New Haven Independent

Posted by: william Kurtz | November 10, 2008 8:00 AM

With all respect to Mr. McGrath, his analogy is a specious one; just because a person can misuse "anything" such as cameras, poles, and bricks to commit an assault doesn't mean that no one should question whether the proper and intended use of a device (like a camera) is appropriate.

I think a police officer standing on a street corner photographing people would draw some resentment, too.

Having said that, I have mixed feelings. I'm in favor of cameras monitoring intersections, ATM vestibules, and emergency phones, but indiscriminate monitoring of public spaces in entire neighborhoods is a little ominous.

I'm also curious: What's a 'private taxing district?'

Posted by: walt bradley | November 10, 2008 8:43 AM

I wouldn't have so much of an issue with this if the cameras were actively monitored and allowed for police to anticipate crackheads smashing car windows or roaming bicycle gangs looking for victims, but the post facto crime fighter cameras will not actually stop these crimes, they will just possibly make it easier to find the perpetrators so police can temporarily hold and then release them.
Also the signs lie, if they want to be truthfull, they should read "constant video taping in progress, monitoring is optional". If the city is going to lie, then just make the signs say "armed undercover families and students are actively roaming this neighborhood".
Yale with it's mulit billion dollars in endowment should just put their cops on the street. What is the aversion for the NHPD and YPD to put humans out there with the rest of us? Are they too afraid of being held up?
Oh and in regard to mcgrath's question of being accused of criminal conduct - YES it's called voter fraud, and in fact, you were caught on camera, so you can see just how fruitless actually convicting someone caught on camera can be.

Posted by: robn | November 10, 2008 8:53 AM

Has the BOA or the state put in place any legislation limiting use of the camera data specifically to solving a crime thats been comitted nearby? That might go some way to allaying civil liberty concerns.

Posted by: robn | November 10, 2008 8:54 AM

...oh yeah...since there seem to be many NHI readers wanting to flip Mr.McGrath the bird, heres your chance to be recognized!!!

Posted by: JP | November 10, 2008 9:04 AM

I'd love to see these put at the corners of church and chapel and church and crown. Photograph me all you want we've had 3 shootings on that strip this summer alone. The real question is how can we help to get more of these cameras put up around the city.

Mr. Kurtz since you asked a private taxing district is an area of the city where property owners pay an extra one or two mills in taxes to get special services. For instance downtown has a special service district that brings us the downtown ambassadors and the green team.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 10, 2008 9:22 AM

Private taxing district is what west chapel is. The vendors in the area pay a monthly and or yearly fee to pay for extra services not provided by the city. Street cleaner, banners, holiday decorations, community events. Being in that area I think is is a well ran group.

As far as the cam's. This is no different than me and my video cam out my window taking video of my streets hot spot. I have a sign posted to. It is a deterrent for the criminal element. Some times all it takes is a sign to stop activity. This area has been hit by muggings ect.

Posted by: Bunker | November 10, 2008 9:23 AM

I missed in the article where it said any freedoms were taken away. Why can't you still do what you want when you want to Mrs. Clark?? If you are doing something IN PUBLIC that you don't want captured on a camera then maybe you should not be doing it or maybe you should take it to PRIVATE.

You have a very limited expectation of privacy when you are in PUBLIC.

Posted by: Joe | November 10, 2008 9:33 AM

"Just because they did bad things to the public in Russia," doesn't mean the same will happen on American soil, he said.

Yikes!

I can vouch that I spend less time around Chapel street since I've seen those signs. It's creepy, and the logic of those paying for them is way too flimsy for me.

- a Yale graduate student

Posted by: ROBN | November 10, 2008 11:17 AM

BUNKER,

I know that this article mentions the ACLU and some select comments about privacy, but think that the civil liberty issue isn't so much about privacy as it is about potential abuse (state surveillance of civilians)...an extreme example of this was the East German Stasi, who invaded every aspect of East German's lives...its a slippery slope and if you don't think it can happen here, consider the ill-fated Bush proposal for "Total Information Awareness". This was going to be run By John Poindexter...you know, the multiple felon whop was hip deep in the Iran Contra affair.

