New Haven Independent

Posted by: Bill | January 8, 2009 8:26 AM

Why is the ACLU is always on the side of criminals? Why do they only use a totalitarian country for a comparison for the use of cameras, why not a democratic country like Great Britain that widely uses the cameras? If the ACLU is afraid of government abuse, why do they fight the right for citizens to keep and bear arms? The ACLU are hypocrites. Their only agenda is sympathy for criminals and none for law abiding citizens.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | January 8, 2009 8:27 AM

Hey Carl!

You worried about communist style control of people and Orwellian parallels? I'd concern myself more with a one party town whose incumbent administration of 50 years uses thug tactics to suppress opposition, and political officers who drag the elderly and incompetants out of their apartments to vote the party. Look also to your buddies at the ACLU who systematically unravel the fabric of a society that saved the Jews from annhilation during WWII. Do you think we'll have the moral clarity and conviction to do that anymore?

Posted by: Tom Harned | January 8, 2009 8:49 AM

These privacy concerns are a little odd, considering that almost no one has a problem with cameras inside establishments. It's okay for WalMart to watch people, but not a business association or community group concerned with crime. That's a little ridiculous. I'd be a lot more concerned with a corporate giant watching me, than I would be with a small city trying to bring down a rising crime rate.

Streets are public spaces, and when you're out in a public space there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy. Anyone is allowed to photograph almost anyone else in a public space. In other words, store owners have the right to stand outside their shops and videotape people walking down the street, but if they mount them to the building, well then we've got problems.

Developed countries the world over, such as England and Spain use security cameras in public spaces without turning into China, as Goldfield would put it.

And to John Matthews, legal director at the Connecticut ACLU: Get some perspective. We've had eight years of a president who's done everything he can to gut our constitution, and you're worried about store owners monitoring the street outside their businesses? Is that really the best use of your time?

-Tom

Posted by: Streever | January 8, 2009 9:40 AM

Agree with Tom.

This goes on all over the free world with no abuse
Where are the people being punished indiscriminately in Britain?
Do citizens in Northern Europe get randomly pulled off the streets for visiting prostitutes?

When you are in public, you are in public. Places like Planned Parenthood have private parking lots you can enter. Without a lot of intensive monitoring, no one is going to find out about your doctor's office visits. (and who would want to? Honestly?)

I think it's worth pointing out that the law already allows for all of this, too. This battle has been fought in America's legal system.

Have any of you been to Traffic & Parking lately?

Sit down. Watch the cameras covering major intersections. Guess what? We already have cameras, and any citizen can watch the live feed.

Let's hope this gets through so we can get some red light cameras out there!

Posted by: James | January 8, 2009 9:52 AM

A) You have no expectation of privacy in a public place

B) We know that our government has in the recent past and possibly present snatched people off the streets and secreted them away to prisons in undisclosed locations, often in locations outside of US jurisdiction. They are denied due process and labeled "enemy combatants." Given the complete lack of review and oversight, what's to keep somebody from using such tactics for nefarious means?

Two sides of a coin. If you can trust your government, then there really shouldn't be a problem. Up until a few years ago I at least had enough confidence in my government not to "disappear" people. But the heavy handed and illegal tactics employed under the Bush administration have done a lot of damage to the government's trustworthiness and credibility for a lot of otherwise moderate liberals and conservatives (nutjobs on either side will always bury their heads in the sand).

The answer should be a no-brainer. Cameras in public spaces are no big deal in a country like the US. Problem is I'm not sure what "a country like the US" means these days. While I am typically annoyed with the ACLU for their bleeding heart Pollyanna BS, I glad that somebody is watching out for and standing up for our constitutional rights.

Posted by: True New Havener | January 8, 2009 9:57 AM

I don't think there is any reason to disparage any of these folks. They are all raising important concerns (on all sides of the issue). What is interesting is to see how democracy plays itself out when competing elements of its very existence appear to be at odds.

