As an example of the cameras' effectiveness, reporters were shown a film from a test camera placed near Smith and Hotel streets, taken one hour after the camera was installed. The film showed the arrest of a man on contempt charges after officers recognized him by watching the camera shot. News of the arrest spread quickly and officers said it helped push undesirables off Hotel Street.
Surveillance cameras are now commonplace in banks, department stores and apartment buildings and there is no reason why they shouldn't be used for crime detection on public streets -- as they already are in several cities. Their purpose is to augment law enforcement by providing eyes for the police in places where they cannot be present in person. We can't afford to have a police officer on every corner, but this is the next best thing.
Civil liberties attorney Dan Foley fears "Big Brother's" cameras following people wherever they go in order to curtail their rights, but that's far from the case here. Cameras might be objectionable if they were used to harass people engaged in political demonstrations or other constitutionally protected activities. That is not the intent of the Harris administration and should not be a consideration in evaluating the city's plans. This is a matter of keeping areas notorious for criminal activity under constant observation. If there is something wrong with that, we fail to see it.
Society simply isn't ready to allow such tinkering with nature -- at the human level, at least -- and may never be.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor