While the proposed laws appear similar at first glance, there are substantial differences. One is seeking voluntary compliance, and pertains to cameras already in place, while the other is mandatory, requiring certain citizens to install cameras or face a fine, or possibly a stint in jail.
But these cities, White Plains, New York, and San Jose, California, do have one thing in common. This author has called each home at different phases of her life.
San Jose
Back in January, the San Jose Mercury News reported that a city council member had submitted a proposal that would ask anyone with a security camera to voluntarily register it for inclusion on a security camera database to be maintained by the San Jose Police Department. Should a robbery, assault, or any other crime be committed in the neighborhood, the police could then be able to remotely tap into the feeds of IP camera security systems, or if the cameras happen to be analog, owners would hand over discs containing the actual video.
**************************************
White Plains
In February, the White Plains Common Council unanimously passed Ordinance 4.25 which requires certain merchants to install and maintain digital video and IP camera surveillance systems to record and store high resolution video of everyone who comes onto the premises, and to make it available to the White Plains Police Department should they need it while investigating a crime in the vicinity.
Affected businesses include
- pharmacies
- pawn shops
- businesses licensed to sell alcohol
- check cashing concerns
- licensed second hand dealers who buy and sell precious metals
- bars and any business that stays open between midnight and 4 A.M.
A Bit of Background
San Jose, whose population has doubled since 1970 when the first seeds of Silicon Valley started crowding the almond and apricot orchards that dotted the city. Although, like all cities it had its pockets of crime, overall, San Jose, not long ago, was reputed to be one of the country's safest cities.
Recent years, however have seen crime rates soar. Accordingly many homeowners have equipped their properties with security cameras.
It was the footage from several of these cameras that was key in helping police identify a prime suspect allegedly responsible for the fires in Liccardo's district. However, since they had to go knocking on doors to find people with cameras, who knows how many fires might have been prevented had police been able to access them immediately following the fire. This gnawing question led Liccardo to submit the proposal whose fate has yet to be decided.
**************************************
White Plains, while nowhere near the size of San Jose, is the county seat for Westchester County, an
and Mamaroneck Ave, once a shopping street is now lined with upscale sidewalk
One thing remains constant, however. The downtown area always was and still is plagued by crime. As in San Jose, it was a member of the Common Council who came up with a camera sharing idea. However this law is mandatory and gives business proprietors until February 2015 to equip their establishments with digital or IP camera security systems capable of recording quality video with resolution sufficient to distinguish facial features, and to share it with police upon demand
Citizen Concerns
Some critics of the San Jose proposal complain that the plan would set a precedent of privatizing surveillance. Others do not like that the police would have 24/7 access to the footage and while sorting through it would be able to monitor private areas.
**************************************
What makes White Plains' law more controversial than San Jose's is that it's mandated and only applies to certain citizens, namely the approximately 250 businesses who will have to invest an estimated $1,000 to $2,000 for cameras and digital or IP recording systems. The cost of non-compliance is a possible jail sentence of up to 15 days plus a fine of $250 a day until the system is up and running.
Official Take
Officials on both coasts have been quick to chime in with their support.
According to the McClatchy News Service, San Jose retired judge La Doris Cordell has gone on record saying she sees the proposal as a natural extension of existing technological advances that already provide the police with video. She cites the smartphones with which witnesses readily record and volunteer video to the police, and the body-worn cameras with which San Jose will soon be outfitting police officers.
As for the privacy issue, she discounts it, seeing it not so much an "intrusion on privacy" but rather as a way for San Jose residents to "know what's going on in their neighborhoods."
**************************************
Meanwhile White Plains Police Chief James Bradley was an early supporter, as evidenced by work-session remarks to the Common Council, ( reported by local paper, Journal News) saying that the use of video "is one of the growing trends in our profession. It has helped us solve a number of high profile crimes more quickly.......When a case is in court, juries ask for DNA and video."
Since San Jose has yet to yay or nay the proposal, and the White Plains Ordinance will not take effect until February 2015, the question of how it all will play out cannot be answered. Meanwhile, should you have questions about IP cameras, IP access control systems, or IP intercoms, you can visit the Kintronics website and fill out one of our information request forms, or if you prefer to call, the number is 914-944-3425
No comments:
Post a Comment