In this case, that's the need democracy has for order and safety such that people are able and willing to participate fully in the myriad roles of citizenship and the need for privacy and the space to engage in any number of activities which the government should not be able to influence.

New Haven's democracy, it would seem, remains vibrant.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | January 8, 2009 10:04 AM

If I spent $5,000 a year replacing windows, I'd have spent some money to install video cameras to catch the perps. Secondly, there is a difference in a private store owner putting up a camera to try and catch people who would steal or otherwise damage their property and having a quasi-public agency spearheading such a move and paying for it so that the general public is under constant surveillance. Third, I'm sorry, but Brian McGrath is the last person I would have testify about civil rights, privacy or doing the appropriate thing. And finally, if studies show cameras don't deter crime, what's the point and why spend the money? To feel good? Don't we have enough Big Brother?

Posted by: jay | January 8, 2009 10:07 AM

Carl -

I am 150% on your side. You are absolutely correct. Please do not give us the fight for freedom.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 8, 2009 10:44 AM

I work in this area! I support it! And so do all the shops in this area and even a large number of residents! I get the whole fear of Big Brother watching, But come on. What is next, telling store owners and home owner they can not have their cameras? Criminal Lawyer using your denial of these camera's as case law to get video of criminal of the hook from all private and semi private camera's be careful!

Posted by: eddie | January 8, 2009 11:29 AM

In the very, VERY near future, it will be possible to compile a public database of people's unique facial or physical features, and to hook that database up with these spy cameras (let's call them what they are). The technology already exists; it just hasn't been implemented in a widespread way.

Before we go around installing spy cams at every intersection, I think we should pause and ask a few questions. These video streams are basically public information, which means that third parties will have the means and every right to track you down wherever you are, for whatever reason. I am guessing that this capability will be used first for marketing, but all it takes is a tiny bit of imagination to see how it could be used for far more nefarious purposes.

I value my privacy and have never bought into the idea that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to be concerned about. That certainly did not hold true in Joe McCarthy's time.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | January 8, 2009 12:08 PM

The allusion to the tyrannical nature of China's security forces is simply stupid. We don't have anything like that here. A shameful statement.

Posted by: Ben | January 8, 2009 1:18 PM

I agree that privacy in the public space should not be presumed. I also concur with Mr Goldfield that the signs with their well designed security camera graphic, though they blend nicely with Chapel West's Shopping Bag and Red Cross and Dining icons, is not exactly the kind of thing you want to mix with the branding of your district.

Are these camera's being used by Parking Authority to monitor their lots?
That might help quite a bit with the rash of car thefts in their lots on State Street.

Posted by: Kevin Ewing | January 8, 2009 1:25 PM

Keep the cameras. Put more up. But restrict the use (i.e., who can view them, when and why) and retention of images.

Posted by: Cheri | January 8, 2009 1:49 PM

With or without cameras, the city needs cops on the street. Many residents of the "Chapel West" area are being assaulted and robbed, not because of lack of camera surveillance, but because of a lack of officers walking the streets.

Posted by: Tom Harned | January 8, 2009 2:16 PM

Eddie,

"...hook that database up with these spy cameras (let's call them what they are)."

Spy cameras? Really?? Spying involves some degree of secrecy and deceit. These cameras are public in every way, and there's even a map showing where they are. No one's spying on anyone here, that's an absurd claim to say the least.

Are they spying on you when you go into a 7-11 and there's a security camera because the place gets robbed once a month? Is the city spying on us because they use cameras to monitor traffic flow at intersections?

How about the about banks? Should they get rid of their cameras so their customers don't have to worry about getting spied on?

According to your definition, we'd better watch out, it seems like just about every business is really just another spy.

Again, plenty of countries use cameras like these all the time without serious problems. Plenty of places like stores and gas stations have been using security cameras in this country for ages.

The people worrying about these cameras are basing their opinions on pure emotion and knee-jerk reaction, rather than credible data and the experiences of similar developed countries.

