by @BarryRafkind in Civil and Human Rights, Development and Zoning, Neighborhoods and Squares, Public Health & Safety, Transportation
Posted on April 5, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Last Modified on April 8, 2009 at 7:03 pm
loading…
To : Members of the Public Health and Safety Committee of the Somerville Board of Aldermen
c/o: City Clerk, John Long [JLong(at)somervillema.gov]
Date : Sunday, April 5, 2009
Dear Chairperson Bill White and distinguished aldermen,
I strongly object to the installation of surveillance cameras in public spaces around our city and urge you to request their immediate removal. I believe this surveillance program, which was roundly rejected in Cambridge, MA, violates American ideals of freedom and liberty and the Constitutional right to privacy.
Secrecy erodes Public Trust in Government and therefore makes our community Less Safe
This program is harmful to our community because its secret installation and lack of transparency violate the public trust. When the government does not trust the people enough to announce its activities, the people lose confidence in the government’s ability to offer public safety. When the government fails to carry out a public process before implementing a new program, the people become resentful. When the people are told that the location of surveillance cameras must be kept secret without rational justification, the public trust in government erodes. When the people do not trust their government, it diminishes their spirit of cooperation with the police and that makes our community less safe.
Furthermore, public mistrust results from the lack of transparency about who will be looking at the recorded photographs and how they will be used. As we have learned from SPD Chief Holloway, the tapes may be requested by other police agencies or may be obtained by any member of the public. For instance, a peaceful group of local anti-war protesters may one day be wrongly suspected of terrorist activities by a federal agent. Anxiety about such a scenario will have a chilling effect on the Constitutionally protected right of public protest.
I am very concerned about “mission creep” which refers to the possibility that the surveillance cameras will someday be used for purposes beyond currently-stated objectives. If and when this happens, I am deeply skeptical that the public will find out about it, given that the program was begun secretly.
Inconsistent Policy
The policy of keeping the surveillance network secure, the locations secret, and the data storage limited to two weeks is inconsistent with the policy of making the data publicly available to anyone who requests it. We are told that any member of the public can walk into a police sub-station and look at the video feeds to see what the cameras can see. That makes it easy to identify the locations of the cameras which contradicts the official secrecy of their whereabouts. Any member of the public may obtain a copy of recorded video, so why keep the network secure? Secrecy and its irrational justifications make the public mistrust this system further.
How can the public trust that the network is being kept secure, when Chief Holloway accidentally included the list of top-secret exact camera locations in the papers handed out to the aldermen at the hearing? Why keep the locations secret when they can be seen if you look for them? As I passed through Davis Square on my way to and from the hearing, I noticed the white elongated surveillance camera hanging down from a traffic light in front of the entrance to Highland Ave.
The chief claims that the network is secure because they use secret credentials to access the network, yet he revealed his username “aholloway” during the hearing. The username is half of his credentials and probably also the same username he uses on other police computer systems. With so much data breached at a public hearing, one wonders how secure the SPD can keep the network. Furthermore, the system will operate over a wireless network, which everyone knows will be a target for hackers, as are all computer systems of any significance.
We are told the network will be kept secret and secure, yet the records are to be made public and data has already been leaked. This is a farce!
Ineffectiveness towards Solving or Preventing Crime
At the committee’s public hearing on Wed, Apr 1st, 2009, we learned that the default resolution of the cameras is not high enough to identify faces or license plate numbers. The cameras will only zoom in if given the commands to do so by the agents in the office, and even then, it is not clear whether the still-frames would be able to make out enough detail to catch someone committing a crime. In the single anecdote offered by Chief Holloway of suspicious kids running on the community path, the officers were not able to identify them from the video. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the cameras can see in the dark.
I am also skeptical about the claim that the cameras will deter crime, especially if their locations are not obvious. But even if criminals knew where they were placed, it would seem logical for the criminal activity to simply move to other areas.
Furthermore, I fear that these cameras will give the police a false sense of security, and therefore they may put fewer patrol officers in the watched areas, actually making it less safe there.
Traffic Regulation
One of the primary justifications for the surveillance cameras that we heard at the public hearing is that they will aide the authorities in regulating traffic flow during emergencies such as an evacuation or a 911 call. However, information about traffic flow would already be available from officers on patrol. And, such emergency situations would not require constantly recorded surveillance, but rather only enabling the system when needed. Emergency routes are already well-defined, and the places of high congestion are already well-known. Furthermore, the cameras placed over the community path would be totally irrelevant for such traffic regulation.
Investigate, then Legislate!
I urge you to investigate the way in which this surveillance network was installed in our city while by-passing a public process. It seems clear to me that the Board of Aldermen was bribed by the DHS grant, or at least it caved in to the pressure of accepting the money. Once we understand what happened, I would urge the Aldermen to pass an ordinance banning such surveillance cameras from our city.
