I posted this over at Industry View today, so if you are a regular reader there you'll have seen this before. But I wanted to include this here for those who didn't see it:
The Seattle Times is reporting that the pilot project to put surveillance cameras in Seattle parks is being expanded to include a total of 4 parks. There's been a rich public discussion since the first park cameras went live in February. Some felt the deterrent effect made them safer. Others reflected Seattle's famously rebellious streak by voicing concerns about privacy. To quote:
"In a free and open society, people should have the right to be present in public spaces without being monitored by the government," said Jennifer Shaw of ACLU Washington at Monday's council meeting.
"It's a changed world as we've been told so often. It's a world where we're suspicious of people who might be terrorists or we have a Big Brother looking over our shoulder," [a councilmember] said.
"Surveillance cameras are going to be sending us down that road, and I'm not sure that's a world I want to go in and help create."
Others are keeping an open mind, since after all this is a pilot project. The project doesn't include monitoring of the cameras except by police during 911 calls, but it does include the removal of public toilets and newly scheduled ranger patrols.
[The chairman of the parks committee] emphasized the cameras are a pilot project. "We'll see if improvement is either made in perception of crime or safety."
And a columnist for the Seattle Times went out in search of "some good ol' Seattle-style Big Brother outrage" at one of the parks — and didn't find any.
All
the discussion is good. And I'm glad it also includes new ideas people
are putting forward to make the cameras p[rovide the most public
benefit (after all, that's who's paying for them).
I remember
reading about one woman who advocated for public online access to the
cameras so she could check and see if things looked safe before she
took her young child to the park. I suppose a tool for the good can be
used for the bad (cyberstalking, now with video!) but the main thing is
for us all to contribute to a dialogue and get all the possibilities
and cautions on the table.
Abigail
Comments