make Maplewood "so much safer" as Art claims. I haven't seen either of these things. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. We could institute martial law and erect walls around the town. This would make for a "safer" Maplewood. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4508 Registered: 9-2001 |
"I'll probably oppose the cameras, but first, I need help (as if you didn't already know that)." I knew that Tom... Oh boy, did I ever know it! It reminds me of, "I voted for the war before I voted against it." Listen, if you want to stay true to form you need to follow your leader. You want help? I suggest you vote for the camera before you vote against it... BTW, one camera on one foot can do more than four officers on two feet can do in one quarter of the time for one onehundredth of the cost... And, the camera can record what you're doing in public that you should be doing in private... Therefore, in retrospect, those private acts, to which you had no right for others to see can be your basis to explain why you changed your mind after you had made it up the first time! I figure if anyone can understand what I just said, it would be you Tom!!! | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1569 Registered: 12-2003  |
"The ten or so police officers on the street at any one time can't be everywhere at once." But...you still need someone(s) to monitor all the cameras, all the time, or else what's the point? | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 906 Registered: 2-2002 |
Dear Maplewood, It strikes me that Tom and other fine folks are asking the polar-opposite questions as to what should be the reflexive questions. Many people keep asking; 'What's the harm? What's the problem? -What would I do in public that is so private? Have any cops been caught as "peeping toms" etc? -As though there needs to be a threshold that if you are not having sex in public that you have no reason to care for or have an expectation of privacy from spycams in public. Is that how low we have fallen? - Is the wish to have the simple and basic freedom to be unscrutinized by peering recording cameras solely regulated to such a high threshold of an obvious need for privacy? Is that really how little we think of the uniqueness of ourselves? Why are not more people asking; Do I really need this crap? Do I really want freakin' cameras recording my every movement as I cross the street, come out of a store, chat with somebody, minding my own business? -If that intrusion needs to be explained to anyone, then frankly I believe that you are lost already in the great mass of zombie sheep that used to call themselves "independent". Freedom is fast disappearing and so many people seem to be in a mad headlong rush to dispense with it while calling it "safety" in it's place. Safety seems to be the new holy grail. Freedom has absolutely nothing to do with safety. Freedom is freedom and if that has to be explained or made to seem "reasonable" or "affordable" as some matter of "practicality" then you have truly not felt it or you would not be so willing to give it up. If that sounds preachy then so be it. I can only speak for myself though I believe that I am not alone when I say that the times when I have felt most free in my life had NOTHING to do with being "protected". -Quite the opposite. They where in fact times when no one even knew where I was or who I was. -Times when my destiny was in my own hands, my own responsibility and if I made a mistake I was a dead man. THAT is freedom. I realize that some of those situations would not have been ideal for Maplewood moms with strollers but we are talking about Maplewood Village for God's sake, -it's already practically a suburban fantasy theme park. So if you want cameras guided by police who will hopefully rescue you if you are threatened by some person or persons, (and that need is FANTASTICALLY unlikely in the village), so be it. But please, please do not run that plea under the banner of freedom, -cuz that just ain't so. Choose carefully. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4512 Registered: 9-2001 |
"...you still need someone(s) to monitor all the cameras, all the time, or else what's the point? Not so, problems may not happen for weeks on end. The cameras real value come into play more often after the fact. I would be just as happy if our police never had to monitor the cameras. It's like having a fire extinguisher; their real value is only when there’s a fire. | ||
| Jonathan Teixeira Citizen Username: Jhntxr Post Number: 242 Registered: 10-2005 |
Art... one camera on one foot could potentially get you arrested . Especially if you are standing next to a woman with a skirt on !! | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4513 Registered: 9-2001 |