City Burdened with Maintenance Costs
Although the first year costs of the surveillance system were covered by the DHS grant, subsequent annual costs will be billed to the city. Our police department will be saddled with the responsibility for maintaining the system, distracting them to some degree from actually protecting the public. In this economically difficult time of budget cuts to vital services, we will have to pay for an ineffective system we didn’t ask for, that deepens public mistrust of government, and ultimately makes our community less safe. Tax payer money should be hiring more officers, not paying for junk technology that our community doesn’t want.
Contrary to the statement by the assistant city solicitor at the public hearing, our community does have an expectation of privacy in our public spaces. Let’s not turn America, the land of the free, into a police state with Big Brother watching us everywhere we go.
Thanks for holding the public hearing and for taking public comments on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Barry Rafkind
Ossipee Road, Ward 7
loading…
Great letter, Barry!
I’m so glad you mentioned the glaring contradiction around the “14 day” expiration policy for the collected images and data- since anyone can purchase those images for any moment on any day (as the Chief promised), then, there is an unlimited potential for that data to be duplicated, published, and to migrate and morph in any number of ways and days-until such images deteriorate!
Does anyone know the current status of the Red Light Photo Enforcement program in Somerville? That program was first noted in the Somerville Journal in 2006- “Big Brother soon may be watching you,” by Brock Parker, 7/5/06; and again, in 2008, when the Journal reported that MA law must be changed before these cameras can be installed- “Curtatone, police chief back law to allow traffic cameras,” by S.H. Bagley, Somerville Journal 4/18/08.
loading...
Barry/Eila, if you’re not doing anything wrong then how does it affect you if there are cameras located thoughout the city? The city is not using these cameras for dishing out traffic tickets. They’re being used to *possibly* prevent or solve crimes (like vandalism or a break-in or a mugging or a rape)… the city used DHS money for them, so we’re not out anything. If you had cameras at more locations then you’ll have less crime and more crimes solved.
What stops someone from city under one of the cameras now and running a camcorder? What’s the difference? What is so top secret? That line of argument made no sense.
loading...
Harry, I agree, we can all take pictures and spread them around, and that’s a great point! However, the fact that this is a government-sponsored “secret” program which provides the capacity to take pictures 24/7/365, capture images within a 4 block radius, be able to do this in any weather, and with the additional wi-fi capacity to download images to police laptops in cruisers, etc., leaves me with legitimate concerns that the public has been made vulnerable to spying by a secretive list of “authorities with passwords.” It’s creepy.
loading...
Eila, I guess my point is what is the privacy concern in walking or driving across some PUBLIC intersection? As I said (sort of), anyone can sit down and film the intersection if they so choose. Also, what prevents any individual or business from sticking some web cam out his window and filming? Or Google from driving around and filming? Nothing that I know of and there are no guarantees on what happens to those images. And unlike Barry I have illusions about privacy once I walk out my front door… and unless I intend to do something wrong then why should I care?
Now… if the city were to stick a camera inside your house – that would be different, but they’re not doing that. They just threw a handful (7?) of cameras up (that were bought using a federal grant) at some key intersections. If it helps solve some cases of robbery, hit & runs, vandalism, etc… then I’m all for it.
loading...
eila, I would also be interested to know the status of that red light enforcement program. This was not discussed at the public hearing, but using the cameras in this way would be an example of what I referred to as “mission creep”, and I would not be surprised if that happens already. The July 2006 article you mentioned is linked here Big Brother soon may be watching you. The April 2008 article is linked here Curtatone, police chief back law to allow traffic cameras.
Harry, how are you so sure that the city is not using the cameras for writing traffic tickets? The city’s interest in just such a ticketing system is apparent from the aforementioned articles in the SJ.
DHS money started the program, but the city will bear the on-going costs.
Re-read my section above “Ineffectiveness towards Solving or Preventing Crime” as to why these cameras are not likely to solve or deter the types of crime you mentioned.
The difference between private cameras and those used by the police is that private cameras operated by private residents are not used to look out for criminal activity with the possibility of arrests resulting from the observations.
But, I agree with Harry that it makes no sense for the authorities to wrap this program in such secrecy. Indeed, what is so top secret here?
The creepiness factor, as eila mentions, turns people off to this program and erodes public trust in the police, and that makes our city less safe.
loading...
Harry, I agree with your points!
However, I am specifically concerned about who has the power to decide how to access the latent targeting capabilities of this powerful surveillance technology.
loading...
Barry -
I don’t know if I misread your comment, but I certainly WANT the city to use cameras to write traffic tickets. From my house in East Somerville, I can’t cross Washington Street during rush hour without taking my life in my hands. There are so many people who run the red light at Inner Belt Road and Washington Street that the 5 second walk sign usually says “don’t walk” again by the time the cars have stopped coming through. Because this is right near the Charlestown line, the chances of the PD committing a full time cruiser to this intersection are slim. I have seen them there before (usually following a complaint to Alderman Roche), but they gradually drift away to other locations (probably by necessity).
I WANT a traffic camera! I WANT these out-of-town through travellers to get tickets! It doesn’t need to be a secret – actually in this case it’s better if people know it’s there.
loading...
