LATEST UPDATE:
Shortly after the City Council approved Lance Sherk's recommendations about the surveillance cameras, Councillor Bill Juby announced that the DBIA was withdrawing their request for City approval and their offer to pay the $85 000 for the cameras' installation. Instead, they have decided to pay the full costs to have cameras on their private property. According to Coun. Juby, the cameras will cover about 90% of the downtown area, and the images will be broadcast live on the internet.
---
PCAP and STCC opposses City's move to install Surveillance Camera's:
The City of Peterborough has moved toward having several surveillance cameras installed in the downtown core, covering a span of 15 blocks. Stop the Camera's Coalition, which PCAP is part of, has organized action to stop the implementation of these cameras that will target marginalized communities. STCC has been victorious in deterring the downtown camera plan. The City is now reviewing alternatives to cameras.
THE ISSUES
Below are a number of our arguments against the installation of the cameras:
The cameras will not deter crime.
* In London, England, where there are more than 150 000 cameras in place, there has been a 40% increase in street crime.
* Charleston West Virginia and in Long Island found that their cameras made little or no difference.
* London, ON; Ottawa, ON; Miami Beach, FL; Detroit, MI; Atlantic City, NJ; Newark, NJ; Times Square, NY; White Plains, NY and Mount Vernon, NY have all dismantled their systems because they were found to be too expensive and ineffective.
* Cameras will not deter crime, but rather displace it, making it more difficult for police to do their job.
* While the crime rate in the residential areas of Peterborough has been on the rise, the street crime in the downtown has gone down 1.3%. Why use the cameras to further push the criminals away from the downtown and into the residential areas?
The cameras are an infringement on our basic civil liberties and fundamental rights as Canadians.
* In Sherbrooke, Quebec, the Privacy Commissioner of Quebec stated that the proposal of cameras was a contravention of privacy legislation and violate our Privacy Act.
* In Edmonton, Alberta, their cameras were turned off after the Privacy Commissioner of Alberta stated that they violated to Privacy Act.
* In Yellowknife, NWT, the Privacy Commissioner called the cameras "unlawful under Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act".
There is no mechanism for public scrutiny in place to ensure that the cameras and videos will not be used for the wrong purposes.
* 1 in 10 women are targeted by male operators for voyeuristic reasons.
* camera operators have been found to focus disproportionately on people of colour "black people were between 1.5 and 2.5 times more likely to be surveilled that one would expect from their presence in the population" -U.K.
* 30% of targeted surveillances on black people were protracted, lasting 9 minutes or more, compared with just 10% of white people.
* 40% of the population was targeted not for their activities but for the way they looked: minorities; homeless; panhandlers; youth - U.K.
* monitors spied on political activists.
* monitors/police officers have tracked estranged spouses or stalked women for friends or themselves - Michigan.
* used images to threaten motorists after traffic altercations.
* targeted license plates to research the background of the vehicle owners .
The costs for the maintenance, repair and monitoring, to be paid by the taxpayers, are too high.
* It has been estimated that the upkeep of the cameras will cost between $100 thousand and $400 thousand per year .
* London, Ontario was paying $236 000 per annum for the upkeep of their 16 cameras, and have recently cut the cameras out of their budget because the costs were too high, especially for a system found to be ineffective.
We feel that our tax dollars would be better spent addressing the root causes of crime: level of intoxication; poverty; substance abuse; homelessness; unemployment etc. It's a better use of our money to prevent crime than just to watch it, and attempt to use the cameras to catch people after they commit it.
Possible Alternatives
* Street crimes have risen drastically since the Government of Ontario introduced new legislation allowing bars to remain open until 3am, rather than 1am. Perhaps this issue should be addressed, since it is after bar closing that the majority of the downtown crimes occur. The City of Peterborough could change the bar closing time back to 1am, at no cost to taxpayers.
* Since it is mostly the clients from the bars that are committing the crimes after bar closing, perhaps the issue of the level of intoxication needs to be addressed. The City of Peterborough should be enforcing the laws about serving alcohol.
* People act differently in the dark than they do in the light. An alternative to the cameras might be to install better lighting in the downtown.
* Put more money towards crime prevention. Address the root causes of crime: poverty; substance abuse; homelessness; unemployment etc.
* Increase policing in the downtown area
