| Author | Message | ||
     sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14281 Registered: 10-2001  |
Dearest Arturo, do you understand that if I enter a store, I am making a conscious decision to play by the rules of that store? If there are cameras in Macy's, I have a choice to shop there or not. That is quite different than a camera trained on me or you or anyone else in the public space. When you can understand this grand canyon of a difference, please continue your education with something called the Bill of Rights - a document that I believe CONSERVATIVES still give a rat's ••• about. All I have suggested here is that some intelligent rules ought to be put together for the public to understand when cameras are to be used, not used, where, when, by whom and how they and their content are to be secured. Do you not think this is important? Do you believe that anyone and everyone should have access to the cameras? Do you know something that the many other towns that HAVE published such rules don't know? Should I ask again in red letters? Have you spent the time, like I have, reading the articles that the Chief referred to in his presentation Tuesday night? Have you read any of the articles where citizens have volunteered to man the cameras and watch out for crimes? Are you okay with regular old citizens doing that in Maplewood in the Police monitoring station? Would you object if they brought their camcorders along and made a best of film of your travels? I hope you are grasping that there are issues here well beyond sticking a few cameras around town and turning them on. For what it's worth indeed. http://www.umass.edu/umpd/Residence_Hall_Security/Guidelines_for_Cameras/ http://www.dcwatch.com/police/020613.htm | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14282 Registered: 10-2001 |
"I sure know my numbers" - R. Franklin | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4516 Registered: 9-2001  |
...but are you concerned about your privacy "S"? Dearest “S”, every time you enter a store, are you really making a conscious decision to shop there based on whether they have cameras? Better question, do you shop anymore? (tell the truth now pal!) I believe it would be quite different to find a camera trained on you or anyone else in the public space. Unless of course you make a habit of hanging around in public spaces with your cloths off. I can’t understand why there’s a difference in Shopping in Macy’s or Maplewood Village? I’ve read the Bill of Rights - a document that CONSERVATIVES do give a rat's ••• about, however, ther’s nothing in it about video cameras. All I’m suggesting here is that some common sense ought to be applied for the benefit of the public to understand that when cameras are to be used, they are not used to snoop on law biding citizens. Do you not think it’s important to protect the public against the bad guys? Do you believe that anyone and everyone would have access to the cameras? Do you know something that the many other towns that HAVE cameras in use don't know? If you do, please reply in BIG red letters! I have spent the time, like you, reading the articles that the Chief referred to in his presentation Tuesday night. I also read the articles where citizens have volunteered to man the cameras and watch out for crimes. I am okay with regular old citizens presently working in and around the Maplewood Police department, like they have for years. I would object if they brought their camcorders along and so would the police department. I still haven’t heard anything from you that rises to the level of SIGNIFICANT CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES that would prevent a few cameras around town being turned on. For what they’re worth indeed, a few rules and regulations. No big deal! http://www.umass.edu/umpd/Residence_Hall_Security/Guidelines_for_Cameras/ http://www.dcwatch.com/police/020613.htm BTW, it's about time you got a little style in your posts... ;-) | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 9913 Registered: 5-2001 |
When you walk on the street you are already on public display. If you adjust your equiptment or ogle a fine looking woman it is for everyone to see. I agree that access to the tapes should be controlled and rules are needed. I would hate to see Steel or Sbenois, or myself for that matter, show up on America's Funniest Police Videos on Channel 78 Spike TV. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11230 Registered: 1-2003  |
I'm going to be all over the map on this issue, to play devil's advocate. I oppose the cameras unless there is a proven dire need. We may have one in some areas, which could suggest a temporary need. Art, the civil rights issues don't hinge on safety, oddly enough. If our rights are impinged, they are impinged whether or not the cameras are doing a useful job. You may say it's worth it, and I will probably disagree, but if you say it's worth it, you are acknowledging the impingement. Yet you have said it's not an impingement. Do you see the difference? steel, I realize my previous questions are not the full story, but no one had asked them yet, so I had to ask them. marie, I know our cops are all good people with no bad intentions, but we must always distrust the cops categorically. It's not because we think they're bad guys, it's because they have the potential to become bad guys. Remember, they're going to hire new cops every year. We don't know them yet. And situations could arise that could turn a cop bad. Really, if you distrust your government to tax and spend properly, you should distrust your government to protect your rights to free speech and privacy. There's a saying: the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is which rights he'll take away first. How about if the video output AND THE SAVED FOOTAGE were available to the public on the web? That would be a very sharp double-edged sword. We would theoretically have the power to see that nothing undue is on the footage, but it also gives everyone the ability to spy on everyone. Is that any better? I'm really not sure! | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1359 Registered: 6-2001 |
