Cameras to keep watch
Council approves contract for surveillance system
By David Slade
The Charleston Police Department plans to install a wireless network of video cameras at locations on the peninsula by the end of this year as the initial part of a surveillance effort that is expected to expand over time.
The Charleston City Council on Tuesday night approved a $316,461 contract for the camera system, with funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Several downtown neighborhood associations applauded the move, and there was no firm opposition.
Police Chief Greg Mullen
"It's a great idea, and it's needed," said the Rev. Alma Dungee, president of the North Central Neighborhood Association.
Police Chief Greg Mullen, a strong proponent of camera surveillance, has been building public support for the initiative for nearly two years in meetings with neighborhood associations and civic groups.
"We gave the chief a good going-over to make sure people's rights would be protected," said Arthur Lawrence, president of the West Side Neighborhood Association. "We made sure cameras won't be pointed into people's houses or back yards."
The contract with the Maryland-based Avrio Group will create an encrypted wireless network that will allow the cameras to be monitored from locations the police choose. The 10 cameras the contract will buy will be divided between the area near the Charleston passenger terminal and the area around Burke High School and the Gadsden Green public housing complex on Charleston's West Side.
"We will start negotiations with the company tomorrow," Mullen said following the unanimous City Council vote.
Mullen said the wireless system will allow for the easy addition of more cameras, and he said the next round would likely be used to monitor both high-crime areas and places where large public gatherings take place, such as the City Market and Marion Square.
Later, Mullen said, the camera system could potentially be expanded to include the cameras mounted in police cars, and could be used to stream live video to monitors inside police cars. In the event of an emergency, such as a terrorist attack on the port, Mullen said, the camera feeds could go directly to the Project Seahawk port security operation in North Charleston.
The cameras do not have facial recognition capability, Mullen said.
Councilman Aubry Alexander said he initially had some discomfort with the surveillance initiative but said cameras have become an integral part of modern police work. Other members of council endorsed the project with some enthusiasm, as did Mayor Joe Riley.
"I can tell you one thing for sure: The criminals would prefer that we didn't have these cameras," Riley said.
Since taking the helm in late 2006, Mullen has steadily pushed to add new technology to improve intelligence gathering and better equip officers to combat crime. At one point, the Police Department sought a grant to purchase a camera-equipped remote-controlled helicopter.
Mindful of civil liberty concerns, Mullen worked with a 10-member citizens advisory committee to develop policies and procedures for how and where the cameras approved Tuesday would be used, who would have access to the footage and how long the videos would be stored. The idea gained support, and some neighborhoods even offered to pay to get their own cameras.
All along, Mullen has maintained the camera wouldn't be used to spy on private homes or individuals. They would simply monitor what occurs on streets and other public spaces, he said.
The city's first attempt to secure a $435,000 federal homeland security grant to buy the cameras was rejected in November. The city, however, kept plugging away, confident it would eventually secure funds for the project.
The American Civil Liberties Union in South Carolina has not opposed the cameras outright but has raised concerns about the project, questioning whether adequate safeguards exist to protect against invading people's privacy, racial profiling and other abuses.
"There is the potential for an invasion of privacy," said Victoria Middleton, executive director of the state ACLU, at the council meeting. "If there are invasions of privacy, it can undermine police efforts to build community trust."
Mullen shepherded a similar video surveillance program, to mixed reviews, while working as a police commander in Virginia Beach, Va. Critics accused police of employing invasive Big Brother tactics. But many residents considered the cameras an innocuous tool that helped make the beach front safer.
Glenn Smith contributed to this report. Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
[...] "the next round would likely be used to monitor both high-crime areas" [...]
There should be constant camera monitoring of the family court bench -- where those (alleged) judges don't have any control over it!!!
August 19, 2009 at 5:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sig (anonymous) says...
I do not live in town, but I would not go down there after dark. The Chief is trying to do a good job. I wish all cities would use this system.
August 19, 2009 at 5:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
spengler (anonymous) says...
The average Briton is captured over 300X/day by the extensive public surveillance network in England. Don't Think They Won't Be Watching You.
