Camera project gains support
Charleston police chief wins over skeptics, but funding is uncertain
By Glenn Smith
Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen spent the past year easing concerns and building support for putting the Holy City under the all-seeing eyes of video surveillance cameras.
Momentum seems to be building for the plan, and even some early skeptics say the chief has won them over. Now, Mullen just has to find a way to pay for the project.
The city was optimistic that it could win a $435,000 federal homeland security grant to buy the cameras. After all, Charleston must safeguard one of the nation's busiest container ports, an integral hub for shipping and commerce. Alas, the federal government apparently saw more pressing needs and notified the city last week that Charleston didn't make the cut.
Mullen and supporters of the project said they will press on and look for money elsewhere. They see the cameras as an important tool to help police curb crime, watch for signs of trouble and gather evidence.
Video surveillance has become more commonplace across the country, with cities such as Chicago making wide use of the technology. One study found that more than 200 municipalities are installing cameras to improve public safety. But questions remain about the effectiveness of the technology and the potential for cameras to infringe on residents' privacy and civil rights.
Mullen heard these same questions when he shepherded a similar video surveillance program as a police commander in Virginia Beach, Va. He said he is sensitive to residents' concerns and is working to make sure the community is comfortable with the plan before the police department proceeds.
Mullen has been working with a 10-member citizens advisory committee to develop policies and procedures for how and where the cameras would be used, who would have access to the footage and how long the videos would be stored. While some details are being worked out, police insist the cameras will not be used to spy on residents in their homes.
"All the cameras would be in public places," Mullen said. "We're not looking to hide anything from anybody. Our belief is that the more visible they are, the better off for everyone."
Charles Rhoden, president of the Charlestowne Neighborhood Association, serves on the advisory committee and is convinced the cameras would be a boon for city. "I haven't heard from anyone who's against it."
Rhoden pointed to a recent string of early morning burglaries of the lower peninsula that left residents on edge. The presence of video cameras might have deterred the burglar or helped police catch him in the act, he said.
City Councilman Gary White, who also serves on the committee, said he is confident Charleston will find a way to pay for the project. A number of downtown neighborhood associations not only want the cameras, but are willing to pay for them as well. Some businesses and institutions also are considering allowing police to tap into their existing video-surveillance systems to bolster coverage, White said.
Mullen said police are "pretty close" to having a solid plan in place, and some existing grant money might allow them to begin building the infrastructure for the video system.
Victoria Middleton, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, said the city might be best served by starting off slowly with a pilot program and assessing the results before spending a lot of money on a system that might not be effective.
"Our view is that they are costly and they haven't been proven in deterring crime," she said. "A lot of communities have found that improvements like improved lighting, foot patrols or more community policing are more effective."
Middleton said the ACLU also is concerned about the potential for racial profiling and encroaching on people's privacy with the cameras.
City Councilman Jimmy Gallant expressed similar concerns earlier this year, worrying that the cameras simply would be dumped in the African-American community. Gallant has since changed his mind after speaking with the chief, and he now supports the project.
"I think the chief's intent is to protect people in all parts of the city," he said. "His wholehearted concern is one of safety."
Mullen said the cameras won't target any one group or area. They will be used around places such as the port, in public spots where large gatherings occur and in high-crime areas identified through statistical analysis. Wireless technology would allow for the cameras to be moved as needs change, he said.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
cougars1970 (anonymous) says...
Before putting cameras on the street, a good first step would be to put them in all of CPD's cars and in CPD's interview rooms.
November 2, 2008 at 6:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
"...just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..."
Barack Obama, 2008
Philadelphia primary debate
November 2, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tulane75 (anonymous) says...
Crackerjack for today's Mensa award!
November 2, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Grinder (anonymous) says...
Like seat belt and helmet laws, the underlying premise for these cameras is to promote safety, but the inherent potential for misuse by authorities is there. I didn't read anything in this story about how well cameras have worked in other areas, including Virginia Beach where Mullen came from. Do they stop crime, or help police identify criminals, or just alert officials to fender benders moments before the 911 call comes in? Proof of effectiveness would ease my concerns about the cost and possible abuse.
November 2, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wonderdog (anonymous) says...
Didn't Wendell Gailliard propose getting the cameras a few years ago?
November 2, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeg111 (anonymous) says...
If Mullen would pay attention to the morale of the CPD and look at how many GOOD officers have quit since he became chief...we would not need cameras. The City of Charleston needs to take a good look at Mullen and not the camera.
November 2, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
512c (anonymous) says...
awwww Fark no!! Cameras everywhere = fear everywhere, lest they do something unpredictable, and all prediction leads to frustration when "variables" don't "behave."
This, (in what sociopsychologist call) leads to an unhealthy police state. 3D modeling of environment is fun, but in our current police state, we can't do this.
November 2, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
512c (anonymous) says...
By the way, these cameras are already out on most corners, and the ears for eyes are on top of most power poles.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f32...
November 2, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ForPnC (anonymous) says...
And the Paranoid Reich strikes again. Go away Mullen. You are incompetent. The CPD suffers because of you.
November 2, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
exorcist_pencocky4u (anonymous) says...
Posted by moonpie on November 2, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"...just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..."
Barack Obama, 2008
Philadelphia primary debate
â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'â-'
On Tuesday, you need to be totally informed as Senator Obama sums up everything he plans to do for America ....If the P&C edits out part of the first line, copy and paste the second line without the # sign.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGz...