Tom, You're afraid the cops will act immorally and unethically. I'm afraid criminals will act immorally and unethically. Sbenois is right. The TC needs to come clean with the facts and report on the incidents over the last seven years that have brought us to this point in time. However, I don't believe the community really wants to hear that the "ice cream" cone incident from 6 years ago was a gang related crime, or that the Tennis club "altercation" where several kids were stabbed was gang-related. The shooting on SA across my store was not a fight over a scooter, but a gang-related shooting. The mugging at CHS will most likely prove to be a gang-related assault. The list goes on and on and this community needs to see it. CCTV cameras will help our police department combat the kinds of crimes that are being perpetrated by gangs in our community. Until this community understands the seriousness of tha gang issue, no one will buy the need for CCTV surveillance. | ||
| Jonathan Teixeira Citizen Username: Jhntxr Post Number: 251 Registered: 10-2005 |
I think most definitely Springfield ave. should have the cameras. from Vauxhall to Irvington . There are people here in Maplewood who just do not see this problem . Maybe it's because they don't come over to SA as much as the people on this side do ? | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 907 Registered: 2-2002 |
It should not be the burden of citizens of Maplewood to make the case why they should NOT have cameras in the fantastically safe village. The burden is on those to show and make the case that there is in any way the threat threshold that would necessitate the case for such an intrusion. That case has clearly not been made by the Chief or anyone else and cannot be made truthfully for the village. - Particularly when on a National Crime scale cited in the town's own "Plan for Redevelopment", Maplewood rates a (4!) on a scale of (100). -And that is down from a (6) the previous year. As that number is rated for the totality of the town imagine how low it must be for the village, -maybe a (1?) -maybe? And everybody should be aware that what disturbances in the village have been reported are almost exclusively about noisy teenagers on the occasional Friday and Saturday night and almost all those where exclusive to warm summer nights. Does that really bring to mind a call for the sudden expense and ugly intrusion of 24/7 surveillance cameras or could not a simple better use of a beat cop deal nicely with that unholy terror? Holy cow. Meanwhile, in who's dictionary is it stated that having civil liberties squashed or having privacy unduly invaded can only be so narrowly defined as "some cop took pictures of me naked" (or some such instance)? What I believe some fine citizens such as Art and Marie will probably never feel as others is that certainly in the absence of any real threat that could be prevented with the use of cameras that the simple existence of such cameras becomes de-facto a case of all citizens "having their civil liberties squashed and their privacy unduly invaded as a result of the CCTV cameras operating". If some people don't reflexively feel that way neither I nor anyone will ever convince them. Meanwhile, Sbenois is absolutely right that at a minimum an official resolution of policy regulating their use needs to be in place before such cameras should ever be installed, (should it come to that for anywhere in Maplewood, -and I sense that a pilot program will probably go forward sometime in the next year, probably for Jacoby Street). Such resolutions of use are common for communities that have deigned to subject themselves to the fishbowl mentality of cameras. I have posted above in Post 903 some such common points of policy which I have already mentioned to Ken Pettis and plan to pass along to the other TC members as a matter of simple prudence. Meanwhile, -Enjoy the snow. -Take pictures. | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 200 Registered: 12-2002  |
AJC, I'm glad to see that you are still in the frey. I have backed away as listening to this has become too painful for me. I KNOW that there are significant crime issues in town, at least in certain sections of town. Our PD knows it and our Mayor knows it. Still, I hear people on this forum trivialize or question that it exists. They are so willing to err on the side of things being fine and the thought that we are suggesting unnecessary measures and are in a needless frenzy. They would rather do that than cone to grips with that fact that we have armed robberies and real gang activity and muggings. I suppose if it hasen't happened to them or next door to them, then everyone else must be lying about it. Fine. I feel bad for this town. I will take no joy in being able to say "I told you so" sometime in the future. I am amazed at how many freaks come out of the woodwork with their paranoia about big brother and our government spying on us. Please, give me a specific example of that happening. Orwell wrote 1984 many years before that and I still don't see any real evidence of our being controlled by our government, or and trend toward that. Have we given up some personal freedoms in the past few years, yes. Why, because a group of psychotic religious radicals killed thousands of innocent people, taking advantage of our lack of security and complacency. That threat is real and continues to be so. All of the conspiracy theorists and left wing ACLU lovers seem more concerned with our "privacy" than our overall peace of mind. They