Do we want to be under surveillance?
Posted on: June 19, 2009 | admin | 19 Comments | Print Article | Rate Post:
(8 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)Resolution 2009-051 in the June 22 council packet is accepting 350,000.00 from Homeland Security to expand the security camera system in Seward. We currently have security cameras in the small boat harbor due to vandalism that has occurred there, but do we really need more? I strongly urge the city council to pull this resolution off the consent agenda and discuss the ramifications of an expanded security camera system in Seward.
I have talked with 4 council members regarding this resolution. None of them have seen the Secuity Vulnerability Assessment that was completed by the Seward Police department, nor do they know where these cameras will be placed. I also called the City Manager, and he didn’t know where the cameras are going to be placed. He did say that communities that have cameras are safer, but do we really have a major crime problem in Seward that requires we all be on camera when we’re on the streets?
I have no problem with cameras on the campgrounds, playgrounds or post office. I do take issue with cameras being placed along the streets where people are just walking their dogs, riding bikes, etc. Do we really need to be on camera when outside in a small town like this? We are not London, England, Madrid, Spain or Belfast, Ireland. We are a small community, and I don’t believe we need that much government intrusion in our lives.
When George Orwell wrote 1984, he painted a bleak picture of the future where everyone is continually watched and monitored. He also meant it as a cautionary tale of what can happen if people are not vigilante regarding government actions. I know SPD and the administration don’t mean any harm by wanting to expand the camera system, their job is to keep the community safe. I also strongly believe the community should discuss camera use, where the cameras are to be placed or whether or not we want more cameras. Just because we can receive funds for this system doesn’t mean that we really need it. Do we want to be under surveillance?
Vanta Shafer
Comments
19 Responses to “Do we want to be under surveillance?”
Recent Comments
- Dot Bardarson on Gold Run and the North Pole Sleddog Championships
- Dorene Lorenz on Pioneers of Alaska
- musiclover on City Proclaims Seward Alaska’s Wellness Capital
- Marti on Sourdough rescheduled
June 19th, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
I strongly agree with Vanta. We don’t need surveillance cameras. The sensible policing we have now is keeping our community safe without a passive infringment upon a citizens right to privacy.
June 19th, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
This does seem like a bit of overkill. We should be looking for money to work on things that really need to be fixed in our community.
June 19th, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Vanta is right on
June 19th, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
I agree completely with Vanta Shafer.
June 20th, 2009 @ 8:13 am
When our city starts accepting funds for frivolous things such as this, what kind of message are we sending to the federal government when something comes up that we really need! Thank you for calling this to our attention Vanta.
June 20th, 2009 @ 9:48 am
From what I hear the Homeland Security funds will be used to monitor the cruise ship dock. This level of security simply isn’t needed here. The Coast Guard chase boat already escorts the cruise ships into and out of the port; protecting them from sea born attack while in Resurrection Bay. There is the concept that federal money is somehow free money and if we can get it we may as well. This may be our opportunity to aid in security and efficiency over all and tell DHLS that this project is a waste of time and resources.
June 20th, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Last fall there was vandalism in the boat harbor and it did not get caught on tape because the cameras were not working. Lets maintain the cameras that are already in place and make sure peoples belongings are safe. The lack of maintenance cost thousands of dollars.
June 20th, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Thank you Vanta, for bringing this to our attention….you are absolutely right on!
June 21st, 2009 @ 10:36 am
One place we could use security cameras is the Seward Marine Industrial Center. It’s hard for our police force to adequately patrol that area with millions of dollars of boats, equipment, and infrastructure. This is a cost-effective way to increase security without increasing staff.
I agree that the existing cameras need to be serviced and maintained so that they are all functioning. It is very important to purchase systems that are rugged enough for our demanding environment.
These cameras are tools for our police staff, not threats to our town.
Carol Griswold
June 21st, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Cruise Ship Dock needs something. We work there and have to go through security checks with ID badges,background checks etc that are as specious a security measure as TSA checks at airports.
As Carol mentioned, the Ship lift is also an odd bit of City responsibility miles from central police station where camera surveillance could be a time saving, effective tool.
Cameras could be useful some places and intrusive in others. Problem comes as with so many things with the question who decides?
Ron Newcome
June 22nd, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
I’m with Vanta. Security cameras are an overkill and send a message that we are a dangerous place to live and visit. There is other “Free” money out there to be used for positive impact.
June 22nd, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
A quick update on this issue. There are two pages that deal with this information in the current council packet, pages 17 & 18; http://209.124.136.236/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=17183. It says that the money will be used to install cameras in areas highlighted by the recent Security Vulnerabilities Study. This document is not public and subsequently can not be reviewed. Some of the sites that are likely to be in there are infrastructure pieces like the water towers, pump stations and treatment plant. If this motion is adopted the only way we’ll know where the cameras are going or how many there will be is to wait for them to appear.
June 22nd, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Vanta is right, so something shows up on the monitor, who follows up on that?
This is like photo cop, this community needs other things that won’t require monitoring, waste of resource
Save the money for the Library and Museum
June 22nd, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
I have some conflicting thoughts on this issue.
The cameras are monitored in real time by the SPD dispatcher at city hall, and the data is saved so that it can be viewed at a later time. I believe that this is what allowed the tire vandalism earlier this spring to be so quickly solved (the youths did this not realizing that they were on camera).
