Surveillance camera locations in Somerville

[ron_newman]

I went to last night's public hearing on surveillance cameras in Somerville. I don't have time right now for a full report, but the police did distribute a map of approximate locations where the seven cameras are mounted:

- Davis Square (I’ve seen this one, it’s next to the traffic light at Highland and College aves)
- Union Square (the Somerville Journal has a photo of this one on the SCAT building)
- Broadway and Cross streets (on top of the old fire station)
- Highland Ave. and Walnut Street (I haven’t looked for this one yet)
- Middlesex Ave (near Kensington St or maybe Cummings St? I haven’t looked for this one yet, but it's probably the one the police chief described as being useful for locating accidents on I-93)
- on a light pole at the entrance to the Linear Path just beyond Buena Vista Road (easy to see once you know what to look for)
- on a light pole on the Linear Path, just this side of the Cambridge city line (ditto)

I also see two cameras on the back of the CVS building, one next to Dover Street and the other next to Day Street. These are not on the city’s list. Are they privately owned, and if so, what is their purpose?

Also, when I left City Hall last night, the police chief showed me another camera, mounted on the exterior wall of City Hall, just right of the entrance as you’re going in. This one is supposed to stop vandalism of the ‘Smart Cars’ in the parking lot.

Finally, I see a whole bunch of cameras pointing in different directions on the fairly new traffic light, where the Argenziano school driveway intersects Washington Street.

The School Department and the Somerville Housing Authority also have security cameras, separate from any belonging to the city.

Please add comments with other camera locations you've seen.

Edit: Here's the Somerville Journal article on last night's hearing.

Comments

[subtledagger.livejournal.com]

Count me in the column of those that really doesn't care if I'm on surveillance camera. I don't care when I go to the gas station so why should I care if someone sees me walking down the street?

But I don't mug or vandalize, so there you go.

[oneagain.livejournal.com]

But I don't mug or vandalize, so there you go.

I don't mug or vandalize either, but this does not mean I am particularly comfortable with this. I do not subscribe to the weird, blase attitude that "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care"? Cameras everywhere make me feel like I'm living in a police state. Maybe it will help with crime, but that is no reason to pretend there isn't a cost.

[ron_newman]

Also, even though I'm pretty comfortable with the current Somerville police and city government, that doesn't mean I trust all future police chiefs and city governments to act responsibly.

[seamraog.livejournal.com]

Now that there is one excellent point that I happen to agree with.

Good point.

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

It could always be used for political means that have nothing to do with security. Also, what are the exact rules for access to the files?

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

i do differentiate between (a) private security cameras designed to protect individuals (esp from those in power) and security for stores to help thwart crime/etc as compared to (b) the government (at any level) setting up cameras for the purposes of watching people, attempting to catch them eventually doing something (like red light cameras for revenue)...

with (a), at least you generally have a choice; with (b) you do not unless you vote and they hear you.

#

[m00n.livejournal.com]

(a), at least you generally have a choice

This *would* be true if they were transparent about it, but they are not. At least the government lets you vote.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

most places that have it, require legal notices (transparency). those that don't? vote for legal notices.

if they don't have it, and require it, laws are usually being broken. particularly in cases where you have reasonable (or more than reasonable) expectations of privacy.

the government is hardly transparent about it. which is the first problem to tackle.

#

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

The government doesn't always let you vote. Our city government, for example, did not give us the option to vote on whether or not we should install these cameras. A few of the aldermen present last night - and many of the residents - were quite angry about that point (as well as angry about having the cameras, period).

[ron_newman]

Not only did the people not get to vote in advance, the aldermen (who are the people's representatives) also did not get to vote. The democratic process was improperly bypassed entirely.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

In representative democracies you don't generally vote on every single thing that happens. But as it happens, if we really *did* want to vote to prevent this, a ballot initiative could be brought forward by anyone with enough signatures and it would definitely be binding.

[ron_newman]

In representative democracies, the representatives (aldermen) are supposed to vote on whether to do something like this, before it happens. They didn't get a chance to do so.

[marylu.livejournal.com]

well - yes, they did. They vote on whether to accept ANY grant on behalf of the city; it's unfortunate that they apparently didn't have any discussion of the grant terms at the time this one was approved.

[narya.livejournal.com]

One thing several people mentioned at the meeting last night was that this could actually be a security risk, e.g. for victims of domestic violence or stalking. Since the images are public information, anyone can request a cd for a fee.

I also came away from the meeting last night feeling that this specific system was unlikely to help catch anyone. The cameras are generally in a mode where you can't identify individuals, faces, etc and are not actively monitored. When somebody calls in to report a crime, the police can then find one of the authorized members of the police force, have them log in and enter a password, and then zoom the camera to the area of the report. It seems unlikely that the person would still be there.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

I'd say this calls for a trial run. Give them a year with the cameras they have and if they haven't been used successfully in enough crimes to justify using them instead of adding more police to the force, then get rid of them.

[narya.livejournal.com]

Just to be clear, another thing they clarified at the meeting last night is that there isn't really that kind of tradeoff to be made. The grant that funded the cameras couldn't be used for more officers and it's not clear what the maintenance cost will be or whether you could hire even one officer for that price.