August 19, 2009 at 6:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
The initial intent is not to spy on people. It's capability to spy on people almost guarantees that it will be used to spy on people at some point. Government cannot resist control. It also passes laws and changes them later just to pass the time of day for our benefit. Yeah, right.
August 19, 2009 at 7:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SecretSquirrel (anonymous) says...
How many arrests occurred in VA Beach as a result of using these cameras for 2 years?
Oh yeah, that's right. Zero.
August 19, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
SS, tell us--don't leave us hanging!
August 19, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasHighgrad68 (anonymous) says...
George Orwell was right! Big Brother is alive and well.
August 19, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RuleNumberOne (anonymous) says...
The alarm bells need to go off whenever an intrusion on our privacy is billed as something for our own good. While it may be good to have a video record of a crime, I don't think there's much evidence that these cameras actually DETER a crime. The price of this "protection" is not worth the cost of our privacy.
August 19, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
serenitynow (anonymous) says...
The real problem is that with these invasions of privacy, we all fall under a blanket of being criminals just for discussing it.
August 19, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blacman (anonymous) says...
My daddy used to say it all starts out innocent, but over time the police are looking for one thing only...to have the upper hand. How were arrests made prior to usage of cameras hiding in the bushes?
August 19, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wonderdog (anonymous) says...
The cameras may serve to deter crime in the areas (suspended sentences and low bonds certainly don't). The residents of the neighborhoods apparently want the cameras - I think Wendell proposed the same a few years ago.
August 19, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
STREETLAW (anonymous) says...
Have to laugh sometime at the quality of surveillance cameras which should have facial recognition quality that they show on TV news now and then and say "if you recognize this person you could receive an award."
You better believe you should get an award if you can recognize a featureless blob of a face in the 5 seconds it is on the screen.
We have cameras hundreds of miles in space that can read a magazine on the ground and even see what is going on inside your house using infrared technology. We have cell phones that capture pictures with a very high quality. Yet surveillance cameras generally do not have facial recognition quality.
So what's the point?
August 19, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
counterpoint (anonymous) says...
People who argue against these cameras need to consider the alternative - having beat cops stand around and watch things, which would be perfectly legal and appropriate. Cameras = unobtrusive.
August 19, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ysillyme (anonymous) says...
Cameras are like roadblocks. If a roadblock catches a couple DUI's in an illegal effort (article IV in Bill of Rights) everyone else was violated. In the unlikely event a camera captures a crime, the untold masses who were legally being surveilled sp. have been violated. Why not spend that $316,000 on something legal and productive: more cops looking for speeders, red light runners, old farts listening to the easy listening channel with their windows down etc.....?
August 19, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
As long as it is not showing any of my privte property, I'm fine with it. If it's public property, it's public domain and I don't mind them doing anything within their capabilities to stop crime as long as it doesn't violate my rights.
August 19, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
areyouforreal (anonymous) says...
Why doesn't the city spend money on more patrol cars instead of useless cameras. I have heard from some people that most of the cars have over 100,000 + miles on them and they are getting rid of there take homes
August 19, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
Maybe if the cops weren't using them as their everyday/all day rides they might last longer and save us gas money.
August 19, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blacman (anonymous) says...
Our mayor went through an exhaustive list of potential candidates for Chief of Police and personally selected Mullen by himself. If mayor riley's man says we need cameras for public safety so be it. Driving their patrol cars home after work only increases their pride in the vehicle and makes the popo presence known in their 'hoods.
August 19, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RL (anonymous) says...
There's cameras on I-26, I-526, in Wal-Mart and most other stores, in banks and ATM's, in the airport, in resturants. Cameras are everywhere and even maybe watching you at work, when you put gas in your car you're on a camera.
Putting up 10 cameras to watch the street prostitutes, drug dealers, and murders in these neighborhoods is a good idea.
August 19, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SecretSquirrel (anonymous) says...
@ blacman...
Yeah, Mullen was Riley's top pick for the job, after the other five candidates in line ahead of him took a glance at this dump and said "Hell no, Little Joe."
As far as driving cars home, it's great that we've got a large CPD presence in Summerville.
August 19, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SecretSquirrel (anonymous) says...
@ GM- Don't forget to turn in your stats by the end of the week.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/20...
