So the CBS Evening News was in town last week to cover an issue that's putting the City of Lancaster on the national map — surveillance cameras.
Media Center
Related Topics
Related Stories
The cameras first garnered national attention earlier this summer when the Los Angeles Times ran a long, skeptical article. That seemed to energize local citizens who've had dozens of opportunities to read about the cameras in the local media. There have been several front-page articles in this newspaper and others, complete with large photos of the pan-tilt-zoom Bosch cameras, and maps of where the cameras are installed.
SMART REMARKS: Teabag mob rule Every single aspect of the L.A. Times story has been written about locally. But it really was as if local folks had to see it in a national context, through the eyes of "outsiders." There had been no real protests before the L.A. Times piece, and no cohesive movement to challenge the cameras. Now, there appears to be.
Ultimately, that's a good thing.
I'm on record as saying I think the cameras are a good idea, or
can be a good idea, properly regulated.
The problem is that the deeper you delve into the issue, the more you realize that they
aren't properly regulated — that in fact, they're not really regulated at all.
That is a major problem and should delay deployment of additional cameras until addressed.
The relationship between the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition, which runs the 134 cameras now operating throughout the city, and the city itself is a murky one. This is a "public-private partnership" — but just what does that mean? Is the footage shot by the cameras public information? Can anyone walk into the LCSC headquarters and see the archival footage? And just how much footage is being archived, anyway?
As Joe Morales, the executive director of the LCSC and a city councilman, told the L.A. Times, "We are not directly responsible to law enforcement or government at this point." But
shouldn't the LCSC be responsible to the public it monitors?
Where is the rule book? That is the most important question. Where are the city ordinances governing how this extraordinary tool is to be used? Where is the state law setting down the guidelines for what is and isn't permitted, what the relationship between the camera operators and the city is, what's public and what isn't?
None of this exists, and it must; it should have existed before the program proceeded.
I believe the system of cameras can be an invaluable weapon for fighting and maybe deterring crime. But with great power comes great responsibility. I'm unconvinced by the ideological arguments against the cameras: The loudest and some of the smartest camera opponents insist there's something creepy and Orwellian about city streets and the people on them being constantly monitored by cameras. But substitute "cops" for "cameras" and there's no argument.
Still, the cops aren't doing the watching; a private organization that does not have to answer to the public is. I don't see the LCSC as sinister, but in the absence of legislation specifying its powers — and limiting them — neither am I willing to blindly trust in its magnanimity, either.
Regulation exists for a reason — to prevent abuses. Without it, the potential for misuse seems immense.
And that's a really lousy reason to put Lancaster on the national map, isn't it?
Gil Smart is associate editor of the Sunday News. E-mail him at gsmart@lnpnews.com, or phone 291-8817.
(407)
