Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
Last week I read, like many of you, the article in the Boston Globe on “Cameras…in public sites.” I was startled by the opening paragraph because it was discussing the use of video cameras by the Lowell Police Department (LPD).
According to the LPD this is the plan: “…the LPD received federal grant money from the COPS Technology Office for the purpose of implementing a “City-Wide Security and Video Management Network.” In order for the surveillance system to work properly, it needs to be connected via video receivers at selected wireless bridge sites. Because several schools strategically located throughout the city, the LPD will be mounting these wireless receivers on the rooftops of selected schools, thus enhancing the network connectivity. The LPD will begin the project with approximately (14) cameras that will ultimately be mounted as needed and in accordance with the level of crime in a targeted area. “
There is no intention of monitoring students inside the schools nor outside. As some of you may recall, the LPD was one of two local entities to receive funds from the federal spending bill and the funds were for this video program.
And this is what the newspaper wrote: “Police in Lowell are installing sophisticated video surveillance systems to watch students inside and outside the public schools as part of a citywide security system to monitor and deter criminal activity.”
So if you read the Globe story and have not heard or read the LPD’s explanation, you are highly misinformed. I heard about the LPD clarification while listening to WCAP; I did not see a correction in the Globe yet.
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.617 seconds
March 31st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Jackie Doherty recently wrote a post critical of the Globe story. She also explained the benefits of having cameras in operation at Lowell High
April 1st, 2009 at 7:57 am
The cameras have been operating very well at LHS. At a FLHS meeting a few years ago the headmaster gave a presentation on how they work and what they accomplish for the school. Surveillance throughout the city is an unfortunate sign on the times. I don’t like the idea of the intrusion into our personal lives but as my Dad would say. “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about”.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:42 am
Well, you also don’t have a right to privacy on public property, and that goes for the students at the high school. Even street cameras are technically constitutional as far as I know. However, there’s a sort of Big Brother aspect to it all nonetheless, and we should always evaluate the need for safety versus the need for privacy in all these situations, so that we don’t turn into London, for instance.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Would a camera mounted on a public street pointed at your front door and windows be constitutional? Just curious.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 am
To be honest, I’m not sure. Certainly it “crosses” the invisible air boundary of your property, but at the same time, if a cop stops a car, and sees drugs on the back seat in plain view, they are given probable cause to search that car, which is normally considered private property for purposes of deciding constitutionality of searches. So I would imagine that the visible parts of your property may well be within rights, however freakin’ creepy it would be.