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 commentstesoro5812Jul 7th 2009 10:34AM
Here, here!
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
Patrick Henry
And
"When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object."
Patrick Henry
CURTISJun 23rd 2009 3:01PM
When you are in PUBLIC areas, you do not have any right to privacy. Everything you do in PUBLIC is being seen by anybody else in PUBLIC.
If the thought of a law enforcement officer, or other certified employee, watching you on a camera bothers you, then YOU SHOULD NOT BE IN PUBLIC.
Since I don't see anybody complaining about retail establishments using closed circuit cameras on their premises, why should it bother you for the police to use them?
MankyJun 23rd 2009 2:58PM
What loss of privacy?? When your out in the public,s view what privacy do you expect.
Just wonderingJun 23rd 2009 3:01PM
Brenda Resh - you give up the right to have your EVERY move monitored by who - the government or just nosy citizens? Is that really okay with you?
Do they even do this in Russia?
I haven't done anything wrong and I can't imagine that I will - but I don't want anybody watching my every move except for God.
I think that this is outrageous. If they filmed in a high crime area I can understand the need to do that until they capture the criminals or lower the crime rate. But I don't live in a prison and I do have rights to privacy and I thought in America I had freedoms. What is the definition of freedom anyway?
scottyface1060Jun 23rd 2009 3:00PM
being watched in public IS NOT invading your privacy that's why it's called public...and NO, watching me is not assuming that I'm doing anything wrong...it is knowing the REALITY that there are people out there that ARE doing things wrong and NEED to be watched....I'm glad there watching. Now be a good little sheep and obey the rules, follow the laws, and do as your told....truly:G.Orwell....ha ha ha ha
ronnieJun 23rd 2009 3:11PM
People are not willing to give up their privacy until something happens to them.then they screem and cry about it.why were'nt any measures take to prevent this.Humans are inherently STUPID
beachbum1721Jun 23rd 2009 3:01PM
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"
Benjamin Franklin
janelleJun 23rd 2009 3:04PM
What is the big deal over cameras watching the streets we drive down, our kids play on, and sick, criminal minded perverts also prey on? Does it bother people when they are being "watched" on cameras at banks? malls? mini-marts? I would feel alot better knowing that if my 7 year old son disappeared or my 15 year old daughter was attacked in an alley way and raped, that the police would be able to rewind the video tape and find out exactly who harmed my child and take action! People are being ridiculous to think that someone would actually be sitting there watching the tapes all day like creeps. It makes more sense to ONLY view the tapes when a specific crime was committed just to find out who needs to be punished. If your not out assaulting women, taking children, vandalizing, stealing, etc., then what rights are you really worried about losing? I think that the people who believe this is an "invasion" of their privacy either have no children of their own or are one of the perverts luring our kids away.
VosovicJun 23rd 2009 3:10PM
I cant believe anyone would opt for privacy over security -- to say nothing of just simple accidents or a lost child or a runaway teen -- I love it -- reason enough to move there
SteveJun 23rd 2009 3:07PM
What business Is It of people to tell the city or government they can't have cameras on the street? It's not there property It's the city's. And who are they to tell them they cant protect there property? If It's not In there houses then they should mind there own business. I don't think the"ll like It If the government tell's parent's they can't put nanny cam's In there kid's room's because It's an Invasion of the baby sitter's privacy. I live In the nice part of Troy,Ny and we had two shooting In less then a month both one mile from my house. You bet your ass I want surveillance cameras all around my city. I don't do anything wrong I can careless If they see me walking down the street. If your not a punk or a criminal and your not doing anything wrong then who care's If they see you walking down the street...Steve D
RonPaulForPrezJun 23rd 2009 3:31PM
I won't be visiting Lancaster, that's for sure. The people who see nothing wrong with this should go live there, and take your socialist azzes out of MY town. Someday when you find out how they will be used against you... as they eventually WILL... because control-freak law enforement officials and politicians eventually find a way to misuse every technology... you will be begging to leave.
beachbum1721Jun 23rd 2009 3:10PM
How many are still to stupid to realise everyday we loose a little bit more freedom? Its enough to make you sick. For a country that we fought against for our freedoms, are becoming more like england everyday. I would certainly move out of that town, or talk people into shutting them down. I have been noticing more and more, and its funny, I dont remember voting for these? For a economy that is hurting so bad, its very funny the wasteful spending that is being spent on things all for "security".
"He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" ~ Benjamin Franklin
joel rambaudJun 23rd 2009 6:05PM
In Est Germany they had camera and listening devices all over the place to protect the people we all know how much freedom they had......
London has Camera all over the place , did the crime go down Not by any fraction it actually increased .
American are putting their head in sand believing a camera will resolve their problem dream on it's only tax money , but who pay taxes , You and Me. only to pad someone else pocket.
StevenJun 23rd 2009 3:11PM
For residents of Great Britain, security cameras are a way of life. The United Kingdom has more security cameras per square mile than in any other country in the world. CCTV cameras now cover practically every square block in London, and if you are on a public transport system like the Underground (as the subway in London is called), CCTV cameras can be only a few feet apart. Civil libertarians have complained about the proliferation of cameras, but most Brits take them in stride. They seem to prefer security to the right to privacy. But then, the right to privacy is not guaranteed under British law, unlike the U.S.
WarrenJun 23rd 2009 9:13PM
Good to know that crime has been stopped in Great Britain. Right?... Right?
chrisJun 23rd 2009 3:27PM
tag was stolen off of my car there! never got it back. where were the cameras when i needed them. THANKS ALOT
CURTISJun 23rd 2009 3:18PM
One more thing, in the event that you, your significant other, child, or other beloved family member or close friend is ever attacked IN PUBLIC, and the event is caught by a camera, and law enforcement is summoned and the suspect is caught and convicted because of the camera and subsequent recording, wouldn't you be for that?
If there is nobody around to witness the event, or nobody is willing to come forward as a witness, wouldn't you want these cameras in PUBLIC places?
RichardJun 23rd 2009 3:15PM
What a joke. The people that say their privacy is being taken are the same ones that cry the loudest when something happens to them, their family, loved ones or friends.
Most of us don't worry because we don't do the things that get us in trouble.
Bob SmithJun 23rd 2009 3:18PM
You like guns soo much...volunteer to go to Afganistan or Iraq. Shoot all you want!! Too dangerous for you?? Put you $$ where your big mouth is or just shut it!!
DBELLJun 23rd 2009 3:20PM
This is a nazi homeland security wet dream.Go to the UK and look every where you go in the UK and you will see this same type of invasive surveiance .Benjamin Franklin made a statement a long time ago and it is just as true today as it was then.People who will give up freedoms for a little bit of security deserve neither ,and will be deprived of both.If they had the balls to implement this where I live cameras will disappear like farts in the wind.