Convicted Stalker Was Approved By Lancaster To Manage Surveillance Cameras

from the oops dept

A few months back, we wrote about how the town of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, not only had installed more surveillance cameras than many large cities, but was also allowing resident volunteers to control the cameras, which seemed to raise quite a few questions about the potential for abuse. The town insisted it was fine, because even though the screening process was "informal" it planned to "weed out voyeurs and anyone who might use the tapes for blackmail or other illegal activity." Apparently that weeding process needs a bit of work. Someone who prefers to be anonymous notes that it took a third party to notice that one of the residents approved to control the cameras had been convicted of stalking and harassment, as well as impersonating a public official, in the past. Oddly, the newspaper that wrote up the report still claims that the effort to screen the camera operators has been "a success." Oh really? The anonymous tipster also notes that the newspaper in which that article appeared just happens to have donated over $200,000 to the surveillance program while also giving the program a $2 million interest-free loan (and you thought all newspapers were broke), so perhaps it isn't the best judge of how well the program is going.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 5:08am

    People

    This is why I hate 90% of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 5:11am

    I'm going to say it

    At least he'll be good at keeping his eye on things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 5:13am

    well...

    If you have to have somebody do it, might as well be a professional.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 5:39am

    So a convicted sex offended should have "rights" to internet social networks, but stalkers should not be allowed to volunteer for monitoring city cameras? Nice double standard, Mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Sheinen, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 5:52am

    As a plus, he should be good at keeping an eye on people without them knowing. He probably chalked it up on his CV as work experience!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 5:54am

    Re:

    I think the issue here is The town insisted it was fine, because even though the screening process was "informal" it planned to "weed out voyeurs and anyone who might use the tapes for blackmail or other illegal activity." The town lied. Sure yes I know elected officials not being truthful! What is this world coming to!

    My problem is the town blatantly lies and the newspaper is in on it. I have no problems with people with criminal records getting jobs or using websites. Hell I can get a sex offender tag for my entire life if I get blasted drunk and piss in my front lawn. So I take that tag with a grain of salt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    TriZz (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:22am

    Speaking of Stalkers...

    ...where's my crystal ball and "insider" badge?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    R. Miles (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:25am

    It may just be me, but...

    ...I get the very odd feeling this newspaper will have "juicy" stories derived from this "generous" contribution, and probably why they don't mind the previously-convicted individual monitoring the camera.

    Hire the best, of course.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Shawn "Kwip" Williams (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:27am

    Sigh...

    I know I'm not the only Lancaster resident to read Techdirt (since I discuss it often & share links with other co-workers and friends), but I guess I'm the only one foolish enough to throw my hat into these discussions.

    I'd just like to point out (again) that this is not some group-think Orwellian town where we all blindly follow whatever the government puts before us. The camera issue is (and will probably always be) one that is highly controversial. It is a subject of great debate here in town, and while only the 'bad' or 'sensational' aspects seem to ever reach the wider masses, the cameras have scored a lot of wins for law enforcement (and for keeping us, the residents, safe). Yes, I know we can debate 'but at what cost?' till we're blue in the face (and believe me, there's so many blue faces in town you'd think they were filming a Braveheart sequel). But the sad truth is that this isn't a black & white issue.

    Lancaster is a small city fighting a very serious crime problem. We're trying to do it the best way we can, even if the popular opinion of some of those ways can (and should) be debated. But please don't paint us (or our wonderful city) as brainwashed masses that don't know (or worse, don't care) about important issues such as freedom and government limits.

    And for the record - the 'stalker' is a she, not a he. I know we can all get on our politically correct soapboxes and decry how it doesn't matter, but it'd be nice if folks would actually read the article before making snide comments (on the interweb? I must be mad!).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:31am

    Re: Sigh...

    Big Sister is watching you - and she's a stalker!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:32am

    Maybe as part of the screening process they should collect the login and password info of potential participants and use the information they find in basing their decision?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:33am

    Re: It may just be me, but...

    "and probably why they don't mind the previously-convicted individual monitoring the camera."

    Hey, it'll make a good story!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    bikey, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:39am

    surveillance

    For a good film on surveillance and stalking, do see Andrea Arnold's 'Red Road' (UK 2006).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:57am

    Next we'll see...

    convicted sex offenders working the cameras finding kids to molest/kill. Then just picture the lawsuit against the town for hiring a convicted sex offender who murdered several kids in town using info he collected from watching the spy cameras. Then the newspaper would get an exclusive on the story since they paid for the system. I wouldn't go near Lancaster; I'm afraid I would get arrested for sneezing in public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Trails, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:59am

    Kinda proves the point

    made in this article:
    http://techdirt.com/articles/20090819/0150495923.shtml

    Bloggers are less likely to have these suspicious circumstances surrounding apparently biased reporting.