#http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
November 2, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BBBP (anonymous) says...
Ever heard of Big Brother?
When the City takes money from Homeland Security..they are handing over the keys to the city! They will be at the beck and call of HS!!! HS will be in control of Charleston! Do you really want that? Do you really want a militaristic organization in charge of Charleston....that is what happens when you take money from them. THEY OWN YOU!
I for one, do not want a Police State in Charleston...and that is what you will get. If the cameras go through....even though I am a law abiding citizen and former police officer...I will not spend ANY of my money in Charleston, SC!!!
What is with the people today!? Have you no idea that MOST OF YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU????
Wake UP!!! Research! Learn! Become a PATRIOT! Do NOT let them take another right from you!!!
November 2, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MarkSCCOT (anonymous) says...
I know that the prevailing opinion will be..."As long as you don't do anything wrong, you shouldn't worry about it." Well I would like to make 2 points;
-firstly this is a dangerous and intrusive technology. Look at how the Chinese used their system (already in place in a Communist country with numerous civil rights violations) to put down protests by Tibetans. Do you trust our government to use it correctly. What if a year ago the GOP decided Obama was a radical and ordered surveillance on all his rallys? It isn't far fetched. Remember, to a point in Stalinist Russia, people went with the "As long as you don't do anything wrong" pretense until it was too late."
-secondly, look at what is really effective policing. Take this money and hire 10 additional patrolmen instead. Put these patrolmen on the street and have them interact with the community. These camera systems are just data and generally the data will just accumulate and never be as much of value as "showing the colors."
November 2, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JC (anonymous) says...
The State won't allow red light running cameras...can't imagine they would allow these. I don't have a problem with either, but this seems much more invasive.
November 2, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
When the goverment uses them to supress civil unrest because they want to make serfs out of everyone. They want to let socialist like Mccain and obama control you when you don't get your freebies they promised you before Nov. 4th.
November 2, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beefsaver (anonymous) says...
Mind your journalistic integrity, Post and Courier! "The city was optimistic that it could win a $435,000 federal homeland security grant to buy the cameras. After all, Charleston must safeguard one of the nation's busiest container ports, an integral hub for shipping and commerce."
Appeal to emotion much? As the reporting staff is or should be well award, DHS has already invested millions in securing our port with one of the most advanced security networks anywhere, dubbed Project Seahawk. They've got the port under control.
This article's surveillance system, with nothing to do with national security, used to monitor us in public places, can do only one of two things.
1. Provide cover for installing cameras to target high-crime areas without leaning publicly on the poor... all the while leaning directly on them.
2. Provide police officers with yet another quota of citations to meet, which will be fleshed out by citing people for minor parking infractions, jaywalking, and other events that will do little for the community while realizing none of the benefit purported to be worth the significant taxpayer expense.
These camera systems are everywhere in England, and do you know what the operators do? They scope chicks and parking meters. One can only imagine the results given the preponderance of lovely women in our fair city.
Chief Mullen, get your officers into neighborhoods, meet people, create a human presence. Stay out of the cruisers, press the flesh, and remind us that you're involved in our problems. These cameras will create mistrust and a tacit acceptance of one more personal liberty slowly creeping away.
November 2, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MarkSCCOT (anonymous) says...
I am coming to see that this is a symptom of what is wrong with our society. In the past we would come up with a solution that would require some work and effort on our part. Now we just throw money at a problem and call it success.
Is your kid a little energetic and has problems with school? Then: Fix the problem by enforcing discipline, work ethic and pride in your child so that he/she will succeed. Now: 20mg of Ritalin.
Crime in the community.
Then: Officer O'Reilly walks the beat, gets to know everyone in his area and is an intelligent and wise advocate in the community.
Now: Install some cameras.
November 2, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
They are in use all over the UK - what's happening with street crime there? Chicago too? Ok, what's the situation there?
Even a casual bit of research shows how ineffective they are. They make the police lazy, sitting in their stations when they should be on the street.
November 2, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
I can see it now, Young po po's sitting in a room watching C of C chicks in the summer time sunning in Marion Sq!
Maybe the majority will go where the crime actually takes place?
November 3, 2008 at 6:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PalmettoDP (anonymous) says...
"Charles Rhoden, president of the Charlestowne Neighborhood Association, serves on the advisory committee and is convinced the cameras would be a boon for city. "I haven't heard from anyone who's against it."
He will today. It amazes me how many people are like sheep being led to the slaughter.
November 3, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
iceman1978 (anonymous) says...
I could see putting these in areas with a crime problem but not citywide. I still believe in my original idea about how to prevent robberies. When they arrest someone they should get an infrared scan as well as fingerprints since the heat waves generated by the human body are much like a fingerprint. They could install infrared equipment in banks, convenience stores and other businesses at risk of being robbed. That way, even if the robbers are disguised the infrared camera will still pick up the heat waves for easier identification.
November 3, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blueline (anonymous) says...
The cameras would be watched by CPD dispatchers which would render them totally ineffective and useless by default.
November 3, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Blaze destroys Kiawah clubhouse
- Kiawah Island Fire
- Francis Marion has hidden cameras
- Mercury staying in port awhile
- Protesters coming here
- SLED reviews records for signs of negligence
- Market remake
- Extra crew to scour Mercury
- Temporary duty
- Passport prices to rise, but not before 'Passport Day in the USA'