“I am not alone when I say that the times when I have felt most free in my life had NOTHING to do with being "protected".” Sorry to disagree with you Steel, but I’d like to hear that same level of bravado from the average woman walking alone to her car after dark, or any number of other circumstances where women and young children are subject to as you say the, “Times when my destiny was in my own hands, my own responsibility and if I made a mistake I was a dead man.” IMHO, that’s not what I feel most women and children see as freedom in today’s different and dangerous world. I’m a big guy, and in my business, I’ve been in a lot of tight spots. I don’t feel that way, and I sure want my wife and children to have all the additional benefits of security and safety that modern technology can provide. | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1357 Registered: 6-2001 |
How many citizens have had their civil liberties squashed and their privacy unduly invaded as a result of the CCTV cameras operating in S.O? Does anyone know of any cases brought against the township of SO for invasion of privacy since the cameras were installed? | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 255 Registered: 11-2003 |
Marie, that's a very good question, but... how would one know if their privacy was unduly invaded? The police silently watch in a secure room. The public does not have access to the video. I'd rather not entrust that kind of power to the government. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14279 Registered: 10-2001  |
The number of cases brought has little to do with whether the cameras are an invasion of privacy. If the TC is serious about using cameras, they had better very quickly draft up and present to the public a set of rules governing how the tapes will be handled, who is authorized (and when) to see them, how the cameras and tapes or storage devices will be secured, etc. These cameras are not some innocent little device that can be thrown up and voila we're ready to stop crime. There are SIGNIFICANT civil rights issues here that must be discussed broadly within the community. While everyone seems to be discussing crime prevention (a good thing) there is precious little discussion going on regarding safeguards to the rights of citizens. And I am with Steel. Why do we need cameras in Maplewood Village? Where is the case? | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4514 Registered: 9-2001 |
...none that I've been able to find out about, and they've had their cameras since the early 90's. As a matter a fact they are expanding the use of them (today's News Record) to handle the additional thousands of visitors expected at the new Arts Center. | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1358 Registered: 6-2001 |
gj1, From conversations with Chief Cimino and other MPD officers I understand that CCTV cameras are a very effective TOOL used to assist the police in crime prevention and also in criminal prosecution. One of the "hotspots" on SA is directly across the street from my store. A surveillance camera would go a LONG way in helping the police to get a handle on the activites that occur in and around that building and corner. The business owners in my building are all for the installation of a camera. I report what I can, but our shops close in the evening and much of this acitivity goes on in the wee hours of the morning. I trust our police. They aren't the bad guys in my book. I know some citizens don't share that belief, but I believe they are trying to do the best job possible for EVERYONE in our community. I might feel differently if this were South LA... | ||
| breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 646 Registered: 6-2002 |
Cameras can't stop a crime. They can help solve it, though. They can give a prosecutor some evidence. They can i.d. the perp. I wonder about the effort to reinstate charges against one of students arrested in that middle school case last spring, for example. It's a he said/he said case (I didn't trespass at MMS/You did trespass at MMS)--unless there's a tape. Go figure. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4515 Registered: 9-2001 |
“There are SIGNIFICANT civil rights issues here that must be discussed broadly within the community."” “S”, I’m sorry to disagree with you and Steel, but I’d like to hear about these SIGNIFICANT CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES you’re referring to. Lay it out for us pal, and make sure these issues are significant!!! FWIW, I can’t wait until all you bleeding heart liberals get together to broadly discuss the invasion of your privacy. What the hell is with all this bravado? And, what makes you all so confident our town is so safe that we shouldn’t take steps to further protect our residents from dangers that are becoming increasingly commonplace in our society. One more thing, do any of you know where you can shop today without being recorded by security cameras? How about entering any other public and/or government buildings? What say you about your civil rights issues in this regard? | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 256 Registered: 11-2003 |
Hmmm...I thought crime rates have generally been on the decline. So again, particularly in village, where is the threat? Target enforcement in areas where there are problems. Listen Pal, I'm no bleeding heart liberal. I used to think Republicans stood up for limited government and the protection of individual freedoms. I'm not so sure any more. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -B.Franklin |
