News

Sheriffs, UCSB Install Cameras Throughout I.V.

photo cropped

Six surveillance camera towers were erected in Isla Vista on non-university owned property in the wake of recent violent crimes and as Deltopia approaches this weekend, in addition to two surveillance cameras placed temporarily on university property at Embarcadero Hall and I.V. Theater.

The cameras, five of which are located on Del Playa Drive with a sixth located near Freebirds, will remain on a temporary basis until June, when community leaders will deliberate on whether or not to keep them. Last quarter, similar camera installations were placed on university property following two sexual assaults that occurred in Isla Vista in late February. Even though they are installed on public property, the university is paying for the cameras; however, administrators are not saying how much is being spent on them.

The installations are each 25 feet tall and feature large lamps hanging off the tower to illuminate the surrounding area. The cameras are stationary and not continuously monitored, although they do record video continuously and may be accessed as evidence for reported crimes.

According to Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services Marc Fisher, the cameras that are not on campus property are paid for by the university, but are under the jurisdiction of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office.

“[The Sheriff’s Office] is responsible for the placement and operation of the cameras,” Fisher said in an email. “UCSB is providing funding resources to the County for these cameras. This funding is consistent with other contributions that we have made in Isla Vista for safety, including additional lighting and policing.”

However, Fisher said the university does not have access to the cameras’ footage, as viewing and using this material (such as for crime investigation) is being left to local law enforcement. Although, the university does have access to footage from cameras erected on campus.

Fisher would not specify how much is being spent on the new cameras, although he said “the campus is not utilizing student fees to pay for the noted cameras.”

According to Kelly Hoover, Public Information Officer for the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, the cameras along Del Playa Drive were installed in light of recent sexual assaults in Isla Vista and in part due to upcoming Deltopia festivities.

“My understanding is that … they were installing the cameras already following the sexual assault,” Hoover said. “Deltopia was coming up, [so] they said ‘Would it be helpful to install some for Deltopia and due to the other crimes that you’re seeing?’”

While Hoover said the cameras are not solely for Deltopia, she said law enforcement are looking to them as another tool for regulating this weekend’s festivities.

“So it wasn’t just for Deltopia, but the timing was good for this event that last year drew 15,000 to 18,000 people, and we had a lot of incidents [in] that event,” Hoover said.

However, Isla Vista Foot Patrol Station Lieutenant Rob Plastino said the installations in Isla Vista are primarily a part of the response to recent sexual assaults in Isla Vista, but will only be continuously monitored throughout Deltopia.

“The cameras were not placed to monitor Deltopia,” Plastino said in an email. “They are in response to the recent sexual assaults that have taken place in I.V. and the campus. “

Nonetheless, Plastino also said the cameras will be used to monitor Deltopia.

“The cameras will be used during Deltopia and will be monitored during Deltopia,” Plastino said. “After Deltopia, the cameras will not be monitored live unless some event prompts law enforcement to use them. Otherwise, they’ll be recording video and used to help solve crimes that do occur in the I.V. area.”

According to Plastino the IVFP has used cameras in the past, such as during Halloween weekend in order to aid law enforcement efforts to monitor large crowds.

“We have solved crimes and stopped assaults during Halloween due to the cameras,” Plastino said in an email. “Over the past few years, we have had an increase in the use of video footage taken by witnesses with their cell phones, to solve crimes.”

Hoover also said that the cameras are placed along Del Playa and in the business district of Isla Vista because these areas typically feature the highest law enforcement activity.

The cameras have been installed for two main reasons, according to Hoover, which is as a “crime deterrent” and as a means for investigating crimes that are not already prevented.

“If somebody is considering committing a crime and they look up and see those cameras, and it makes them think twice about doing that, then that is a success,” Hoover said. “The other reason is, if somebody does commit a crime and we are able to view the video and help find the perpetrator or perpetrators, then that also is a huge success.”

While the cameras are temporary for now, Hoover said local police officers may continue using them, depending on how this current trial period goes.

“This is an experiment,” Hoover said. “We want to see how effective they are.”

Hoover said the decision in June regarding whether or not to keep the cameras will involve discussion amongst a number of community leaders and law enforcement agencies.

She said, “I don’t have a list of people, but it would seem the university, the Sheriff’s Office, the County, … UCSB Police, the first responders, County Fire, CHP, public works, anybody who’s involved in this event that’s providing safety and overseeing Isla Vista I would think would be a part of it.”

 

-Daniel Slovinsky contributed to this article.