Posted by: William Kurtz | January 8, 2009 2:38 PM

The difference between cameras at traffic intersections and on the highway and cameras that indiscriminately monitor large swaths of public space including sidewalks, beaches, and parks is that these spaces don't require licensing or permission of the government to enjoy. When a person gets a driving license, he or she agrees to a pretty comprehensive set of rules of regulations; a degree of personal freedom and privacy is sacrificed in exchange for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roadway. People don't necessarily agree to surrender that same degree of privacy when they walk down the street.

Personally, I understand where the merchants are coming from and I don't necessarily think cameras on busy streets in downtown business districts are a bad idea, but it's worth having a discussion about where the lines are drawn. Like David Streever said, you can go down and watch the feeds from the traffic cameras; the highway monitors are on television regularly and I think you can even see them online. How long until the camera with the live online feed is outside Planned Parenthood?

Another concern: it's true that a person doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space. You can be observed and even photographed, but I think there's a clear difference between someone seeing you in person and recording you for posterity from a utility pole.

Yet another thing to think about: what makes a space public? In my neighborhood (I live in West Haven) a developer built a six-story condo tower on the beach (next to Stowe's Seafood). This building abuts a street of one- two-story houses whose backyards used to be 'private.' A couple of years ago, people on California St. were free to do any of the things people might want to do in their backyards without being observed. Sure you were taking your chances with people peeking through the hedge. And now with their new neighbors, they might be taking their chances with people who have a panoramic view of the whole neighborhood but suppose the condo association wants to put a camera on the roof to watch the back of the building. You know, in case someone breaks a window. Something that might be momentarily embarrassing if a passerby saw it might end up on Youtube today.

I'm with True New Havener on this one; I'm not sure how I feel about widespread electronic monitoring of public spaces. I suppose if I had a storefront, I would be all for it and if I was cheating on my wife, not so much. But it's important to have a pretty thorough public conversation about these matters.

Posted by: William | January 8, 2009 3:02 PM

And this comment from Mr. McGrath:

McGrath said that there is no possibility for his organization to misuse its powers of surveillance because it doesn't have access to the images. The feed from the cameras is transmitted wirelessly over an encrypted network to Yale security and to the New Haven traffic department.

is a little disingenous. Are they able to take back access, should they desire? How secure is this encrypted network? Why is Yale Security (essentially a private organization) monitoring public sidewalks? There should be clear policies and regulations about these cameras if they're going to be in use.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | January 8, 2009 3:05 PM

Tom Harned:

You miss the point. We don't want to be like other countries. We value our freedom more here than nearly any other nation on earth. I'm not interested in being part of a surveilance nation where every step you take is under the watch of some non-blinking eye. And by the way, its neither knee jerk or emotional. When I pass through intersections with a camera, I'm happy to flip the bird of freedom to those who may be watching. It's a slippery slope you advocate especially when that slope seems to do nothing to tamp down crime.

Posted by: James | January 8, 2009 8:08 PM

I'll say it again. Our government has earned our mistrust.

Posted by: Chris Gray | January 8, 2009 9:49 PM

Oh, come on!

I'm actually with Fedupwithliberals, here. This is a trumped up controversy to make Goldfield appear to be at odds with the administration and, thus, a hero to its opponents when he's just another hack.

Doesn't anyone watch these "procedural police dramas"? The use of cameras in public places (mostly by private businesses but accessible to the government by subpoena) is so pervasive that a few more will hardly make any difference. The time to have fought this battle was when they put the cameras in the ATM machines, like sometime before 1984, when we already had Big Brother as our President!

Hasn't anyone ever noticed that there really never was a George Orwell? His name was Eric Blair and he went around pretending to be, as John Lennon once put it, "classless and free" but he was just a paranoid who'd spent too much time in the Spanish Civil War.

No one has the time to pour over these tapes to find out if you peed on a tree. The only misuse will likely come from individual police officers checking up on whether their girlfriends (not their wives) are unfaithful.

Posted by: ned | January 9, 2009 8:16 AM

Cameras are an excellent reason to wear Jackie O or Bootsy Collins sunglasses.

