COME HOME TO THE WOODLANDS AND ITS RING OF STEEL

June 26, 2015

COME HOME TO THE WOODLANDS AND ITS RING OF STEEL

On April 30, Catherine Dominguez updated readers on the proposed  WiFi based camera surveillance system being considered by the Woodlands. Its purpose, to aid vendors credit card machines work better, aid first responders and keep an eye on you by “locating a person on the trails” and watch what is going on at parks and other venues.

One vendor proposal from Shrader Engineering offers an example  of a similar system in Sugarland  “that ensured all vehicles entering city limits would pass through ALPR cameras. Coupled with the wireless network design, all vehicle license plates are read by the ALPR cameras and trigger automated notifications to law enforcement officers”  ( http://tinyurl.com/nk52l5z )   It’s for your safety. The cost, somewhere between $2 million and $7 Million. Somewhere, I’m sure they will figure it out.

Here are some considerations for Taxpayers who will be expected to pay for their own surveillance.

It’s Popular

Camera surveillance systems are very popular though out the world. The most comprehensive and pervasive system in place today exists in the United Kingdom ( population 64.1 million ) which began with 100 cameras in 1990 and has grown to 1.8 million cameras nationwide amounting to  ONE camera for every 34 persons. The RING OF STEEL is the popular name for the security and surveillance cordon around The City of London today. ( http://tinyurl.com/ngn2fsj )

It’s Expensive

Again, we should pay attention to the prime example of the United Kingdom regarding costs, In one government agency, The British Home Office, the agency in charge of security, spent 78% of its criminal justice budget in the 1990’s on surveillance cameras, and is estimated to have spent over £500 million (approximately a $1 billion) in between 1995 and 2005.( http://tinyurl.com/nv6h23c )

It’s Intrusive

Minneapolis Star-Tribune headline reads “City cameras track anyone, even Minneapolis Mayor Rybak”. If the Woodlands proceeds, and it should not, then

make sure they buy a system that is owned and operated by the Township and not outsourced like the infamous Red Light Camera systems. Privately owned systems make it difficult for citizens to access what is properly public information. That being said, who wants there entire activity recorded and subject to observation by good guys or bad guys. Such systems and data are prime targets for hackers, litigators, angry public officials and others.

Will the system stop with license plate recognition? What about facial recognition either now or in the future? What if someone wants to harass a poor taxpayer who failed to pick up after their dog on one of the trails?  The possibilities are endless .

It’s Ineffective

The main consideration for you dear taxpayer is that camera surveillance is proven to be ineffective in achieving its primary stated goal, that of public safety through reduction in crime. One study found that such camera surveillance is effective in the  limited applications  of parking lots ( we already have this thanks to Sheriff Gage’s camera trailers ) and on board public transportation, otherwise the  major meta-analysis by Welsh & Farrington concluded camera surveillance is shown to have no statistically significant impact on crime rates at all. In their study of studies  “nine of these studies were carried out in the UK. Conversely, the other nine studies showed no evidence of any desirable effect of CCTV on crime. All five North American studies were in this group.”

http://www.popcenter.org/Responses/video_surveillance/PDFs/Welsh%26Farrington_2002.pdf

Taxpayers, is this what you want your money spent on? Is this how you want to live? Is this what You want to come home to?  Say no to Woodlands surveillance.