Photos by Peter Vandenbelt, Alex Gonzalez / Daily Nexus

This story is a Daily Nexus online exclusive.

Print Friendly
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

13 Comments

  1. GauchoAlum says:

    Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Dr. Michael Young, engaged the community this afternoon via Reddit. I applaud him for doing so, and it represents a good start. I share with you his comments regarding the surveillance cameras. The entire discussion may be found within the threads here:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/UCSantaBarbara/comments/22damr/i_am_ucsb_vice_chancellor_of_student_affairs/

    Q: Do you think the camera’s did anything to actually prevent any crimes from being committed last night? Bad stuff clearly happened with or without the cameras, and therefore doesn’t it seem irresponsible to invade people’s privacy for an ineffective policy?

    Michael Young: I don’t buy the “the cameras caused us to behave that way.” Please don’t say that to me. It’s just silly.

    I don’t think they caused anything, I do think that they are here to stay for the rest of our lives, not just in IV, but in business you visit every day. They’re not monitored on a regular basis. For me, I want a camera when something has happened. When one of my students is assaulted, I want to find out who did it.

    I think it’s a dicy issue and with all democracies, somewhere there is a balance between control and freedom.

    My Take: Number one, he rejects the notion that the cameras could have contributed to a negative environment and isn’t even interested in entertaining the notion. Second, he states that they are likely here to stay. Third, he draws no distinction between business protecting their private property versus government monitoring the public. Fourth, he states the cameras are not monitored on a regular basis suggesting they are monitored at least on occasion. Fifth, he states there is a balance between control and freedom in democracies but does not state what he means by “control” or how freedom can be balanced within democracy.

    Q (I believe this was a question and not Dr. Young): There really needs to be more education on the cameras. They seem to pop up without any involvement of the community or chance for them to digest it.

    Michael Young: There wasn’t a lot of deliberation, consultation around the cameras. The speed and selection of places for the cameras grew out of the sexual assault. There was a real concern particularly on certain University property and in other areas that it was critical that we have visual evidence of what has happened so we can provide a somewhat safer environment. They aren’t being monitored 24/7, but they will allow people to revisit footage after these acts have been committed. I don’t want to pretend that it was anything
    other than a quick response to the sexual assaults in order to make the community safer. My understanding is that all of that will be reviewed, but I would be shocked if there wasn’t a lot of support to keep continuing on with those.

    My take: First, he concedes there was little deliberation regarding the cameras which indicates there was no balancing regarding “control and freedom”. Where was the balancing?! It seems to me that the notion of “we must do something” quickly evolved into “anything” and arbitrary action. When he states “it was critical that we have visual evidence of what has happened so we can provide a somewhat safer environment”, it contradicts what he said above which was “I want a camera when something has happened. When one of my students is assaulted, I want to find out who did it.” Notice how he now mixes the present tense (deter crime) with past tense (solve crime). Studies demonstrate that
    cameras do not deter crime, and as a research university, it would be trivial to read through the studies to determine their effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness). He states “They aren’t being monitored 24/7″, yet he again contradicts himself to a certain degree when he stated above “the cameras are not monitored on a regular basis”. So, just how often will they be monitored and by whom? He states “My understanding is that all of that will be reviewed, but I would be shocked if there wasn’t a lot of support to keep continuing on with those.” Who shall review it and what metrics will be used? Will competing voices be invited during the decion making process? It sounds to me as though the decision has already been made in his mind which will lead to a self-fullfilling prophecy.

    My conclusions:

    1) The cameras were thrown up with little internal deliberations and no solicitation. He appears to be ad libbing the entire discussion and doesn’t graps the supposed pros with the obvious cons.

    2) He states there is a balance between “control and freedom” and yet there was apparently no effort to do so.

    3) It appears the decision has already been rendered that the cameras are here to stay and is a foregone conclusion in today’s “reality”. Suck on that.

    4) It’s unclear whether the cameras are intended to keep people safe or to solve crimes.

    5) While I appreciate his candor, his lack of understanding of the issues and his blind support of the cameras is alarming.

  2. GauchoAlum says:

    IV Resident,

    My goal here is not to convince you of anything nor to argue with you nor to prove you wrong. You are free to come to your own conclusions and form your own opinions (I say this sincerely and not condescendingly). I never said that the cameras are pointing into residences. I also did not make legal arguments. I leave that up to fine lawyers like Jon Andersen. The crux of my arguments are related to a functioning and healthy democracy based on transparency and community input.