Steve, it sounds like what you really want is to have safe pedestrian cross-walks on Washington Street. A red light camera is only a means to that end. But I would guess that reprogramming the lights (to have a longer walk time) or perhaps redesigning the local intersections would be less costly and more effective solutions to the problem. Have you contacted your alderman or any of your neighborhood groups about this issue?
loading...
I agree! traffic cameras will not get at the root of such pedestrian safety and access problems.
The city would serve its customers well by proactively modernizing its traffic signal equipment, and, at the same time updating its signal timing plans citywide. The upgraded equipment would improve the staff’s efficiency in managing the system.
The benefits of area-wide signal timing certainly outweigh the costs- studies show that such (proactive, intelligent) planning leads to shorter commute times, improved air quality, reduced accidents, and reduced driver frustration by 40:1! (from: Retting, R.A.; Chapline, J.F.; and Williams, A.F., “Changes In Crash Risk Following Re-Timing Of
Traffic Signal Change Intervals”. Accident Analysis and Prevention 34:215-20, 2002. ALSO SEE: 2007 National Traffic Signal Report Card Technical Report, National Transportation Operations
Coalition).
This is a community safety and access issue and would certainly benefit over 70% of the residents living in East Somerville. Since the city has extra Recovery Act CDBG funding, this project would be an excellent way to spend some of those funds. And East Somerville is one of the communities that is especially targeted for use of CDBG funding, since it is one of the two most low-income areas of the city (the other currently being Union Square).
Acronymically speaking: CDBG = Community Development Block Grant funds. These funds are used for 3 localized purposes: provide a decent living environment, increase equitable affordable housing opportunities, and expand economic opportunities. 70% of the CDBG funding must be used to improve these conditions for low income residents. (That is aggregated over a 3 year period.)
The City of Somerville is an Entitlement Community and has received the promise of an extra $772,033 in CDBG-R ( “R” stands for Recovery”) funding over and separate from its 2009-2010 estimated $4,936,281 in new funding and program income. It will roll out its plans for the use of those funds on April 14.
loading...
Barry and Eila -
Your responses speak to each other. I have been told that the reason the walk time cannot be longer at this intersection is because it would interfere with traffic patterns. Somerville HAS a traffic engineer and the lights along Washington Street are coordinated from the Boston line to McGrath Highway.
I have spoken with Alderman Roche about this issue a couple of times – he was able to get the walk light extended for the crosswalk at Mrtle Street (opposite Cobble Hill apartments). I was told the because there are two separate traffic signals that need to be accommodated (at Inner Belt Road), the walk signal can’t be extended without interfering with traffic patterns.
I was among a group of East Somerville Neighbors for Change (ESNC) that met on 2 separate occasions with representatives of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to get them to extend the walk signals at several intersections on McGrath Highway (don’t ask why DCR is charged with this – it has to do with the old MDC and the vagaries of Massachusetts’ bureaucracies). I brought up the Washington Street situation at least once at an ESNC meeting, but was not able to implement any action (this was a while ago, and I could have admittedly pressed the issue further – things came up in my life and I haven’t been back in a while). Llike East Somerville Main Streets, ESNCtends to be a Broadway-centric group (that’s not a dig on them, just a reflection on where the members tend to live). I once went to an East Somerville Main Streets meeting that featured a team building/communication exercise that asked us to tag “pedestrian hazards” on a large map of East Somerville. Most of Washington Street was entirely off of the map.
In my opinion, the problem is rampant disregard for traffic rules (in this case a red light) that has a simple solution: enforcement.
loading...
Steve, you’ve clearly been proactive and responsible in working on these issues for everyone’s behalf. It would be great if more people were listening to you, for sure! As well, more enforcement of traffic rules would be for the public’s benefit, in an ideal world.
However, you’re being told that a walk time at an intersection can’t be long enough for you to cross safely (5 seconds is certainly an unreasonable walk signal) because “it interferes with traffic patterns?”
So… that answer is telling. Since signal timing often requires trade-offs between various users at an intersection (like motorists versus
pedestrians and bicycles), it sounds like the choice made here is to tradeoff safe pedestrian crossing times versus maximizing automobile capacity. It’s not like it’s an immutable law- it’s a human-designed system!
If it’s also true that folks are ignoring traffic laws here with impunity largely because neither Somerville nor Charlestown wants to own this location’s traffic enforcement issues, how does it follow that those who are ignoring the laws are mostly out-of-towners?
I’m not dissing the judgement of the Traffic Engineer here, either; she or he may well be a skilled practitioner. To be fair, Somerville joins the nation in receiving low marks with regards to its signal timing policies and procedures. Here’s a complicated issue that would involve our regional and local elected officials working together with the community, to ensure that there’s an integrated pedestrian signal timing plan in place- one that can safeguard multimodal use of our roadways.
Merely ticketing those that break the law sidesteps the need to understand the issues and develop a comprehensive plan. It may seem to be a cheaper or swifter solution, but it dumbs us all down.
loading...