 |
| Crime Cameras in New Orleans |
The fear that there is too much government in our lives is a concern across the fruited plains. However, it is thriving in the City of Portland. And certainly you can’t blame those who are skeptical of the idea that, “I am from the government and I am here to help you.” Replace the word “help” with “watch” and now you have something most of us could agree is closer to the truth. But the funny thing is that when they have to decide how to support an effective public safety strategy by “keeping an eye on us,” our so called leaders manage to run from finding a solution that will make people safer.
 |
| Old Town Portland |
So the story goes like this: Last week at a Portland City council meeting, the Portland Police Bureau proposed to put street cameras in Old Town with a primary purpose of discouraging and slowing the hand to hand drug buys that have led to endless complaints by residents,merchants and visitors. Of course they are proposing a brand new idea that should viewed as highly controversial right? Wrong!
In fact, government operated street cameras are in use all over the world. On the hard results side, they have been credited with identifying and leading to the apprehension of the terrorist responsible for crimes like the London train bombing. We will never know how many crimes they have prevented simply because of their presence.
Raise the idea that,”high quality, night capable, strategically placed”cameras not only prevent crime but to catch criminals and we hit the political panic button. In Portland we immediately race to find a way to say no to protect us. Well, except when they are meant to reach inside your car to take your picture speeding or running a red light and as a result to reach into your wallet. As you might recall those cameras were meant to better protect us?
So this week when the Portland City Council again puts the intellectual muscle to this proposal this week:
1) Thank the ACLU for their concern;2) Create a policy setting committee to explore and proceed with the idea. The Committee should include The Mayor,The Chief of Police (or his designee),the District Attorney, a member of the Portland Citizens’ Review Committee, a merchant representative from Old Town and of course a ACLU representative. And ad hoc to the committee should be the Citizens CrimeCommission.3) The policy should address a wide range of operational limitations of the cameras including but not limited to physically disabling the cameras from operating above “street level” however that is defined. It should also include a prosecutorial piece that addresses the kinds of crimes/violation that will be the primary focus of enforcement. Of course the evidentiary and retention pieces will follow.4) And most important, is a mandated review process over a prescribed time frame to assure the cameras are being used as required by Police Bureau or council policy. First to assure the public that cameras are there to protect them not to spy on them. More importantly to assure they are being used to their full effectiveness.5) The City Council should require a public report annually.
When these type of public safety initiatives are launched there is a natural suspicion that it is meant to penalize the under privileged by catching them in the act doing something wrong. So often we do not consider that these initiatives often protect those who are least able to be safe on the street. Those would be the homeless and the mentally ill to mention just two.
So imagine when the privileged amongst us driving streets a newer model Volvo carrying a big dog and a big gun steps from his vehicle a shoots two of the helpless homeless asleep on those very that Big Brother was really there to help.
With high resolution, night vision cameras we would have a clear face, a definable license number and someone under arrest. Instead we have nothing but a blurry picture of well, to date who knows and who knows if he will pull the trigger again. So instead of having effective government invasion of public privacy we have private invasion of public privacy which has done nothing to protect us.Cops and technology can be either a potent public safety weapon or a political problem and judicial juggernaut. So the fact that the ACLU has seized the opportunity and maybe legitimately so to express privacy concerns is not a bad thing. The idea that cameras could be used to look onto private residence or business windows above street level should be concern to all of us.
We can argue endlessly over the issue of public privacy and the “Big Brother” syndrome. The idea that London, Berlin and other cities and countries with a lesser sense of need for “public” privacy may very well be of very little comfort to many of us. Even the fact the highest courts in the land have told us we should have no expectation of privacy in public places may not ease the political discomfort.
But the idea that those concerns should kill the idea of protecting the street life in Old Town is in a word, ridiculous. Their concern should challenge Portland,the Mayor and the City Council to lead with effective public not defeat them.
If not we are sure to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
Bernie Giusto is the retired Multnomah County Sheriff, former Chief of Gresham Police and former OSP Trooper.
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com