    Here are some thoughts for people to consider:

    1) Was there any opportunity or solicitation for community input prior to installing equipment that many people would consider to be controversial?

    2) Is there in existence a written data retention and data application policy? In other words, for how long will the data be retained? Who has access to the data and under what conditions will the cameras be operated in real time by an individual? Would these individuals be supervised? Do federal authorities have access to the data? What safeguards are in place to protect the data from hackers? There appear to be wireless capabilities on these towers, so can a hacker break in or have safeguards like encryption been integrated? Is license plate or facial recognition software being applied to the captured video in order to automate tracking and easy identification of vehicles and individuals? If so, what database will it feed into and who provided and paid for such a database? Again, what individuals and agencies have access to this data?

    3) The article states that the university has paid for the towers but that no student fees are being used. So from what bucket is the funding coming from? Are they coming from Department of Homeland Security grants as most surveillance systems are or an entity that divvies out DHS funds? Is it coming from private donations? If the funds are derived strictly from university funds, how can the university segregate out those funds from student fees? It would seem to me likely an accounting shell game as the source of funds can be manipulated. In the end, money is money whether it is used for these surveillance towers or for another purpose like scholarships, new research buildings, or other student resources.

    4) The article mentions that “community leaders” will decide if the towers remain beyond June. So, which individual or individuals decided to deploy the towers and who will decide it in June? Will community input be solicited? I find it curious that the towers would be deployed while most students were away during Spring break and when the Nexus wasn’t publishing. I find it equally curious that the decision on whether to keep the cameras will be made once almost all students leave IV for the summer including 20-25% who won’t be back next year due to graduation. That also results in a new crop of 20-25% new students who are more likely to view the situation as status quo and will make them less likely to question them. Based on the timing of the decisions, it seems to me the “community leaders” aren’t particularly interested in community engagement, debate, or input.

    For me, questions abound, and these and other questions should be answered so a vigorous discussion may be had.

    I really hope that the Nexus uses the California Public Records Act to demand answers to these and other questions. I equally hope that there are freedom-minded activists in the UCSB and Isla Vista communities that do their part in discovering information and educating people about the consequences of blindly accepting the safety argument as justification for using these surveillance towers. In light of the Snowden disclosures, I would hope that people have become wary of unfettered government surveillance. Again, the arguments used in favor of surveillance is that it is strictly for your safety and yet it is all being conducted under strict secrecy with no advocates for the citizens allowed to challenge their Constitutional legitimacy. NSA snooping was all crafted in way to deny The People standing to challenge the legality of it. So, I caution people to not simply go along with this until there is more transparency where a healthy debate may exist. Unfortunately, until now, surveillance has been imposed upon us with no prior input and with an eye toward avoiding public input.

  3. The panopticon in action.

  4. GauchoAlum says:

    To “IV Resident”

    1. The cops are aiming the cameras toward the street… not your ugly apartments. Are you nervous about your thrift store apparel? How do you know cops are not pointing them inside residences? Apparently, the cameras are capable of pivoting and tilting. Also, please refer to this study by the ACLU which details abuses in England where operators zoom in and ogle at women in a voyeuristic manner (page 16):
    http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Surveillance-Camera-Report1.pdf