immediately jump to the conclusion that our awful government (which by the way is still the finest government on this planet as far as I am concerned) will run amock and begin using this as an opportunity to video tape us in our homes. I'm really really really tired of hearing it. In the case of our town, those same attitudes will propel us toward mediocrity. Indeed, the kind of crime we are talking about may take years to get to the areas of Maplewood above Ridgewood..and in fact it may never get there. So, if you live there, please, keep your heads in the sand, stay in your denial mode, continue your discources on privacy. But if you live near where I do, be very afraid. If we do not take significant steps now, we will become an extension of Irvingtom very shortly. By all means, keep debating this. The last thing want to do is take action and offend some people's sensibility in the name of apprehending criminals. As for the cameras, the technology has evolved way beyond what you folks understand here. The cameras do not necessarily need to be monitored constantly. First of all, they have been PROVEN to be a deterent to crime so just having them there serves a purpose. Next, with the technolgy available today (video motion detection, activity based algorhythms, etc.), cameras can be much more effective. We are using them at borders, shipping ports, airports, train stations.... We are using them on highways, intersections, in stores, in schools. By the way, Littleton school district in Colorado (the district with Colombine) has now implimented heavy use of cameras and DVRs. They have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced crime in the schools during and after hours. I Guess they didn't let their fear of loss of privacy interup their objective to keep their schools safe. But then, they must not be as smart and concerned about their civil rights as the folks here in Maplewood. Anyway, AJC, these people are all yours. No amount of discussion here or elsewhere is going to change their attitude. Like JB, I'll just hunker down and take care of things as best I can by myself. When it starts to get too seedy, I'll probably just pull up stakes and move on. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 5591 Registered: 5-2001  |
JerryC Reasons for the paranoid freakiness about cameras: 1. Compulsive nose picking 2. Perpetually itchy private parts 3. Don't want to get filmed while DLI (driving like an idiot) 4. Don't want to get caught leaving the stationary store with kiddie porn 5. ...and worse OK...back to your regularly scheduled program. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 392 Registered: 3-2005 |
LW, Thank you for that informative report. I'm going to agree with both Marie and Sbenois that more information needs to be put before the public, and in detail. At the time of the Tennis club "altercation," it was rumored that the relationship to gangs was with unnamed gangs from West Orange. I don't think any of the current focus of the TC on gangs has anything to do with West Orange gangs. I think one of the problems the TC and the police are creating for themselves is that they want to address some very specific problems in very specific locales but they inexplicably refuse to be completely upfront about it and to describe specifically how many gang members they've identified and whether these people have been responsible for any crimes committed in Maplewood in the past 6 years, etc. Or whether their worries are about gang members operating on the fringes of Maplewood's borders and using Maplewood as a transit point or what. Numbers, maps, please. Also, the term "gang-related" seems to be very elastic. Sometimes it is being used to describe arrests of established gang members, other times it is being used to described people or events whose connection to a gang has to do with who their relatives are or where they previously lived. For example, based on the descriptions used by the state official on gangs who spoke at the TC meeting, when a child is moved by a parent to another town in order to remove the kid from a local gang, the new town now has a "gang presence." So we need some finer distinctions and history. I actually do want to hear whether the "ice cream cone incident" from 6 years ago was a "gang-related crime," because if it was, we've hardly been experiencing a crime wave in Maplewood for the past six years. So what is the new concern? I'm not saying there isn't new cause for concern. I'm saying the police and the town haven't communicated their concern with sufficient specifity. What's the inhibition? If we are trying to make Maplewood an "inhospitable place for these criminals," as the mayor wrote at the top of this thread, why aren't we advertising we know how many there are and where they operate? But as for cameras, Marie provides no evidence for her assertion that they will help police combat gang crimes in Maplewood, and until she produces it, I can't credit its existence. Even the police chief seemed unaware of any evidence to back up such a claim. As for cameras in South Orange, they were turned off 10 years ago due to public protest. The cameras themselves remain, however, and according to an article in yesterday's N-R , the SO trustees are interested in turning them back on. Marie asks people to cite whether civil liberties have been violated by the use of cameras. The term "pro-active" cuts both ways. People can be "pro-active" in defending civil liberties in Maplewood and South Orange. We don't have to wait for the surveillance tapes to be turned over to to the Feds under the Patriot Act, or to the INS or the most corrupt corners of Essex County law enforcement to stand up against the possibility of that being their ultimate use. At the close of the special TC meeting, the mayor said that public safety was the most important function of government. When you read the Constitution, you will indeed find that government is the ultimate guarantor of the people's right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." But when you keep reading you find that what the Constitution really finds ominous is "unreasonable searches and seizures" and therefore "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched" We don't have to give up our Constitutional rights to be secure in Maplewood. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 393 Registered: 3-2005 |
