Civilians Run City-Wide Surveillance in Pennsylvania Town
Okay, Switched readers, here's a great debate. Lancaster, Pennsylvania is known as the home of Hershey's corporate, the town where Peeps was invented (not made -- that's Bethlehem), and the American city with the highest amount of surveillance per capita. Lancasterians have been subjected to a community-wide program that installs closed-circuit cameras on nearly every street, hosting more outdoor cameras than both San Francisco and Boston, reports LATimes.com. The Dutch Pennsylvanian city considers itself to be a prime candidate for such security measures, considering the amount of tourism its attractions receive.The argument is that, while this is a small city, Lancaster was plagued with four murders last year, and the surveillance system helped solve one of them. Post-9/11, a local crime commission suggested that cameras might help make the city safer. In response, local businesspeople, municipal officials, and otherwise concerned citizens formed a non-governmental group called the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition. With money raised from private donors and foundations, the recorders were installed and local citizens hired to keep watch. Although the coalition's executive director, Joseph Morales, is also a city councilman, no governmental organizations were directly involved in these decisions. By the same token, the coalition only employs civilians and does not answer to the city government.
| Yes | |
|---|---|
| No | |
| I'm not sure. |
Last year, the number of cameras hit 165, and surprisingly, the crime rate rose. Police explained that this was because surveillance more frequently caught lesser crimes -- infractions that often go unnoticed. The way the system works, explained Doug Winglewich, a camera operator with a degree in public administration, is that workers monitor 911 calls to assist in gathering license plates and silently watch city blocks in order to call in suspicious activity. On the program's ethical boundaries, executive director Morales told the L.A. Times, "The divorce lawyer who wants video of a husband coming out of a bar with his mistress, we won't do it." At present, the coalition does not abide by any explicit ethical guidelines, although Morales says that he is currently drafting them.
While the program has led to a lot of valid arrests, it has also received sharp criticism for infringing on citizens' rights to privacy. Lancaster mayor and self-professed civil libertarian J. Richard Gray has put the coalition -- in his words -- "on a short leash," and Pennsylvanian American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Mary Catherine Roper calls it a "phenomenally bad idea." Even the seemingly supportive police chief cited George Orwell and 'Big Brother' when he described the project to the Times.
As interconnectivity grows and technology progresses, cities are going to find themselves faced more frequently with dilemmas between privacy and watchdog methods. If the surveillance is accessible and its results useful, should cities resort to monitoring its residents, even if that means infringing on crucial American rights? Or is the right to safety the most fundamental of all? The debate rages on. [From: LATimes.com]
Death of Print
Elle Girl
In April 2006, Elle Girl's print edition was closed down, but the Web site lives on at ellegirl.com.
CosmoGirl
Though it will be folded into Seventeen magazine, the teen version of Cosmopolitan will publish its last print issue in December 2008. It will live on at CosmoGirl.com.
Christian Science Monitor
Founded in 1908 by Mary Baker Eddy, this venerable paper will move all its daily content to the Web starting in 2009, though it will still publish a weekly print version.
Radar Magazine
Was it too snarky for its own good? We'll never know, but this modern-day successor to '80s-era Spy magazine shut down in October. AMI, owner of the National Enquirer, bought RadarOnline.com, however, which will focus on celebrity gossip a la TMZ.com.
US News and World Report
Once a serious competitor to Time and Newsweek, US News and World Report is now best known for its College guides, which it will continue to publish. The weekly newsmagazine, however, will be turned into a monthly, and all daily operations are moving to the Web at usnews.com.





Disney World Scammers Scored Four Years of Free Vacations
Stranger's Kiss Keeps 16-Year-Old From Committing Suicide
Rookie Cop Reportedly Berated, Called 'A Rat' For Arresting Off-Duty Officer
Walmart Ending Membership in Conservative Group
How I Went Bankrupt at 23
Can a New Guy Save Best Buy?
Woman Claims Kangaroo Stalked Her for 2 Days, Then Attacked
Pete Cosey Dead: Chicago Guitar Great and Miles Davis Collaborator Dies at 68
Facebook, Week Two: Fortunes Made and Fortunes Lost (Mostly Lost)
Michael Grant Dead: Crescent Shield Singer Dies Aged 39














Comments
327
Subscribe to commentsPmhorizonsJul 7th 2009 11:01PM
People, and I say that very respectfully as we are all human beings, listen to what you are saying...
...you are complaining about losing your privacy. If you are out in public, going shopping, going to a friends home, going only you know where, doing what you are doing, you are in view of of EVERYONE else that is looking. What is private about it? Once you leave the privacy and sanctity of your own home, you are now in what is called THE PUBLIC VIEW. Do you really care that everyone else outside in the public view is looking at you? Do you bash everyone on the street that looks in your direction for fear that they are "invading your privacy"?