    2. They don’t need to justify a camera to record a public place. There is no right to privacy in Public place like the sidewalk. Perhaps they need a permit but recording in Public can be done by anyone. If I’m wrong then I’m suing SB PARTY SCENE. The last time I checked, the government derives its power from The People, and they are beholden to the citizens. This includes how resources (ie. tax money) is spent. If The People demand that resources not be employed in a manner that We reject, then the government should refrain. Also, SB Party Scene has no ability to arrest or fine you whereas a government agent (ie policeman) can if they observe (ie record you) breaking the law. Additionally, SB Party scene does not have the power to employ prosecutional discretion and have unlimited funds to prosecute you and thus take away your freedom (ie. throw you in prison) or fine you (ie. take away your money by threat of force). There is a monumental difference between the government filming you and private citizen or entity filming you. Also, police may also be inclined to watch certain races more than others… when they aren’t focused on attractive women.
    3. The cops aren’t even going to watch the videos unless they need to. Do you honestly think they can afford the money to pay someone to watch cars go up and down the street? They will probably watch a total of twenty hours of video from a total of 365 days. See the above example of bored men in a control booth ogling women. Also, should they choose to police choose to integrate license plate scanning and facial recognition, they will no longer need to pay anyone to watch cars. They will simply feed all the data into fancy databases and very trivially be able to rewind your life and know where you have been much better than you can remember being yourself (ie. poker game, political rally, Tea Party meeting, Code Pink meeting, brothel, mistress’ home, etc). Do you want the government to know everywhere where you have been and then be able to use it against you later? That technology is already here and very real. For example, if you “cause trouble” by protesting the actions of your government, you may just end up being flagged and harassed in a variety of ways including being pulled over randomly or audited by the IRS. (See point #2 above). To my knowledge, the SB County Sheriff has not published a use policy in how the cameras will be used, how long the data will be retained, or if they will apply software such as the aforementioned license plate readers or facial recognition.
    4. Why are you complaining here? You should be complaining to the cops instead of making all of these assumptions. The cops already are working with residents to make things more comfortable. If your have reasonable concerns then you should express them. Speaking for myself, I don’t view myself as complaining. Rather, I am stating the potential dangers to our rights and freedoms for other readers to consider. They are free to accept or reject the arguments. We’re furthering the discussion and hopefully prompting others to think critically about the negative impacts surveillance has on an open and free society and free from excessive government intrusion into our lives.
    5. Who cares if cameras are really a deterrent or not (eh… they probably are -how could you ever really know?). If the cameras can help solve a crime here or there then maybe we can get those violent people off of the streets and hurting less people. Again, cameras cost money and erode our liberties while widening the chasm between the power of the government and the power of The People. We already know if surveillance is effective (as well as their abuses and chilling effect on our rights) as other communities, namely in England, have been using surveillance systems for a long time, and many studies exist to show that they are not effective at deterring crime. See this article where the Virginia State Police kept a record of which cars were parked near political rallies:
    https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/virginia-state-police-used-license-plate-readers Furthering the discussion can lead to a reversal of surveillance. For example,
    Oakland citizens recently fought off a DHS funded surveillance center after concerned citizens spoke up and educated the public and city council about the ineffectiveness, poor use of tax dollars, and threats to our rights. If you have a solid grasp of history and how governments tend to abuse power (see the NSA), then every American who values the Constitution and our form of government should care. You are correct that the government can technically record in public, but that does not mean that the citizens and their tax dollars should go along with it. They answer to us and not the other way around.

    • IV Resident says:

      Gaucho Alum,

      The cameras are aiming towards the street. To say otherwise is ridiculous. Point for point:

      First, saying that you believe they are pointing at houses is pure speculation based on nothing. Sure the cameras have pan/tilt features… that doesn’t mean they use them. I have the ability to drive 120+ MPH but I don’t. The only people who know where the cameras are pointed towards are the police and they say they are pointed towards the street. So, basically the only people with actual knowledge doesn’t include you. Lastly, the job of the cops is to protect the people. What would they learn from pointing the cameras at homes…. nothing. Their is no value in camera footage of people’s homes. All the activity is on the street in public view. So, essentially your saying the cops and UCSB are going to spend all their time and money watching the windows of your house? Give me a break… that’s ridiculous. Absence of any proof I think you have no argument.

      2. You are really stretching your argument and its not based on the law at all. First, you are correct that power of the government is derived by the people. I, a tax payer and resident of IV, do want the cameras there. So power to the people! Next, the laws holding Police accountable for privacy ALSO include SB Party Scene. The cops can film anywhere in public as is the law. So can SB Party Scene. There is NO, ZERO, ZIP law that the people or the courts have established that restrict cops from filming a public space. If SB Party scene started filming in the windows of my house – they would be arrested. Its all the same shit. What fantasy law college did you attend? The fact that SB Party Scene can’t write tickets is not a real point. SB Party Scene, you, or I have more authority in the law then the cops. For starters… we don’t need warrants to search, enter a home, or make an arrest. The police do. Yes, the law allows average citizens to do all of those things. Often times the police have to do what WE tell them to do. In contrast the average citizen has free will. But at the end of the day we are all held accountable to the same laws… which, theoretically, are designed to keep us safe and prohibit the police from unreasonable use of power.

      3. Regarding abuse of power from police. You cite an example that can’t be likened to IVFP. For starters… in the England example their job was to operate cameras. IVFP doesn’t have a job operating cameras. Second, you are assuming that from one example all police will abuse the cameras. If I used that logic then I can assume a few things about you if you like… Cops shouldn’t be abusing cameras (I agree) but there is no evidence to suggest that they will. As for recording my life… what is that about really? Are you scared the government is really going to start following you around and take your liberty away? Your either right (which is crazy-talk) but lucky for you that we have the second amendment just for that reason; or your total a criminal. Average people don’t need to worry about privacy in the street and I hope they use the cameras to track down and catch criminals – THAT’S WHAT THE CAMERAS ARE FOR!!!