I am in favor of continuing to use the cameras (and make sure that they are maintained) in the heavily used public areas of town (harbor area, parking lots, 4th Avenue Downtown, Playgrounds, etc).
I don’t feel that cameras should be placed at random locations around town that do not get large amounts of pedestrian traffic. They should obviously not be placed in such a way so as to ‘accidentally’ view private residential property, as this is either a violation of privacy or unethical use of public resources for private security. I think that these cameras, and their positioning in public and common areas of the community, largely used by visitors, is not reminiscent of Orwell or a violation of privacy, but prudent security measures. Depending on their placement, my opinion may change, however.
It is unfortunate that as a result of our port, Seward has come upon the ‘national radar’ of sites that warrant additional security measures. I would much prefer cameras in public areas to what has been done in the areas around Nikiski, where the public has simply been banned from using public use areas along the beaches. I’d much rather have a camera watching the area around the water tower than a 12 foot tall chain link fence with concertina wire.
My only question is, will this grant be renewable to help pay for the additional time dispatchers will need to continue to monitor the existing and new cameras? This isn’t an expense the City Police Department should have to bear, especially if it is in the name of homeland security rather than local policing
June 22nd, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Mr. Paperman hits the bulls eye. His only question asked at the end of the his comment is exactly what’s wrong with Obama’s Federal Stimulus fund. By now you know that Russia, Japan and China are U.S Treasury Bond holders for most of the Stimulus Funds. I am not so worried about our ally, Japan.
The Federal Stimulus Funds expand everything from Unemployment benefits to creating jobs to make Democrats look good. The string attached is that after a year or two these benefits run out and guess what? The individual States have to continue these benefits. When States and Federal govt’s run out of money, we as taxpayers pay more from our hard earned money.
Mr. Paperman has made the Conservative Case. Thank you.
June 22nd, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
When the City of Seward “leaders” think we need camera surveillance to “protect” us, does that not indicate that the police department is not doing an adequate job? I am not aware of any gang activities, organized crime or any other valid reason to surveil the community. Some areas like the harbor may make good use of cameras due to the fact that the police can’t drive their police cars down the docks there. A foot patrol would make more sense to me. You sure don’t see many of those in Seward. We have enough police to protect a town many times the size of Seward. Our police budget is ridiculous.
The cruise ship dock is not city property. It is railroad property. They don’t pay taxes or contribute to the city any of the monies collected from the cruise ships. Let them police their own, not be a security sponge (financially) on the city.
The way our governments, Fed, State and City, spend money is scary. Don’t they realize who pays in the end? We, the citizens pay for the “free” money everyone is so eager to collect and waste for frivolous, inane reasons.
Enough is enough. No POLICE STATE!!! No cameras infringing on the privacy of our citizenry. If you want to spend, spend on something worthwhile. Not to make us into more of a police state than we already are.
Carl
June 23rd, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
If this project is being funded by stimulus money, it’s the City’s responsibility to ensure the project will be one it can maintain in the future. As with all stimulus money funded projects throughout the nation, it is the local RESPONSIBILITY to invest the money into projects the community can support long-term making the investment worth while. If this security camera proposal isn’t one the City can finacially maintain long-term, it should not be initiated.
Already, it’s been mentioned the current cameras are not working 100%. Therefore, I doubt multiple cameras throughout the City will be maintained properly long-term and so, I’m opposed.
I agree with those who support maintaining the cameras we have and also placing a FEW new cameras at city locations like SMIC which are difficult for officers to patrol.
Aside from costs, Vanta has a good point. Does Seward really need an extensive “Big Bro” camera system? I think not. Our town is pretty dang small for nine out of twelve months. I think our police department should be able to handle the crime rate here. If the department isn’t doing well, then it’s policies and actions need reviewed and fixed which does not require stimulus money…
June 25th, 2009 @ 6:45 am
A nation of snoops that was energized on September 11, eight years may feel cameras pointing everywhere will make them feel as safe as the camo-clad Cabela’s catalog centerfold guys did in the airports at the time, too. My bet is that any cameras installed in this town will quickly enough fail for lack of care and maintenance just like the streets do a year after expensive renewal. Gravel-strewn highway right-of-way kids and adults ride bikes on, bridges strewn with mud and debris and their drains clogged since the construction date three summers ago, and crumbling sidewalks, potholes… Geez, just rename Seward: Gravel, Alaska. Maybe those cameras can focus down that far to monitor grit before it blows in our eyes.
June 25th, 2009 @ 11:46 am
“the camo-clad Cabela’s catalog centerfold guys did in the airports at the time” Hey Richard I didnt know the Minuteman Project was at the airports after Sept 11, I knew that National Guard troops were there because there was a risk of follow on attacks of our transport infastucture, and those risks included bombings and direct assaults on people standing at the ticket counter to spread fear and unease about using the airlines, but you must not have seen them, you must have seen some other group because I’m certain you wouldnt refer to profesional soldiers, well trained and committed to service as “the camo-clad Cabela’s catalog centerfold guys” but moving on, no Seward does not need big brother cameras watching our every move, money can be spent on better things than watching me pick my nose while walking down the street! sorry I had to repost, I forgot to put my name!