For everyone that dresses nice, wears make up, puts on nice jewelery, has to have the latest fashion or at the least is color coordinated when they leave their homes, a question for you. Why do you do that??? It's not so you may look at yourself. It is so that others that see you IN PUBLIC see that you care how you look and so that you may appear as attractive as possible to those that are looking. What is private about it?? Do you complain when you shop at the local grocery store, the local convenience store, the upscale department store or when you make a trip to the bank?? Why not?? You are under constant surveillance there but you don't cry foul.
I agree that camera surveillance COULD, in the wrong hands, be used for heinous reasons but, in todays world and in todays society where people lack care and empathy for their fellow human beings, we live in a world that WE have created. Think about the multi-billion dollar satellite systems that are in orbit for a minute. What power they have to target, track and even assist in the annihilation of a single human being from miles above the earth without so much of a cry of foul all because it is out of sight and out of mind.
Come on. Use your heads and stop whining about what is not fair and what the government or other people are doing to invade your privacy or to deprive you of what you think are your God given rights. Most of you sound intelligent enough so if you would put that energy and thought into providing solutions, we wouldn't have so many problems to start with. The majority of people want someone to do something about the issues and the problems that we are all faced with everyday but no one wants to step forward and collaborate with others to find a solution that is suitable for everyone's liking. Do something. Be proactive and stop watching from the sidelines just waiting for your chance to cry foul. Crying foul and complaining breeds more whiners and complainers. Do something.
Let's hear how YOU would resolve crime. Let's hear how YOU would bring about peace. Let's hear how YOU would fix the nations problems. Let's hear what YOU would do instead of complaining about others trying to do something because YOU didn't. When you become a victim of some "meaningless infraction" or God forbid a more heinous or vicious crime that impacts you and/or your family or a good friend and there are no cameras around and no one saw anything (as is usually the case), you will cry foul then and will attempt to point the finger and the blame at someone else for not doing something. Wake up. You cannot have it both ways. Take responsibility, take action. Use your ideas and thoughts to help those few that are trying to help thousands.
PmhorizonsJul 7th 2009 11:25PM
Also, as an added comment here...
...there are quite a few folks here mentioning the fathers of our nation.
Do you forget that people in todays world aren't like those that lived in those times? Do you forget that people today don't care about other people the way they did then? Do you forget that we don't live in the 1700's or the 1800's anymore? Do you forget that you were born into this world and that you have been handed what was created for you and that it is up to YOU and your fellow man to make it what it is? Do you forget that it is YOUR choice to keep it the way it is or to help change it? Do you forget that those great people from that era were human beings just like YOU? Do you forget that those great people from that era were not perfect, just like YOU? Do you forget that the people that lived in that era (our ancestors), wanted to create a lifestyle and a nation that they could gladly and happily leave to their decendants to improve upon? Do you forget that it is in YOUR hands?
Stop quoting the past and say something that will be remembered and worth quoting when you too are gone...
Stop watching what others did and do something yourself...
It is in our hands now to make the world a better place to live, not for those of us that are here, now, but for our decendants to come...
Jeff. DJul 8th 2009 2:19PM
Hey, ready for a really shocking truth? Here it is:
The Founding Fathers were not gods. Again:
The Founding Fathers were not infallible, not omniscient, not omnipotent.
Quoting something that someone said two centuries ago does not constitute a response, does not prove any measure of correctness. Present your own argument, for God's sake! I don't care if you truly believe that everyone alive today is inferior to Ben Franklin (which, by the by, is in my opinion a very terrible way to look at the world) -- you need to argue your own points.
In response to Mr. Franklin, though:
Your statement requires a mutual exclusivity between liberty and security that does not exist, especially in relation to the concept of public and private areas. When in public, one does not retain any expectation of privacy, and thus to give up security would be to allow lawlessness where lawlessness is not permitted, without any measurable adherence to the people's privacy.
Put another way: cameras in public have a measurable use (surveillance allows for an increase in both preventative threat of punishment and post facto punishment for crime), with no measurable infringement upon the rights of law abiding citizens. Any argument to the contrary that uses the example of surveillance empowering a corrupt government is assuming a corrupt government, something against which out Constitution theoretically protects (split power, checks and balances, the power of the people to resist forcefully, et cetera). It's not the cameras to which you are taking offense, but rather the extreme and flawed uses of said cameras. That same objection could apply to anything in the world -- guns can be used for murder, thus should be illegal, forks could stab someone in the eye, thus we can't have forks... et cetera. And none of it is valid. At all. Logical extremes can't be used in a situation like that. And yet, people still insist.
MyKisaJul 9th 2009 7:14PM
...well I for one think they will certainly stick this fork into my eye....rather have a pat of warm butter
Jeff. DJul 8th 2009 2:22PM
Also, to: Pmhorizons...
Jeff. DJul 8th 2009 2:26PM
Oops. Apparently the second bit of that comment didn't get posted...? Anyways, I meant to thank you for saving me a good deal of typing. Well put.
EBirckJul 16th 2009 12:16PM
If you ever walked through downtown Lancaster, you'd want cameras watching the people around you. These aren't Amishmen hanging out on the street corners.