      4. Thanks for the information but you haven’t expressed any real dangers to “open and free” society. Our society will not only still be open and free but it will all be a little safer with the cameras. Again, check with the cops if you have concerns instead of making assumptions.

      5. I can only place an opinion here. I don’t care if these cameras are a deterrent or not. The idea that it is a deterrent is just a silly argument. The real reason for these cameras is to solve crimes. The average person who commits a sexual assualt commits several assaults before they are finally caught. I don’t know what the cost of these cameras are… but whatever the price… if it stops criminals from committing second, third, or fourth+ offenses against the people in our community then I am allllll for it. If it takes weapons off the streets, lets do it! If it stops drunks, or convicts assholes who ruin our community and make people in fear… lets do it! Would you rather be in fear for your safety in IV or concerned that big brother is watching you pick your nose on the streets of Del Playa. In know where my vote is going… and I am willing to go along with it. Because you’re correct – they answer to us! Please keep the cameras. Thank you.

  5. IV Resident says:

    You all are ridiculous and very cynical and counter productive. 1. The cops are aiming the cameras toward the street… not your ugly apartments. Are you nervous about your thrift store apparel? 2. They don’t need to justify a camera to record a public place. There is no right to privacy in Public place like the sidewalk. Perhaps they need a permit but recording in Public can be done by anyone. If I’m wrong then I’m suing SB PARTY SCENE. 3. The cops aren’t even going to watch the videos unless they need to. Do you honestly think they can afford the money to pay someone to watch cars go up and down the street? They will probably watch a total of twenty hours of video from a total of 365 days. 4. Why are you complaining here? You should be complaining to the cops instead of making all of these assumptions. The cops already are working with residents to make things more comfortable. If your have reasonable concerns then you should express them 5. Who cares if cameras are really a deterrent or not (eh… they probably are -how could you ever really know?). If the cameras can help solve a crime here or there then maybe we can get those violent people off of the streets and hurting less people.

  6. Jon Andersen says:

    My law office represents a number of residents living in the Isla Vista area.
    we have talked with Santa Barbara County Counsel concerning the cameras, lights, audio recording and threat to arrest individuals for playing music on their private property.
    First, the cameras were installed without the necessary permits. As of about 3PM, the permits were not yet issued. without the permits, the cameras, lights and audio must be shut down and/or removed.
    Assuming that they get the permits, we addressed the issue of high-intensity lights shining into private property and causing a nuisance, as well as cameras that are aimed at private property and the pan/tilt/zoom cameras that can be aimed and zoomed in any direction. County Counsel agreed that the lights cannot shine into private property and the lights cannot be placed in such a manner as to cause glare in the windshield of any motor vehicle. No cameras can be aimed at private property. According to County Counsel, the pan/tilt/zoom cameras cannot ever be aimed at a private property UNLESS the Sheriff is actively following the movement of someone who was observed committing a crime in a public place. County Counsel had a senior representative of the Sheriff’s Department meet with some of our local residents to come to an agreement on bringing the cameras and lights in to compliance with the law.
    Finally, County Counsel agreed that Sergeant Signa’s post on Facebook stating that anyone playing music could be arrested and their equipment seized, was not correct and included the wrong County Code section.
    Any resident CAN play music outdoors provided that the sound system is not aimed out to the streets and amplified so loud that it causes a large crowd to gather and restricts the regular flow of pedestrians in the street.
    We also addressed the fact that law enforcement brought in from out of the area has a history of creating tensions with the community and can lead to unwanted revolts. Our suggestion that these out of area officers be grouped with at least one LOCAL officer who can be the lead and is familiar with how to work with college kids.
    I will be in direct contact with County Counsel in the event that any issues arise wherein Counsel’s assistance may help resolve the matter. The goal here is for everyone to have a safe weekend, without unreasonable and unwarranted governmental intrusions into any peaceful private party gatherings. Open communication with law enforcement is essential. At the same time, law enforcement cannot escalate any tensions by their actions. We encourage everyone to use their video recording features of their phones to record ANY suspicious conduct, including any conduct of law enforcement that you believe may be out of line. Please remember, you cannot interfere with law enforcement performing a LAWFUL duty. Record but don’t get in the way.

