To the author of “Call for surveillance system suspension not “drastic””:
You make some very valid points. The problem is, City Council has not heard a huge outcry against the surveillance cameras. As was pointed out at their recent committee meeting, the individual members of City Council have not been receiving large numbers of phone calls, letters, emails, and personal contacts about the cameras, while other hot-button issues have resulted in all of the above.
The only way to change City Council’s collective mind-set about the surveillance cameras is to organize AT LEAST several hundred different individuals; get every one of them to bombard each City Council member with unique emails, because a form message will be ignored (their addresses are on the Lancaster City web site); and pack every single City Council and committee meeting full of people until you get results. Three minutes times one hundred people equals five hours; after a few meetings like that, SOMETHING is bound to happen.
You are finding out the exact same thing that we did when we tried to organize opposition to the taxpayer-financed hotel and convention center. We had several studies which proved a clear majority of Lancaster City and County residents were opposed to the project, but we could never get more than a dozen or so people to show up at one time, at meetings where supporters of the project convinced their employees and associates to attend and speak out in favor of it.
The members of City Council are elected to represent the people of Lancaster City. Their votes are partly based on the active feedback they get from the general public. If you cannot organize enough people to convince them that a large percentage of the public has a real problem with the surveillance cameras, you will not be able to change their minds.
You CAN do this, if like-minded people band together and work to make it happen.
As one who has been active in door to door work throughout the city this political season, I would have SERIOUS doubts about the opposition’s ability to organize such a group of CITY residents. I would estimate that 95% of the residents, when asked, upon a door to door visit, were supportive of the cameras and wanted more (or one) in their neighborhood.
You can debate whether cameras are right or wrong until you’re blue in the face, but substantial opposition amongst CITY residents does not exist.
My concern with the camera systems is the mutual relationship between Bosch Security Systems, Inc. and the CSC. No one has spoken about the depth of Bosch’s involvement prior to the first camera and recorder ever being installed.
Laurie Brunke, one time legal advisor within Bosch Security Systems, was practically attached at the hip to the previous chairperson, and many meetings were held at their business. Bosch now uses Lancaster as a large version of its demonstration room, and uses Lancaster in a great deal of its advertising. As much as I love the product and the deterrent concept, I don’t love that Lancaster benefits a large German-owned company without a single voter referendum. Morales may have sent out 20,000 invites (where’s the proof, or I say “liar”), but the vote comes first, then comes action. These guys relied on public ignorance and that adage “if you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about,” and they damn well know it. There’s a lot they didn’t disclose, both about the products and their relationship to Bosch.
Also, I can’t abide how the CSC lies about the nature of the privacy features. #1, in Bosch equipment, those features exist at the camera level and there is no master password setting possible to lock it. #2, digital privacy masking probably wouldn’t stand the scrutiny of federal wiretap law. If I were a resident and a camera was angled at the front of my house, I would be very concerned.