    Not to say that bloggers are immune (there was a thing a while back about being given free laptops to produce positive articles), but to assert that newspapers are immune is yet again demonstrated to be false.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Mechwarrior, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:11am

    Re:

    Having access to the internet is no way similar to having access to private surveillance videos. One is a mode of communication, the other is a covert surveillance system which may abridge the right to privacy.

    Lern2Debate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    HouckStar (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:44am

    Re: Next we'll see...

    Thomas - get a life! I work in downtown Lancaster. Apparently you don't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:11am

    Re: Re:

    Freebirth scum! As long as the cameras are in locations that are legal for someone to take pictures at I see no privacy issue. If the cameras are taking pictures from a public location into a private location then I'd say you'd have a case.

    However I do believe that ANY person working these cameras need some sort of check and balance. Just cause someone hasn't been convicted of stalking doens't mean he isn't. And just because a person has been convicted of stalking doesn't mean they will continue. Where in the issue becomes a problem where "Who watches the watchers"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:49am

    Re: Kinda proves the point

    Of course, given the feeble "security" around this project, they don't even have to be on-site to do that. One of the many things that politicians and other inferior people who support projects like this fail to grasp is that if THEY can see the camera video stream, so can ANYONE else with sufficient motivation and clue.

    Yes, yes, yes, they'll lie about it: they'll say it's "unlikely" and "far-fetched" and "alarmist" that "there are safeguards" and that "their network is secure". And then it will happen anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:49am

    Re:

    It's not a double standard at all.

    One is a private company allowing whoever it wants onto its private networks of members. People have to opt-in to these networks, and can opt-out at any time.

    The other is a government entity spying on citizens in public with volunteer watchers. People of this town are charged to be watched, whether they want to be or not. They can only opt-out by never going outside of their home or moving their entire lives to another town that has not enacted such a surveillance system.

    It's apples & oranges.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:53am

    Re: Sigh...

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:13am

    Investigative, Grassroots Journalism

    The paper invested over $2M for hours of raw footage about the town? This is the kind of high-capital, long-lead time, gritty journalism that we can only get from the classic news industry.

    You bloggers with web-cams filming your cats waiting for the big scoop are but flies about the neck of the journalism juggernaut. I say the paper should get the rights, and just start charging for the footage from these cameras. What we need is a paywall. Long live Rupert!

    [satire]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re: Kinda proves the point

    Agree. Look yourself up here:

    http://pipl.com/

    And see how "alarmist" it is. I tried myself and a few friends. It's scary to be able to see what's on people's Amazon wish list, etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    NastyButler, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:35am

    Police State

    All I can say is that if I lived in Lancaster when this "project" went into effect, I would promptly put my house on the market and look to move post haste.

    If you have a high crime rate, how about using that money to hire more cops? Or dare I suggest, carry a concealed weapon? Not too many communities in Texas, Montana, Alaska, or Wyoming have high crime rates. Hmm, wonder why that is? Could it be becuase the odds are good that the person you're trying to rob/assault/vandalize has a rifle in their pickups, a shotgun next to their bed or a pistol in their waistband?

    If we try to be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to personal safety and shoulder some of the responsibility for our own welfare instead of turning to intrusive government measures, then we'll have more freedoms intstead of fewer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re:

    "abridge the right to privacy" isn't techdirt the same blog that claimed that google maps shouldn't have to worry about privacy issues because once peopel enter public space they lose privacy. Hmmmm...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Re:

    Unfortunately, as a techdirt fanboy you fail to see the problem. Mike has consistently talked about how once in public people lose their rights to privacy. This is sited in his blogs about privacy groups suing Google Maps for validating privacy. My guess is that next you will claim that the government is different from a private entity. Well, unfortunately I must be missing that part in the constitution where the founding fathers included the right to privacy in public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Your Friendly Neighborhood Librarian, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 12:33pm

    no brainer

    It takes less than 5 minutes for a search on the Washington State's database of offenders to make sure one of our job candidates or volunteers is not a criminal. I can't believe that Pennsylvania is so far behind the times that they don't have a system like this....?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not a TechDirt fanboy, I'm a liberty fanboy. Just to point out the subtle difference.

    First, please refrain from making my arguments for me. You are doing a poor job of it. I can make my own points, which are much better.

    Second, we are discussing a LOCAL government, so you don't have to find anything in the Constitution about Right to Privacy, because that's the contract with the People and the FEDERAL government. Though, you may want to look into Amendment X for Right to Privacy in the federal government ... which states:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    So, since the Constitution didn't give the federal government the right to spy on its people, it inherently protects the rights of the people FROM that.

    Third, I at no point said there is a right to privacy to begin with (though as shown, there is an interpretation to an implied right to privacy in the Bill of Rights in regards to the federal government). In fact as I said the only way to avoid the camera system is to NOT go in public. When one leaves their private property and enters public space, they are not entitled to any right to privacy. I don't see a problem inherent with cameras in public. I see a problem with the government running programs that it simply doesn't need to be doing, wasting taxpayer's stolen money and creating a system for corruption & abuse ... as shown here again with a stalker gaining access to a local government funded camera system, fairly quickly & easily it seems.