I meant to ask: Is Marie still advocating metal detectors for the schools? And JerryC: I ask the same question for you that I do of Marie: Where is the evidence that PROVES police surveillance cameras are effective? Links or citations to evidence, please, that we can all look at. We already have security cameras in the schools here in Maplewood. Government can infringe on the civil liberties of children just about all its wants in America. It already forces them to go to school. Not so adults. So if you or Marie have evidence that cameras in public places are effective in reducing crime, please present us with it, and the chief, too, because he is unaware of it too, according to his own statements. And for the last time: I KNOW and so does everyone else there is serious crime on JACOBY Street and on SPRINGFIELD AVE. and I saw the maps where the police chief noted armed robberies and other very serious crimes had taken place in other parts of Maplewood as well. He didn't even discuss the rapes and car thefts that take place, and I know about that. So I KNOW what you KNOW. So this isn't a discusion between those who know about crime in Maplewood and those who don't. It's a discussion between people who think the police have adequately demonstrated that the new "tools" they are asking for will have any greater effect on the crimes we citizens are worried about, and those who don't think the police have done that yet. It is also a discussion about whether those measures will be effective or ineffective, or improve or diminish the quality of life in Maplewood. | ||
| Urbanretreat Citizen Username: Urbanretreat Post Number: 9 Registered: 7-2005 |
When you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy that would prevent your image from being captured on a camera. Courts have consistently upheld cities' rights to install cameras that monitor public spaces. People may not like it, but they will have little or no chance of defeating it on constitutionally protected privacy grounds. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 257 Registered: 11-2003 |
It is my belief that law abiding citizens do have the right to be free from the constant surveillance of their government. Do we really want to live in a Police State? A large investment is required to install, monitor and maintain surveillance technology, the sunk costs will tend to prevent the abandonment of the technology and likely lead to cameras at more and more locations and new types of surveillance. JerryC's reference about Littleton seems be some back-handed argument that cameras would have stopped the Columbine massacre. They would have done nothing but provide gruesome footage for the nation to watch. 9/11? Cameras did nothing. London Bombings? Again, nothing. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 394 Registered: 3-2005 |
Image-takers do not have unlimited rights to how images of people and even private property can be captured and used, and the police can be put under total constraint by the public against capturing and filing images of people not under suspicion of any crime. The fact that privacy rights may no longer be protected by the courts isn't a surprise or reason not to prevent cameras here. Cameras were removed from South Orange following a political demand by citizens that they didn't want their privacy violated. | ||
| Urbanretreat Citizen Username: Urbanretreat Post Number: 10 Registered: 7-2005 |
Exploring the constitutional legality is admittedly boring, but as a legal matter, police have traditionally been limited in how they surveil private property, not public property. As a sign of the post-9/11 times, California courts have upheld a city's right to require private business owners to install security cameras that monitor activities on private property (although police would probably need a search warrant to view the footage). I agree with you, it is a political issue. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 395 Registered: 3-2005 |
May I also add that, given the nature of the problems described on Jacoby Street, far too much time and energy is being focused on police solutions. The residents of Jacoby Street have said there has been increased police presence, but that much of what is destructive over there is happening because children of working parents are left unsupervised for long periods of time. This kind of problem requires intervention by non-police agencies. Perhaps the TC should call a special meeting in January to discuss that, under the leadership of appropriate town agencies and subcommittees, so that the townwide discussion of these issues does not get wildly out of whack with what the real solutions are. Police solutions are a smaller part of the picture than professional social intervention. Installing a few cameras in an isolated part of town would inexpensively garner some political cheers and be declared a "victory," but people justifiably concerned about gangs and violent teenage behavior have to face the fact that turning around neighborhoods requires spending money on social and recreational services on an ongoing basis. We have a TC that is persistently unwilling to raise taxes for important, even life-saving services -- sometimes because they are afraid of Republicans screaming at them! I have yet to see the Republican "we-can-do-it-on-the-cheap" theory work anywhere, especially when combined with "we have new technologies that are cheaper than boots on the ground." I think we need feet on the ground in targeted areas of Maplewood, both police beat feet and most importantly the feet of people who work well with at-risk kids. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 396 Registered: 3-2005 |