August 19, 2009 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
"increases their pride in the vehicle "
What?
August 19, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ysillyme (anonymous) says...
nopart~
perhaps increases their pride in getting out of the vehicle at home, puffing ou their chest, and changing into their superman cape before heading to the store and running errands at our expense.
August 19, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
Most of you (and you know who you are) gripe about crime....they do something about it and you gripe. You cannot have it both ways.
ysilly - how is your oldman harold doing?
August 19, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
Well, that's true. We already have our pictures taken all over the place. We have a census coming up where we are told that we have to tell a number of answers to questions that have nothing to do with a simple count. You cannot open an account, buy, or sell anything of high value without giving your social security number. We're scanned at airports where they confiscate your property on penalty of no service. We're lazed on the highways and possibly trached via the gps in our cell phones. TV's have boxes tracking whay we watch on TV. The IRS has the details on our income and wealth and some losses. The grocery stores track what we eat with their discount cards. Sign for a delivery or a purchase and our signatures go around the world digitally. I wonder how long before someone puts all that together. Knowledge is power.
August 19, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
maeko (anonymous) says...
i wonder how long those cameras will last before they are shot out or stolen? bets?
August 19, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
I don't believe anyone could hit them by shooting at them. Seems like all the stories about shootings in the low country say that they get about one hit per 30 shots fired.
August 19, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SecretSquirrel (anonymous) says...
@theronce-
Whose shots are you talking about? Criminals or cops?
August 19, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ysillyme (anonymous) says...
loonie luna~
You are not worthy to carry Harry's jockstrap let alone inquire about him. Go play old maid with your one friend in the universe...Al Bundy!
August 19, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
squirt16oz (anonymous) says...
Organized opposition? Video equipment is EVERYWHERE, no already—everybody has a camera in their cell phone!!! Cameras don't seem to stop much crime...watch TRU tv for a couple of nights!! Surveillance inside convenience stores, department stores and on the streets in foreign cities doesn't stop crime there! The idiots who are going to riot, loot, pillage, terrorize and plunder could care less—they're gonna do what they want and cameras be damned! Why is it that the victims of crime are not the ones who complain about surveillance?
August 19, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
penny35 (anonymous) says...
Yeah, What RL said...
To those of you criticizing the use of cameras, do any of you actually live in this area of downtown? Exactly. Besides, if your not doing anything illegal then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Drug dealers, hit and runs, she-male prostitutes, dead bodies, gunfire, loitering...these are all regular activities in my neighborhood. My property value has already gone down enough in this economy, I don't need any of these extras to make it any worse.
August 19, 2009 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCPDBLUE (anonymous) says...
Look at the lovely areas that the cameras are going.area around Burke High School and the Gadsden Green public housing complex on Charleston's West Side. I dont see any going up in the area near the Battery.I wonder where the crime is at....
August 19, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oslo59 (anonymous) says...
The Sheeple have spoken! Start filming our lives! Enjoy the out-takes, bloopers and never-before-seen footages!
God, you Americans are such shmucks!
August 19, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seneca264 (anonymous) says...
Nose pickers and butt diggers beware!
August 19, 2009 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seneca264 (anonymous) says...
"The cameras do not have facial recognition capability". That is a correct statement. The facial recognition capability resides within the software that may be used with the cameras. These camaras can be easily upgraded with facial recognition capability simply by adding the software. The correct and honest statement should have been that these cameras have the capability to use facial recognition features.
These cameras have been in use in many high crime cities for years. The cameras have not been effective in reducing crimes. The camera system is a waste of money.
The only method that has reduced crime is boots on the pavement.....period.
The police have been caught abusing privacy with these camera systems in other cities.
August 19, 2009 at 10:44 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. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
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!
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Charleston Place hotel says GOP group skipped out on tab
- Charleston Place sues Republican group
- State workers may have to wait longer to retire
- Deputy reaches 133 mph during pursuit
- OSHA: First job at scene of fire is paperwork
- Boeing admits defect in some 787s
- Setting North Charleston's police record straight
- Mom charged in baby's choking
- High-Speed Pursuit Part 1
- Local B&Bs share recipes for most inviting meal of the day