    Lastly, you do make a correct point: I claim governments ARE inherently different from private entities. I can choose to voluntarily interact with a private entity or not. I do not have such choice with government. It is essentially on all levels different. The government forces interaction with me at the end of a gun. If you want to equate government to a private industry, you are saying that the government is a gang.

    The only private industry that operates in the same manner as the government is the mob, extorting protection money and providing substandard services that favor corruption and backroom deals that benefit themselves and their cohorts at the expense of the abused.

    Most other private industries operate on a voluntary basis, yet the IRS doesn't appreciate it when I choose not to participate in their supposedly voluntary system and don't pay for services I neither want, need, nor use. But hey, I guess private industries are wanting in on that action these days, too ... with their "right to get paid" coming out of thin air. You want to talk about rights not mentioned in the Constitution!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    ..., Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:40pm

    self defense

    Is it illegal to blind these cameras when they peer into your bedroom?
    What would be the best method to do so?
    Red laser is possibly the least expensive

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Charlie Crystle, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:49pm

    I'm from Lancaster

    it's private, constant surveillance of the general population. The City has never passed an ordinance, law, regulation, etc--the leadership has completely abdicated its responsibilities. There's no public accountability, oversight, or transparency... it's so amazingly bad how this has evolved.

    And we can use any help from the outside.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Charlie Crystle, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:52pm

    Re: Sigh...

    First, the crime here is average. Second, you have no idea how effective or not the cameras are--you only have the anecdotal data offered by LCSC.

    Finally, this entire project was developed outside the sunshine of public governance, with no public accountability, oversight, and transparency. It's been handled irresponsibly, and should be shut down until a framework for public operation and governance and a plan for reasonable redeployment can be developed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:37pm

    Re: no brainer

    It takes less than 5 minutes for a search on the Washington State's database of offenders to make sure one of our job candidates or volunteers is not a criminal.

    Err, no. Only if they've been caught.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Shawn "Kwip" Williams (profile), Aug 21st, 2009 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: Sigh...

    Actually, crime here is not average. Granted, I'm basing my statements on the 2003 FBI statistics, as they are the most recent ones I have access to. If you have more current statistics, please feel free to correct me. I haven't been able to find any reliable data more recent, so I apologize for that.

    From the FBI statistics for 2003:
    Murder Is 1.88 times the National Average
    Forcible Rape Is 1.83 times the National Average
    Robbery Is 2.01 times the National Average
    Aggravated Assault Is 1.32 times the National Average
    All Violent Crime Is 1.67 times the National Average

    We are above the average on all counts.

    Secondly, I never claimed how effective they are - merely that they have scored a number of wins. And they have been used as evidence in a number of cases - granted, the only evidence I have of that is from the LNP site itself, but I never claimed anything more.

    Finally, I don't disagree that the program's been handled irresponsibly. I definitely think there needs to be a plan for governance, and that this needs work. I wasn't trying to state anything contrary - I was trying to explain that we (as a city) didn't enter into this blindly nodding our heads as the piper played on. The decision was made without public input, and the debate about it continues.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Charlie Crystle, Aug 27th, 2009 @ 8:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Sigh...

    Average--I meant average for an urban area of this size. If you compare the crime stats to a gated retirement community in Tucson then yes, there's more crime. The national stats include apples and oranges...let's talk apples to apples.

    "merely ...a number of wins"--you initially said "a lot of wins". There's been no audit of the LCSC data and Police convictions directly (or indirectly) related to LCSC surveillance. The only numbers we have are from the LCSC, not from the Police. We're working on it, though, and will get an answer. But yesterday WGAL reported something like a 1/3 ratio, which contradicts internal documents. A lot of BS flying around...

    And you're right--it's very controversial,and should be debated, and the debate should be led by city leaders, but they've abdicated their responsibility. So now the national media will end up framing the city for the rest of the country. What could possibly go wrong...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Hidden Cameras, Aug 27th, 2009 @ 11:32am

    A lot of potential for abuse

    The media has always had a reputation of skewing news to support their own personal agendas. For cities which utilize surveillance cameras in crime prevention, the possibilities for abuse of the system are always present. Then if you have no formal screening process for the monitor attendants, then you leave the door open for problems.

    Having the ability of tracking peoples daily patterns of entering and leaving their residence, opens them up to someone of bad moral character to abuse that knowledge through robberies and rapes.

    Though I do support the use of surveillance cameras in certain situations, I believe the individuals monitoring the systems should complete a background check to hopefully weed out the few that would abuse that same system which was implemented to protect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Dennis Yang (profile), Aug 28th, 2009 @ 11:44am

    Re: Speaking of Stalkers...

    Sorry about that TriZz...

    Fixed now -- thanks for your support!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This