Posted by: Stephen Ross | January 9, 2009 9:24 AM

This is a worthy debate and a complicated issue. I also think it's unfair and simplistic to relegate criticisms of the cameras to "kneejerk" reactions.

I'd like to see some empirical evidence tying the use of cameras like these to crimerates.

Posted by: Jude | January 9, 2009 9:25 AM

Thank you, Carl Goldfield! Please keep up your good work. While it is good that people can express their opinions & foster democracy (although I do question how "democratic" our Country is in reality ~ but that's a topic for another time!), it does concern me that so many people seem to be in favor of surveillance cameras on our streets. Comparing these cameras to those in stores or in our own homes, is ridiculous. It's like comparing apples & oranges. If we need to "deter" crime on our streets, how about hiring more police & restore police walking the streets? How about citizens becoming more involved when they see a crime being commited instead of hiding their heads in the sand? Even more importantly, how about addressing some of the root causes of crime? While there will always be some crime, regardless of what is done, there are factors than contribute to it ~ e.g. poverty, drug addiction, consumerism addiction, sense of entitlement, etc.

Posted by: DAFeder | January 9, 2009 10:00 AM

James -- right on. I would only add that the Bush admin has worked with private companies to invade our privacy, including most telecoms and some airlines. I don't think they'd feel squeamish about exploiting Chapel West's videos.

FedUp -- knock knock, History Police! The US defeated Germany and incidentally helped save a remnant of European Jewry. The passengers of the SS St. Louis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis) could tell you all about it. Nobody hated the ACLU more than the Southern Dems who turned away the St. Louis. Which "fabric of society/moral clarity" do you mean?

It sure sounds like you think Carl Goldfield will listen to your "point" about Jews and WWII because he's got a Jewish name. Do you always vote based on _your_ ethnicity, FedUp? That would explain a lot.

Good thing the History Police don't have access to video cameras, huh?

David

Posted by: Eddie | January 9, 2009 10:14 AM

The difference between cameras in department stores and cameras at intersections is, you can choose to avoid stores with cameras. Not so those in public places.

Once again, I urge people to look beyond the current technology, which is relatively benign, and look instead where the technology is headed. Face- and body-recognition technology is improving very rapidly and will soon be available in a widespread way. (Apple is already touting commercial software that will recognize and identify the people in your photos.)

With cameras in public places and lawmakers still coming to terms with the technology of 20 or 30 years ago, there is every reason to believe that private and public entities will exploit the availability of these live public camera feeds (and yes, this information is in the public domain) and begin using it to track your movements without your knowledge.

The laws and the public debate around privacy are not evolving fast enough to keep up with technological developments. And I very much fear the idea of giving the government (or any other entity) the power to track my every movement behind my back without my knowledge. To anyone who believes this would only be used for benign purposes such as crime-fighting, I recommend a close study of the McCarthy and Nixon eras -- and for that matter, the eight Bush years.

I would much, MUCH prefer a slightly higher risk of crime or terrorism to an unchecked police state in which my rights as set out in the Constitution are meaningless.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | January 9, 2009 1:55 PM

DAFEDER

You have to stop using Wikipedia for your history lessons.

The St. Louis incident occured in 1939. It was a voyage to Cuba, not the US. The Cubans refused them entry. An international incident was brewing. We had strict immigration policies at the time (go figure!) and did not allow them asylum as well. We had no beef with Hitler and didn't want to piss him off. Pacifists like Chamberlain were being jerked around and had failed with their appeasement. The war started.

We did not declare war with Germany till 1941. The atrocities of the final solution were implemented in 1942 and not discovered till 1943. We learned of it and hastened the end of the war because of it. Is it your contention that we had no idea it was going on, and just stumbled upon it? Do think that little of this country and it's leaders at the time?