Urbanretreat, I don't think the Constitutional arguments are boring or irrelevant politically. As far as I can tell, I don't think there is sufficient case law to make the civil liberties issues clear with respect to public property -- and that's worrisome in itself at a time when many people simply won't admit there are such issues. | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 201 Registered: 12-2002 |
gj1, Backhanded argument? hardly. I know that Littleton Project very well and have been invloved with it from the start. I NEVER suggested that cameras might have prevented the Columbine incident. Where on earth did you gleen that? I suggested that it HAS proven to help reduce all sorts of crime in the school system and has helped them track down abducted children. Gee, I bet the parents of the children who were recovered were really angry about their right to privacy being violated. Kathleen, all I can say is what the hell are you doing in public that you makes you so afraid of a camera? With all your bs and rhetoric, I am begining to think you are looking for a TC seat in the future. It would be yet another shame. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11234 Registered: 1-2003 |
marie said: I'm afraid criminals will act immorally and unethically. Well, gee, is that supposed to be in contrast to something I said? Is that supposed to be a strawman argument, as if I suggested that I trust criminals? | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4518 Registered: 9-2001 |
Jerry, you're right, some of these people will never change. They mean well I'm sure, but they lack trust when moving outside the box. Listen, going froward, you and JB keep an eye on things by you, and I'll get all these GOOF's in line! ;-) OK folks, there’s no middle ground here. You’re either with your neighbors, or against them! This paranoia over “BIG BROTHER” is nonsense; it’s unfounded, and nothing more than irrational fear!!! On the other hand, the problems your neighbors and the police are facing are real. It’s happening, and cameras have been proven to be a valuable tool in reducing crime, and identifying and solving criminal cases. Get real folks! These fears if they ever occur, would have to be committed by our local Maplewood government and law enforcement agency, or their employees. Therefore, if there were an evasion of anyone’s civil rights, it would be against the law and be punishable by either the state and/or federal government, both of who are responsible to protect us from these kinds of abuses. Tom... “If our rights are impinged, they are impinged whether or not the cameras are doing a useful job.” This is true. So using that as the benchmark, if your rights are violated with or without a camera, they will have violated the law and you get to sue them… It’s a wash either way... Marie... “The TC needs to come clean with the facts and report on the incidents over the last seven years that have brought us to this point in time.” No they don’t! These issues are now, seven years ago has nothing to do with today. Furthermore, the cameras are as much for prevention as protection. Steel... “It should not be the burden of citizens of Maplewood to make the case why they should NOT have cameras in the fantastically safe village.” That’s right! And, the truth is they should NOT have any say in the matter at all… The safety of our citizens is the responsibility of the TC and the PD. It’s up to them, and them alone to keep us safe, NOT the citizens, and not like a bunch of vigilantes, like I feel some of you are behaving. Listen, even if the opposed were given more say, the decision still shouldn’t be left up to just a vocal few with no responsibility to the rest of us in favor! This issue is much too important! So, at the end of all this back and forth, if the TC can’t muster the stomach to fight off you pansies, then the bottomline is it should be put it out for a town wide referendum… However, I find that that option is highly unlikely. This matter is a no-brainer for installing cameras where requested by law enforcement! | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 606 Registered: 8-2001 |
Did Art just say, "You're either with your neighbors or you're against them?"  | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 908 Registered: 2-2002 |
Thankfully the Mayor seems to disagree with Art as to whether citizens should have any say in these matters as indicated by the fact that the Mayor started this thread and sent out postcards inviting all to voice their opinions at the town meeting. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 909 Registered: 2-2002 |
 | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8097 Registered: 4-1997  |
LOL!! | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14287 Registered: 10-2001 |
tHANKFULLy TherE IS a MiDdLe gRoUnD. LeT THe TOWnShiP ComMiTtEe Set FORth THe CaSe FOr HOw CAMeRas wiLL ELIMinate Gangs and LEt Them buiLD apProPrIaTe SaFeGuaRDs anD thEN let THEm DEciDe YaY or Nay | ||
| monster Supporter Username: Monster Post Number: 1706 Registered: 7-2002  |
 | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1360 Registered: 6-2001 |
