|
Videos
April 20, 2011 By Sarah Rich
Park goers might expect to see the eyes of owls and squirrels while walking through public parks; what they may not expect to see are surveillance cameras looking at them as well.
In January, the Flushing, Mich., Police Department had five IP surveillance cameras installed in its city’s Riverview Park. The 24-hour surveillance cameras were installed to monitor areas that have been frequent crime targets. Police Chief Mark Hoornstra said one of the park’s biggest crimes is destruction of property — ranging from drawings on picnic tables to gang graffiti.
The cameras — purchased through a portion of a $100,000 justice assistance grant from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — are only activated by motion, and the footage is recorded at the city’s Department of Public Works.
But does occasional park vandalism call for 24-hour surveillance? Hoornstra said although there hasn’t been much negative feedback about the cameras, he was surprised to hear comments that liken the cameras to Big Brother.
“A park is a public place; it’s a place that’s open. And there’s really no expectation of privacy in a park, I wouldn’t expect,” Hoornstra said and later commented, “The cameras don’t monitor anything that a police officer wouldn’t be able to monitor if he was sitting in a patrol car.”
The Police Department has already used the cameras to positively identify minors who damaged one of the park’s picnic tables, which led to confessions from the perpetrators. The department is currently in the process of using a camera recording to identify a suspect caught spraying graffiti in the park.
While Flushing is finding its new cameras in Riverview Park to be an overall success, other cities haven’t been able to keep surveillance cameras in parks due to public opposition.
For example, backlash from the community led to cameras being removed from Seattle’s Cal Anderson Park. In 2008, then-Mayor Greg Nickels had three surveillance cameras installed throughout the park without notifying the public or City Council first. He had the cameras installed to reduce crime in the park, said Sally Bagshaw, a Seattle councilwoman and chair of the Parks and Seattle Center Committee.
At the time, protocol for the cameras outlined that recordings were only to be viewed if a crime took place in the park that had been reported to the police, she said. The Seattle Police East Precinct was responsible for reviewing any footage after a report was made.
But even with the strict guidelines for viewing the camera footage, the negative response from members of the community and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was so strong that after a series of public hearings, the council had the cameras removed last year, Bagshaw said.
“We met with the ACLU and neighborhood leaders who went down and looked at the police cameras, the protocol, how it was all working,” she said. “And after a fairly significant time, we decided, ‘Let’s just take these cameras out, they’re not helping.’”
You may use or reference this story with attribution and a link to
http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Cameras-Parks-Assist-Police.html
Collaborative Justice: Transforming Criminal Justice Services Through Unified Collaboration
Cloud-Based Services Accelerate Public Sector Adoption of Video Collaboration
I have no problem with cameras set in high crime areas (even though the perps usually move over a block or two to avoid them thus reducing their effectiveness)but I do have a problem with cameras set in remote campsites in national forests especially without any signs warning people. This happened recently in our area. The camper found the camera (no i.d. attached) and notified the local police. Eventually the camper received a nasty phone call from a federal employee who demanded the camera be returned (which it was). The one place you expect some privacy is in a tent campground so shame on the feds in their handling of this particular situation.
Drawings on picnic tables, fences,playground units, markings on outdoor courts and tag-art, graffiti or vandalism SHOULD concern us ALL. It should matter that anyone would want to make their mark in the world by pulling out spray paints of varying hues and expressing their tag-art or gang affiliation through creative expressions or images. It should matter to all citizens if perfectly good property/equipment is defaced. I applaud the use of cameras in the park. I respect the rights of those who oppose the cameras as their need for a place to act or revel in seclusion must surely outweigh their concern for safety and conserving the beauty of nature. "May they find that special raw outdoors they seek where they may set their tents, throw back the flaps, pull that special someone close and let the good times roll. May non of their property or transportation be damaged or stolen bt those who now get away with painting on public property and soon graduate to greater acts of distruction". Wake up councils and let the Police do their jobs.
Olympia, Washington has a beautiful setting for a city. However, there is a problem with graffiti in many public places. I would be in favor of surveillance cameras if that would help make this city a better place to live.
As stated before in a few of the comments, do people feel the only place they can expose themselves or enjoy a close encounter with a partner only in the park which is also shared with young children as well as the rest of us. If this is the case have a police car and officer in the park with cameras attached to record these acts, arrest the laws breakers, and ticket those who are using the park(s) for more enjoyment than the intended use. I enjoy the beauty of a nice body but I don't think it should be placed out in the open where it can teach children how to break the law, or does Washington State allow public nudity? As for the destruction of the park, just raise the taxes to pay for the repair and replacement of the damage and let’s see how fast people change their mind when the camera could identify the vandals who should be fined to repair and replace the damage.
I don't need a camera to keep me and my family safe. I'll do that on my own. You know, like our ancestors did. And why is bailout money being used for this? The whole idea of cameras are there to keep us safe is moronic. I can't think of the last time I heard of a police officer or a security guard springing into action and saving the day because of the crime they saw on the camera. And a quick note to the police, you have no privacy in public either, so when you "roid-rage" on someone in public, don't even try to confiscate cellphone cameras.
I happen to frequent our local park daily, as it is a wonderful place for a run. I do have to say that I wish there were cameras throughout our park. I would feel much less vulnerable knowing that possible vandals or trouble makers might think twice before attempting anything unlawful. I also don't want to happen upon someone enjoying their "private time" with their significant other. I find it ironic that some people believe that police officers have so much time to just sit there and observe the monitors, as they capture the park's daily activities...give me a break!
Anyone who doesn't want cameras in our parks or other public places must have something to hide and that is exactly why we should have the cameras in place!
What's next? Will the ACLU find that police that patrol areas by car, by bike or on foot are invading peoples privacy? If you want privacy stay home. There should be no assumption of privacy anywhere in public. The idea of seeing a difference between a live body sitting in a car or a camera on the same corner is just moronic. The reference to Orwell's "Big Brother" is just a silly. With budget cuts police will have to do more with less. Camera's are just one tool to use. Join the new world. It's not as scary as you may think and the gov-ment isn't out to get you... silly wabbits
Is it legal to film part of your yard and part of your neighbors yard in the background who is running an illegal car painting shop? The camera is for my 85yr old mom`s saftey and peace of mind.
Steve is clearly already drinking the Kool-Aid of the impending no-privacy world. Steve seems happy to invite us all into his bedroom to go through he and his wife's drawers... that is,since he has nothing to hide after-all. Steve, how about we give you a .35% tax cut if you install see-through wall in your house? Shouldn't be an issue since you've got nothing to hide? Do you speak for your children, too?