  7. GauchoAlum says:

    This will be a bit of a repost, but I wanted to share my e-mail I just sent to Chancellor Yang. I encourage others to also express their views.

    Chancellor Yang,

    I graduated from UCSB in 1995 and resided in Isla Vista for 4 years. I write to you to express my deep concern regarding the surveillance poles installed first on university property, and more recently on the streets of Isla Vista.

    Although I now live in Oakland, I keep myself informed about UCSB, and I am aware of the recent spike in violence that has occurred in and around Isla Vista. I understand the impulse for law enforcement to engage all tools necessary to both deter and solve crimes. However, their goals are very narrow and do not take into account the chilling effect pervasive surveillance has on one’s rights, specifically the right to free speech, the right of assembly, and the right to seek redress from one’s government. Similarly, I understand that the university relies very heavily upon its reputation in order to attract the best possible professors and students. And I very much commend the progress UCSB has made under your leadership. However, I am concerned that the university is also taking too narrow a view in its attempt to protect its reputation by installing intrusive surveillance systems across campus and Isla Vista. Just as these surveillance poles come with unintended negative consequences, I believe that many prospective students will dim their view on UCSB as they see how Big Brother has found its way into a college town renowned for its libertarian leanings. I have read many comments on social media, including from current students, alums, and prospective students, and the consensus has been that these surveillance poles are intrusive, oppressive, and ineffective.

    These poles will breed contempt and resentment for authority in general and for law enforcement in particular. Rather than tamping down violence, you may be sowing the conditions for mass protests and civil disobedience. Ironically, in an attempt to protect the reputation of UCSB, you may inadvertently harm it.

    UCSB need not experiment with surveillance. As a renowned research university, studies already exist that debunk the notion that cameras reduce crime. I link the following ACLU study that supports this assertion:

    http://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file708_35775.pdf

    Please, Dr. Yang, reverse course and remove the creepy surveillance poles that you have erected and let people live their lives more freely.

    And a final note: in light of the university’s actions with these poles and Dr. Miller-Young’s actions, I highly suggest the UCSB Administration and Faculty review the US Constitution.

    Thank you for the consideration.

  8. concerned parent says:

    This is really disturbing. None of the injuries in prior years would have been stopped by a camera on a stick, only by boots on the ground, which are already there. This seems more like a blackmail mine in case kids ‘act up’ and I wonder where the right comes to photograph kids in private yards and balconies.

    My son is deciding between UCSB and other colleges now, and I was looking for news of the college to get an idea of what opportunities are there. I never thought to see a Big Brother display like this.

    • concerned parent says:

      Reading the article more closely, there seems to be some confusion about the Fourth Amendment and cameras. After an accident or attack, using video taken by bystanders and donated is one thing, the taping wasn’t government action without due process, probable cause, or even the existence of a crime. However for the government to film people in their yards and balconies, and through windows, is very different.

    • IV Resident says:

      I don’t think that is true… IVFP has been using cameras at Halloween for years. I’m pretty sure they’ve stopped a few crimes and saved a lot of people from getting hurt.

  9. GauchoAlum says:

    Bob is correct. Here is the ACLU study (actually an aggregate of studies)that shows that surveillance cameras are ineffective:

    http://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file708_35775.pdf

    It should also be noted the chilling effect cameras have on our rights including the right of free speech, the right of assembly, and the right of the People to seek redress of grievances from their government. It is understandable that police want as many tools to prevent and solve crimes, but their view is too narrow to effectively balance the pros and cons to what many people view as an intrusion of government and authority into their lives. Similarly, the University also maintains too narrow a view. Their primary concern is to protect its business which revolves primarily around its reputation. Sadly, the community of IV and its transitory nature of residents makes it difficult to rally the populace to push back. Also, the safety argument is very compelling to many people until they are challenged to think more deeply about the unintended and negative consequences of allowing unfettered surveillance into our lives.

    I hope the People of IV vigorously debate the issues these surveillance poles raise and ultimately reject them by demanding they be removed. Some may see fit to engaging in civil disobedience, and if I found my way onto a jury, I would see fit to assert my rights as a juror and judge not just the individual but also the implementation of the law.

  10. Bob Sumner says:

    “The cops have a camera pretty much aimed at my bedroom window on Sabado. That doesn’t make me feel any safer”
    UCSB student

    “Meta-analyses from the UK, along with preliminary findings from the US, indicate strongly that video
    surveillance has little to no positive impact on crime.”
    ACLU Expert Findings on Surveillance Cameras

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>