Did anyone read the article in yesterday's news record reporting that an Aramark Security guard was arrested for lifting a science scale from CHS - it appears he was caught in the act on the closed circuit TV cameras...what would someone want a science scale for anyway??? hmmm... The same cameras that many on this board vociferously objected to several years ago... There are gang members in Maplewood. There's no more denying it and they perpetrate crimes in ALL parts of our town. If the MPD say the use of CCTV cameras will help prevent crime and also help in criminal prosecution, we should install them where they have identified specific hot spots. As far proof as to whether or not they are effective, anyone can do a google search and find hundreds of articles on the subject. Art, I disagree. The TC while finally taking the first steps towards addressing the problem need to be more specific if they hope to sell the community. The MPD can EASILY do a presentation to prove their case, but I suspect that the TC is trying to prsent this whole thing in as innocuos a manner as possible. Can't blame them - my real estate values are going to be affected as well.. | ||
| monster Supporter Username: Monster Post Number: 1710 Registered: 7-2002 |
I'm all for the cameras, but that's only a part of things to come, see the post I'm getting ready to make in the education section, /discus/messages/3130/97077.html?1134178551 | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 911 Registered: 2-2002 |
 | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4519 Registered: 9-2001 |
SORRY, I rechecked, there is No middle ground “S”!!! BUSH says so…. And Fwiw, THe TOWnShiP ComMiTtEe Can’t ELIMinate Gangs, terrorists, WARTS, or taxes…. no one can! The only apProPrIaTe SaFeGuaRDs for our PROBLEMS arE cameras. And, Nobody needs to do more, they cAN DEciDe YaY or Nay anytime they want, because…. the facts are in…CAMERAS work, THEY ARE inexpensive, and they’re safe for everyone but the criminals... | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4520 Registered: 9-2001 |
“I suspect that the TC is trying to present this whole thing in as innocuous a manner as possible.” That’s silly Marie… the more people that know the better. This camera program is a big plus for anyone interested in moving to Maplewood. First of all, most normal people are looking for a safe community to raise a family. They want good schools, no gangs, and want to see lots of well-behaved children. There’s another plus that will pay big dividends in years to come, and that’s that there’s a good chance we’ll have fewer liberals moving in, and a hopefully a lot more moving out!!! ;-) | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14291 Registered: 10-2001 |
That's great Art. So in a few years it will be the criminals and right wing gun nuts shooting it out on closed circuit television. Think of the crowds who will come to town to see the action. Frederico, please get the B&B ordinance passed. Charlton Heston is a-comin to town and he's going to need a place to stay. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4521 Registered: 9-2001 |
Ya know “S”, that’s what I love most about you, you never give up!!! Listen, I know how we all can all get together on this. You know how you love to record right off the TV and capture all those great pictures? I’ve also noticed how Steel and some of the others opposed are also pretty talented with the pictures they throw up on the screen all the time... Here’s my idea. What if you and Steel were to be appointed the CCTV Commissioner’s for Maplewood? That would be so cool, and both of you are so good at what you do. Think about all the responsibility, and the challenge it would be to edit and classify all the video coming out of those security surveillance cameras. I mean, somebody has to do it, and who more trusted and qualified than the two of you? Who could complain? Every Township Committee meeting, just like the Board of Health and all the other Departments, you two would also be on the agenda and could give your report to the committee and the community to assure everyone they were safe. Come on guys, this would be a win win for everyone! Think of the prestige? Think of the power. Think about the valuable service you would provide to a thankful community? What say you? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14292 Registered: 10-2001 |
I have already suggested how "we can all get together on this". | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 912 Registered: 2-2002 |
Excellent idea Art. I'm sure everyone would be thrilled.  | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4522 Registered: 9-2001 |
"I have already suggested how "we can all get together on this". Tell me again “S”, pretty please, tell me again! I love it when you talk dirty to us... BTW, thanks Steel. I love being a moving target... ;-) | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 258 Registered: 11-2003 |
Some of Art's finer comments: "Here's 2 the Cameras.... I can't wait, it's going to be so much safer!" "ther’s nothing in it [the Bill of Rights] about video cameras." "The only apProPrIaTe SaFeGuaRDs for our PROBLEMS arE cameras" "OK folks, there’s no middle ground here. You’re either with your neighbors, or against them! " "the truth is they [the citizens of Maplewood] should NOT have any say in the matter at all" Listen Pal, you're sounding an awful lot like a fascist! | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4046 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anyone familiar with San Francisco's plan? I believe how it works is that nobody sees the video unless a crime is reported at that spot; otherwise they're erased after two or three days. No routine monitoring of otherwise innocuous behavior. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11246 Registered: 1-2003 |
Suppose the businesses nearest the cameras had to pay for the cameras? Would the business owners be happy about that? How would they feel if they felt that there was no significant threat of crime at that location? And how about if residents were given the same "offer"? |
