Thousands of surveillance cameras are showing up in cities across the country without a corresponding reduction in crime. Citizens are taking notice of this fact of the federal takeover of local police, and they are speaking out.
On January 8, for example, the Texas Civil Rights Project-Houston issued a statementย on its Facebook pagecriticizing their cityโs participation in the construction of the surveillance state.
โAs a community,ย weย need to start aย serious dialogue about the level of governmental intrusionย in our daily livesย that government foists upon us without our consent,โ declared Amin Alehashem, the groupโs regional director. โGovernment has no need to know with whom we associate, walk on the streets, attend meetings, worship, or go to dinner.โ
Local leaders in Houston, like those in so many other cities across the country, have approved the installation of new surveillance cameras. These 180 new cameras bring to nearly 1,000 the number of known surveillance cameras in the countryโs fourth largest city.
The eye of the government will reportedly cover the cityโs โpublic areas around downtown, stadiums and the theater district.โ
Local CBS affiliateย KHOU reports on its websiteย that Houston police chief Charles McClelland believes the city needs the nearly 1,000 cameras to โprovide necessary police coverage.โ
And just where did Houston get the money to buy these new cameras? Thereโsย no provision for the expense in the mayorโs Fiscal Year 2014 budget, so the cityโs not paying for these โcriticalโ services so necessary for the โsafetyโ of its citizens. Department of Homeland Security to the rescue!
In the article announcing the deployment of the new devices, KHOU reports, โThe city has spent more than $18 million in federal money to build its camera system and has another $5 million in reserve.โ
Perhaps citizens should overlook their elected leadersโ acceptance of such federal largesse, given that the 900 or so surveillance cameras already in place have had such a favorable effect on crime rates in the city.
Not so much.
Again, from KHOU:ย โOfficials say data is not kept to determine if the cameras are driving down crime.โ
If the cameras arenโt being used to reduce crime, just what are they being used for?
โWe also know from experience and from recent events that the government will inevitably abuse its use of personal information attained by spying on us. Houston needs to re-think and reject this proposal,โ Alehasem said in his press release.
Precisely. These cameras โ thousands upon thousands attached to poles and buildings from coast to coast โ are not about crime reduction, but about liberty reduction.
Residents of Evanston, Illinois, seem to see the surveillance that way, too.
Over 100 citizens of this Chicago suburb have signed petitions requesting that the city council publicize all the information regarding a proposal to add โ3.7 miles of surveillance camerasโ along city streets.
Evanstonโs plan to expand its surveillance capabilities has a couple of things in common with the Houston program.
First, there is the lack of evidence that the cameras make residents safer. Considerย this report published Wednesday in a local news blog:
Evanston resident Bobby Burns, who is collecting signatures online and in person in the neighborhood around the high school, told Patch he believes the city council does not have enough research to back up the surveillance camera proposal.
โIf these cameras are really about student safety, there should be credible data that clearly supports the need,โ he wrote in an e-mail. โIf this is about youth homicides, protecting senior citizens, or keeping an eye on police [officers], letโs respect the importance of those issues and discuss them individually with care and consideration.โ
So, just like the cameras in Houston, the cameras in Evanston (population 75,430) donโt seem to reduce crime or make anyone safer.
Another similarity between the two cases is found by following the money. The news blog Patch reports: โThe cameras would be funded in part by a Homeland Security grant.โ
There seems to be a pattern.
Cities arenโt buying just surveillance cameras with their Homeland Security grants, however.
In Bennington, Vermont, police were given an $83,000 DHS grant to upgrade the departmentโs communication equipment.
Crime must be under control in Bennington, though,ย as theย Bennington Bannerย reportsย that โa great deal of an officer’s time has been taken up by paperwork which is needed to secure grants.โ
Thatโs an interesting addition to the story. Not only are the cameras not bringing down crime, but the police โ whose job it is to fight crime โ are too busy filling out federal grant forms to be out protecting and serving.
When they are patrolling the streets of their cities, however, cops these days look more like soldiers than police, thanks again to the buckets of cash dumped into coffers by Homeland Security.
In Frankfort, Kentucky,ย for example, 11 local law enforcement agencies are sharing almost $60,000 in grant moneyย โ money theyโre spending on body armor and weapons.
Other federal agencies are helping accelerate the arming of local police with military-grade materiel.
Police in Fort Pierce, Florida are now responding to calls in a โtank on wheels,โ thanks to a new vehicle bought for next to nothing from the Pentagon.
Officer Keith Holmes applied for the vehicle grant andย according to WPEC-TV in West Palm Beach, he believes this military tactical vehicle is necessary โdue to the violence in the city we have here.โ
Crime is so bad in Fort Pierce that the police need armored vehicles? Even Officer Holmes admits thatโs a stretch.
“I agree to a certain extent it’s overkill but for the cost, for $2000, yes it’s what we need.” said Officer Holmes, as quoted on the WPEC website.
Thereโs little doubt that if a police department has military weapons and vehicles, theyโll find a way to use them, likely at the cost of citizensโ civil liberties.
One story of local police being bought and turned into an outpost of the Department of Homeland Security reveals another disturbing element of the mass militarization of local law enforcement.
Theย Ruidoso (New Mexico) News reportsย that officers in the Ruidoso Downs Police Department will be โdriving in style with a new fleet of 2014 Dodge Chargers.โ
By now, readers likely suspect the money to buy the cars came from DHS. It didnโt, but thereโs still a tie to Homeland Security and the desire for DHS cash.
Ruidoso Downs Police Chief Chris Rupp believes his department will soon be able to join the list of DHS-funded forces because of the new cars. How so?
โRupp said the new black and white colors on the vehicles will allow the department to be eligible for federal grants because the vehicles are Homeland Security Department compliant,โ the Ruidoso News reports.
Homeland Security compliant? That implies that local police are rewarded with more DHS money the more obedient they are to the federal agencyโs mandates. Yet another example of states willingly submitting to the federal governmentโs decades-long program to obliterate state sovereignty and turn states into nothing more than administrative units of an all-powerful, all-seeing central authority.
Equally unsettling, however, is that for all the added surveillance and added firepower, crime is not going down.
The DHS grant program and the heavily subsidized Defense Department equipment/weapon sale may be designed to open a back door to the piecemeal mustering of a nationwide federal police force, composed of formerly local law enforcement officers.
- In Memory of a Man Long Forgotten - December 8, 2021
- License Plate Scanners: Surveillance on Your Smartphone - October 12, 2020
- Museums, Libraries, and Public TV Receive Half a Billion in Bailout From Senate - March 27, 2020