Posted by: Chris Gray | January 9, 2009 4:36 PM

I don't believe that the people we elect in this country are generally competent enough to establish a police state. Most of the time, they don't have enough sense to avoid falling into the traps we all already know exist, such as Blagojevich blabbing his mouth on wiretaps, so how will they direct the sophisticated sort of surveillance you all fear?

Perhaps, when the computers take over our criminal justice system, as some science fiction writers have always worried, it will be a realistic concern, but as of now it is just the boobs who screwed up Katrina rescue and relief, and that includes the Democrats.

Posted by: William Kurtz | January 9, 2009 5:42 PM

Perhaps even before we ask, "should we?" we might ask, "why should be bother?" Even if it is true that this goes on all over the world with no abuse, the evidence suggests that it's going on all over the world with little productive effect:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2192911.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Britain39s-multibillionpound--CCTV-.4055450.jp

This story does a decent job of describing some of the ways in which security camera footage is useful: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/21/ctv.cameras/

Posted by: che15 | January 9, 2009 9:47 PM

this big brother stuff makes me laugh. everyone is sooooooooo afraid of goverment watching us yet lately americans have been all to eager to allow the government to control so many aspects of our lives. think for a moment folks. here is one point people are all clamoring for universal health care, the same government you dont want watching you walk the street you want telling you what doctors to use and when you can see them. soooo many folks have begged the government to be a part of there lives. cant feed one kid have more and the government will give you more money, dont feel like paying rent ask the government to house you. my point, for what its worth, americans have been begging the government to be involved in so many aspects of our lives its funny how people trust the government to do one thing but not another. i guess it all boils down to money if the program is something that taxes will pay for people are all for it but if it is something that we never had to pay for we are against it. i belive it all started with things like, no transitional fat, cant smoke here and the end of pizza on fridays when we were in school ( i am from nj so maybe ct never had pizza on friday if that was the case it explains a whole lot about this state) god bless and peace out

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 11, 2009 8:35 PM

Need to add Carl I luv ya but I still can not stop laughing over the China thing. Poor choose of reference. Sorry.

Posted by: Chris Gray | January 11, 2009 10:43 PM

This weekends' NPR program On the Media reminded me of an even more potentially pernicious technological advance that makes these few cameras pale in comparison. What about "cloud computing"?

What we do in public places is nothing when matched with all we are sending out into the ether about everything we do, everyone we know and everything we think. The thought police were a figment of Orwell's imagination in 1948 but, should it be attempted now, there is plenty of material to hang us all.

Posted by: Streever | January 12, 2009 3:32 PM

Hey Kurtz,

good point on the condo association, not something I thought about. I guess that the law should (if it doesn't already?) exist ordaining that the cameras be unable to monitor your private space? Your backyard, your house. I wonder if that is legal?

Posted by: kamb | January 13, 2009 2:38 AM

I get sick when I read all the posts from liberal-eliteists on this web blog. You are all pro-criminal, anti-police, and shake you fist at law enforcement when a crime happens but you handcuff your police from doing their job. we dont live in Lala Land. This city is more violentthan its ever been. How about a story about that.

Posted by: Steve Ross of the Red Rock | January 13, 2009 8:49 AM

Thanks for posting those links, Bill. I guess that there is little empirical evidence as of yet.

Che, Kamb: Isn't it possible for people to have opinions that fit outside of your conceptions of liberalism or socialism or patriotism? Can't someone want to be able to afford their health care and also not want to be surveilled? Isn't possible that people seek not control, but comfort? Despite the dumb shirt they where, most people just want to go about their lives and be left alone with some reasonable assurance of not dying in a gutter. Is that so hard to understand?

While depth and thoughtful articulation isn't the first thing one thinks of when reading a comment board, the way some of you manipulate a complex conversation into precise one-dimensional categories predetermined by whatever is convenient for you to strike out at makes me wonder if there's even a conversation to be had at all, never mind a deep or articulate one.

Posted by: Ed | January 13, 2009 11:07 AM

People are so full of themselves, they think government cameras are following them around. Unless you're planning a terrorist attack or importing a ton of drugs, the government doesn't give a shit about you.