Crime-Plagued City Turns to Big Brother

Security Cameras Focus on Keeping Lancaster, Pa. Safe But Critics See Widespread Potential for Abuse

(CBS)  Despite its tranquil Dutch country image, Lancaster, Pa., has a crime problem. Among cities its size, Lancaster had the 9th highest rate of violent crime in 2008. So the city took a dramatic step.

More than 160 cameras keep constant vigil on just four square miles, more than in major cities like Boston or San Francisco, reports CBS News technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg.

"If somebody is monitoring a camera and they see some suspicious activity, we're notified immediately through 911," Chief Keith Sadler, of the Lancaster Police Department, said.

Here's how it works: A handful of paid workers monitor the cameras 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They can zoom and scan with a joystick.

Suspicious activity is reported to 911 - a live video feed can go right to police dispatch. Cameras have captured crimes like an illegal gun sale, DUI accidents or an assault on an elderly pedestrian, caught on film being accosted and knocked down by a gang of teens.

Two years ago, the cameras helped catch the killer who shot 19-year-old Tyquan Brown to death as an argument turned violent.

"It allowed the jury to be able to actually identify everything that happened that night," Freda Brown, the victim's mother, said.

For some people, the proliferation of cameras is troubling enough. But they also worry that private citizens, and not trained law enforcement officers, are controlling and viewing the images. So they want to know - who's watching the watchers?

The camera near Charlie Crystle's house can see him walking down the street or chatting on his front porch. At a recent protest against the cameras, under those eyes in the sky, he complained about potential abuse.

"It's a private organization, partially funded by the city, funded a lot by private individuals, some of whom have personal and political agendas as well," he said.

Joe Morales heads the $3 million security coalition that operates the cameras.

"We understand how serious this is, the very serious nature of the work we're doing. And we know that it wouldn't take very much to damage the trust and integrity we've earned up to this point," Morales said.

However, in the program's seven years, the crime rate has generally held steady, but not declined. Even though the cameras did not prevent the murder of Freda Brown's son, she is convinced the cameras brought his killer to justice.

"If it wouldn’t have been for them, I wouldn't have closure today," Brown said.

As the debate here continues - an un-American infringement on the right to privacy or a 21st century law enforcement tool - at least four cities around the country are considering implementing the "Lancaster experiment."

[Ms_enza]

"Two years ago, the cameras helped catch the killer who shot 19-year-old Tyquan Brown to death as an argument turned violent.

"It allowed the jury to be able to actually identify everything that happened that night," Freda Brown, the victim's mother, said."

Call.

And yet, in the disappearanc of Tracy Ocasio, the killer walks right in front of a camera and because of frame-rate and a picket fence...

[Ms_enza]

But aren't there studies from England that show the cameras have had little effect on crime?

"London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million, figures show today.

But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast doubt on its ability to help solve crime.

A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.

In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average.

...

A report by the criminal justice charity Nacro in 2002 concluded that the money spent on cameras would be better used on street lighting, which has been shown to cut crime by up to 20 per cent. " -- from the London Evening Standard 11-04-2009 (today).

[nmfaxman]

George was right. He was just off by 20 years.

[SusanStoHelit]

Cameras are good - and in a public area, there's no such thing as privacy - anyone might be watching you. The camera just means that the 'person' watching you cannot lie about what they saw. It's a good thing.

It won't stop the violence - but it'll mean we can lock up the RIGHT person that much faster - and that will stop the violence.

Guns won't do it - plenty of people have guns - only to find out that a criminal intent on violence, having planned, with his gun already drawn, is ALWAYS going to be faster than an unsuspecting citizen.

[SAMTORRES66]

Excellent Idea...Streets are public keep adding cameras...

[wyodutch]

Yes... superlative idea. In order to keep us safe... maybe we can expand on this idea... How about making it a felony for Lancasterites draw their curtains at night? Why are people in Lancaster mailing letters at the post office that are sealed? What are they hiding in those envelopes?
.
A pencil-necked geek might find comfort in 160 cameras watching his every move... Personally, I prefer a 160 grain Cor-Bon DPX in my SIG P220 semi-automatic pistol.

[PanDimensionalWedgie]

"Personally, I prefer a ... semi-automatic pistol."

So what happens if the gun jams, or the thug gets the jump on you, or you miss??? Good luck fending off the family members, gang members, lawyers, and other assorted trash who would want revenge if you do manage to kill someone over the chump change in your wallet... Oh, and be sure to send my condolences to your family when you forget to secure your phallic enlargement tool and some kid plasters your child's brains against the wall. It WILL happen again in this country sadly.