Posted by: David Streever | November 10, 2008 11:20 AM

If this can pass, I think it's time for red light cameras!

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 10, 2008 11:22 AM

Like a condo fee for business owners. Thanks for clarifying, JP and CHR.

Who has access to those video feeds? The governing board of the private tax district, or the police?

Posted by: jackie | November 10, 2008 11:41 AM

Bitsie Clark said:

"Part of being American is having "the freedom to do what you want, go where you want, and not have to answer to somebody all the time."

Well, the little hoodlums have already done their fair share to make sure I don't enjoy the "freedom to do what I want or go where I want."

At this point, I'd rather "answer to" a camera than a gun. Wish I didn't have to make that choice, though.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | November 10, 2008 12:11 PM

Don't forget the video cameras atop the steel pole at the intersection of Winchester and Webster. Not a transportation problem there!

Posted by: Pizza Freak | November 10, 2008 12:19 PM

They should put a camera in the mayors office to see what he's up to. Probably would find it very interesting.

Maybe manipulating behind the scenes to scuttle promotional exams.

Posted by: Cheri | November 10, 2008 12:20 PM

I live in the West Chapel area, and I'm glad for the cameras. I have no problem with being watched, but I'll have to be careful not to pick my nose, or hold hands with anyone suspicious when walking down the street, I might get blackmailed for it.

Posted by: The Truth | November 10, 2008 2:06 PM

Who is really paying for this. I think we tax payers are. The cameras are monitored by Traffic and Parking where McGrath was Director until recently. So the city is paying for the monitoring at least. This is outrageous as many high crime areas of the city get no police coverage, as acknowledged by Chief Lewis himself.
Some very serious questions need to be asked by our alders on this. It also says Yale PD monitor the cameras. I know they own many shops in town. It looks like this is a freebie for them. How can the DeStefano administration expect us to subsidize them when they pay no property taxes.

Posted by: Esteban | November 10, 2008 2:26 PM

Is it not obvious? Clearly those who would fear being observed must be doing something they wish others not to see. I would think the 3 officers of the NHPD who harassed the visiting Nigerian scholar/bicyclist would not have wanted their actions to be photographed. By the way, isn't that the same intersection? Let's have a look at that video!

Posted by: JM | November 10, 2008 2:28 PM

Putting aside the issue of whether these cameras should be installed - and that is always an inmportant question -- I wish to address policies that should be put in place for their use -- and I hope members of the Public Defender's office takes note of this and supports it:

The city should implement highly expedited, immediate access to footage to those accused of crimes in areas that are being taped.

This should consist of 1. requiring police to view footage at the scene with the accused before arresting a subject.

2. Eliminate and cut through the expnsive bureaucratic need for written FOIA, wait periods, discovery requests from defendants seeking the footage for their defense. On top of the expense and inconveniene of these obstacles, they often are implemented to protect dubious interests. therefore eliminating them in the case of these public cameras eliminates a temptation for their corrupt and cynical use under conventional though not respectable guise of adversarial procedure

3. Make denying access to the defendant or detained pre-arrestee forbidden.

WHY?

1. Making the police the arbiter of whether the video footage helps or hurts a case, supports or does not support an arrest and therefore allowing them to decide whether to consult the video or make it available without being compelled through lengthy processesor encourages foul play, bad arrests and less accountability.

2. It ties up the courts in a manner that violates all programs aimed at managing the docket as cases undermined by the video evidence would drag on as defendants seek access to the video.

3. Because there already is an existing problem with this in the police department - there are past cases where police refused street video precisely because it reasonably could be believed to contradict an arrest.

As Brian McGrath pointed out - there is no expectation of privacy on the street. Therefore there should be no inequity, no asymmetry where law enforcement gets instant access and can forgo it if they feel like while an accused would have to fight for access while state resources are poured into prosecuting the case, court resources are poured into it and an individual is subjected to a punishing, cynical and damaging process.

If Brian is right, this does not belong to police but is a tool that belongs to all of us in any scenario where a crime is alleged or has occurred.

This serves the interests of fairness and justice and eliminates what will be the main source of abuse of this new program for putting video surveillance cameras on the street.