At least one alderman did propose the trial run concept (which is what they're doing in Brookline, iirc) so that may be the way it goes.

measured response

[winterhill.livejournal.com]

you'll never last. ;-)

I think that a trial period of a year would be a useful way to see if the cameras have value beyond what is envisioned.

I know it's a slippery slope -- that once they are in, it will be harder to remove them, but for now I'd like to evaluate the success of the cameras they have proposed.

Re: measured response

[narya.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem is that they are in, so I think the trial period is quite likely (and, in effect, already started).

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Other cities and other towns have already used cameras for surveillance and "crime prevention." There is plenty of documentation about how (un)successful these things really are in the long run. We don't need to be yet another trial.

[pearlythebunny.livejournal.com]

So are you saying there is no permanent record from these cameras? That is, the police can't look at them to see what happened 15 minutes ago, or 2 days ago at 10 P.M.?

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Yes and no.

The data is kept on the server for 14 days. On day 15, the system writes over day 1.

However, anyone - anyone - you, me, other local police depts., the FBI - can request a copy of the data from a given time/day. What happens to that copy? Who knows!

[ron_newman]

The police chief said that the output of the cameras would be kept for two weeks (or was it 15 days?), then erased.

But if someone gets a copy of the file

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

created on 03/15/09, now there is a copy of that file that is NOT erased. And so on.

Re: But if someone gets a copy of the file

[ron_newman]

Correct.

Re: But if someone gets a copy of the file

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

Also, the data from the cameras is transmitted back to the server via wireless. Is that encrypted? I doubt it (if it is - how -good- is the encryption?). And why would it be? After all, it's just public activity, and anyone can request a copy of the recording. So it seems like anyone with a wireless receiver could make their own complete set and keep it as long as they like.

Re: But if someone gets a copy of the file

[ron_newman]

Is it a directional transmission? If so, wouldn't you have to be somewhere along the line between transmitter and receiver in order to interecept the signal?

Of more concern than the video signal is the control signal. How is the camera told to turn and zoom? By wireless or by wire?

Re: But if someone gets a copy of the file

[ratatosk.livejournal.com]

This's a nice point. One of the things I said to my alderman in email was that it seemed really questionable to me to put cameras in locations where, if a private citizen were standing there holding a video camera and obviously filming, people would be uncomfortable.

(I had no idea where the cameras actually were when I wrote that -- that's just one of the tests I'd apply if it were up to me.)

[narya.livejournal.com]

No, no, sorry I was unclear. Whatever the cameras happen to be recording would be saved for 14ish days. But by default, the cameras would be zoomed out at a level that doesn't allow identification of individual faces, license plates, or other details on that level. It would require a specific report of a crime and then a specific login and password to zoom in on an area closely enough to see those details.

So if somebody called in while a crime was actually in progress, the police might be able to see it and get a useful record that identified the perpetrator. However, if the police get a call like "somebody just threw a brick through my window" they would be able to rewind and see it and tell which way the person ran off but they would not be able to identify the person specifically (unless they were wearing a giant easter bunny suit or something).

Hope that's clearer...

[pearlythebunny.livejournal.com]

Now I understand. Thanks!

[maclou.livejournal.com]

I agree, I always wonder what exactly people are doing on a public street that they're so worried about being caught on camera doing. It's not like they're in your home...

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

the BEST use for such cameras, is actually catching people who ARE supposed to be on the streets, doing their jobs, and well, not going overboard.

i wonder how many traffic infractions or parking tickets could get over turned by time logged evidence? mmm.

#

Is is illegal to flip the bird at the cameras?

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

Seriously. Would it count as doing it to a police officer? I'm very curious about this.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

It's fucking creepy. If I'm out walking on the street, yes, other people on the street, driving by, etc., can see me. Fine. I can see them.

When I'm surrounded by cameras, I can't see who is behind the cameras. I don't know what they're actually doing.

And it makes me nervous: is this such a dangerous area that it MUST BE MONITORED! ALL THE TIME! JUST IN CASE SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENS!!!!1111!! I mean seriously.

Government groups have a long and bad history of targeting "suspicious" groups and individuals. Like nonviolent political protesters.

It's not that I fear "being caught" doing something wrong. It's that they send unpleasant messages and I don't necessarily trust the people using them to always be perfect angels.

Found One

[sassysundry.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

I've posted a picture of the camera on Broadway & Cross Street.

[tequilamckngbrd.livejournal.com]

I think public cameras for police gives a false sense of security for the neighborhood. If the "criminal to be" doesn't know about it, it won't stop them from doing the crime. If they do know about it, they'll most likely commit the crime away from the camera's view.

Nothing beats police presence.

But that's the trick...

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

Out of towners don't know about these cameras. Those are the ones who are going to be fined when they cross a re light. Net result: money in the city coffers that does not come from Somerville residents.

How about having a Google map.

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

Specifically with camera locations on it?... People who know of knew ones can add to it.

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

"What's that, Lassie? George Orwell? And he's spinning in his grave?"

[glowroper.livejournal.com]

Serious question - is this one of those situations where wearing a hoodie or cape or something to blur one's biometrics as much as possible will be suspect or potentially illegal?