Posted by: Bill | November 10, 2008 3:22 PM

If you do something in a public space you have to assume someone will see, whether it's a camera or a person, it doesn't matter.

Posted by: Esteban | November 10, 2008 4:19 PM

As Paul Bass will tell you, it is perfectly OK to photograph or make videos in a public place, even with the intent to disparage the subject of the video. I would think he would have welcomed video surveillance of Alden Avenue and Burton Street on the night of his mugging.

Posted by: Josh Smith | November 11, 2008 2:49 AM

I'm all for the cameras. I'm not doing anything wrong, so watch me all you want. In fact, I drive the speed limit and follow all traffic laws, whether I'm in my car or on my bike, so let's get those red-light cameras up now too! Maybe if would-be criminals knew they were being watched at all times, they'd think twice, because they would know someone was watching them. I guess we'll see (pardon the pun).

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | November 11, 2008 4:21 AM

Will the footage be used to snare cops, both City and Yale, in their nefarious dealings? I doubt it.

When I announced to my NYC friends that I was moving to New Haven (in the mid- 90's) I was pulled aside and told, "be careful that's a rough town." When I came here much of Chapel St was boarded up. No one was clamoring for cameras then. BYW, cameras are pretty useless in preventing or fighting crime. Any good miscreant knows to wear a hood so ID is impossible.

Posted by: Patricia Kane | November 11, 2008 9:42 AM

Cameras have been oversold to the public as a way to prevent crime. Having studied the research on the topic, I learned that cameras do not prevent crime; at best they make apprehension easier, but not conviction. Community based programs that teach people when to call the police are cheaper in the long run and more effective.

Surveillance cameras have been mis-used by their monitors, but often there is no monitor. What happens when the initial funding runs out? These systems are expensive.

Personally, I like the cop on the beat. It may be old fashioned, but it works and it puts a real human to work.

Surveillance cameras reduce my privacy - yes, even in a public place I have some expectation of privacy - but don't keep me safer. Read the studies by doing an online search.

Posted by: Mister Jones | November 11, 2008 10:43 AM

There are dozens of cameras downtown, on government and private buildings, on intersections and all over Yale, too. Look around. The Advocate catalogued them a while back, and now there are many more. Those eyes in the skies are everywhere. I guess Joe the Yale grad student who won't go to Chapel Street won't be leaving his apartment much once he realizes that.

Posted by: Beansie's Mom | November 11, 2008 2:56 PM

I would love to have a special tax district to get all the merchants along Rt 80 including all those new billboards to have pay.

Do you have any idea how often they customers drive recklessly and LITTER like there's no tommorow?

Posted by: Drop the Hammer | November 11, 2008 4:43 PM

If you don't want cameras watching you, behave yourself.
People have forgotten that with freedom comes responsibility.
We're great at expressing our freedoms, not so great at showing responsibility for our actions or demanding that others do so as well.

Posted by: laststraw | November 11, 2008 9:59 PM

ooh!
a new venue for street performance!!!

Posted by: anon | November 12, 2008 11:11 AM

We need red light automatic ticketing cameras, like many other states have. This would greatly reduce deaths and injuries (and many other problems which, arguably, are even worse than the actual injuries) caused by people running red lights.

Hmm, what's worse, being recorded as you run a red light on a public right of way using the responsibilities of a drivers license given to you by the public -- or being hit by a reckless driver running a light at 30 miles per hour?

The ACLU-CT needs to compromise on this.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | November 12, 2008 12:21 PM

You don't have much expectation of privacy in public!

Posted by: steve | November 12, 2008 10:12 PM

Who is watching the cameras in Lighthouse Park that would have shown who had taken the cooper cable?

I thought the Police Department was in charge of manning those screens. By the way have you noticed that the park gates are not being closed at night.

Must be because they cutback on the overtime!!

Posted by: pam boyd | December 5, 2008 7:00 AM

This is setting the stage for the next phase which is martial law This Democracy is going to be reformed by april 2009 When the financial system crashes They will need the cameras to keep people in there houses remember this date and this comment people its coming come on China and russia live like this except they dont lie about why there putting up cameras THEY JUST DO IT