Surveillance cameras have limitations, but are worth trying in West Willow neighborhood
You can’t have a cop on every corner, as the saying goes.
So should you put a police surveillance camera on every corner instead? We’d say “no’’ to that, though we find we can support plans to install a limited number of surveillance cameras in the Ypsilanti Township neighborhood of West Willow on a trial basis this summer.
Surveillance cameras are no panacea. They invariably raise privacy concerns, and there’s mixed evidence about their effectiveness, particularly as a deterrent to crime.
Deputies investigate at the scene of a fatal shooting in the West Willow neighborhood in February.
File photo | AnnArbor.com
Earlier this month, the Ypsilanti Township Board of Trustees voted unanimously to approve a pilot project that will install five surveillance cameras in public areas around West Willow at a cost of $30,000. The results will be evaluated at the end of the summer.
Any time that surveillance cameras are introduced to a new area, it can raise questions about privacy, and the specter of “Big Brother.’’ But the reality is, Big Brother already is watching you, and has been for years. Surveillance cameras are in widespread use in commercial businesses and in communities across the United States, Canada and Europe. If there was to be a debate over sparing the public from the intrusive eye of security cameras, it needed to occur a couple of decades ago. The cameras are everywhere these days.
At Eastern Michigan University, for instance, public areas are monitored by some 350 security cameras, and campus Police Chief Greg O’Dell says it is “indisputable’’ that images captured by these cameras have helped detectives identify suspects and solve crimes. Ypsilanti Township officials visited EMU for a demonstration of surveillance cameras as they were considering the test project for West Willow, and came away impressed.
West Willow was considered for the pilot program because of a recent spike in violent crime there, and the potential for more violence this summer. In addition, the layout of the neighborhood is somewhat unique in that it has a limited number of entrances and exits, which makes it possible to monitor cars that come in and out.
Surveillance cameras will be placed in public areas where they can record cars entering and leaving the neighborhood, allowing a view of their license plates. Cameras also could record sections of street in front of homes or parks where there’s a concern about criminal activity.
Research has shown that surveillance cameras have little or no effect on deterring crime, and often have not resulted in a reduction in the crime rate in areas where they’ve been used. They are no substitute for police enforcement or the cooperation of citizens in fighting crime. But they have shown some value in helping solve crimes.
If these cameras were being installed as a substitute for police patrols, that would be a mistake. That’s not the case here. In fact, the township board is talking about contracting with the sheriff’s department for two additional deputies to patrol this summer. West Willow also has an active neighborhood association that’s been involved in fighting crime, and the group has shown an openness to the testing of surveillance cameras.
As long as neighbors do not have strong objections, and as long as clear policies are in place to protect the privacy of citizens, we don’t see a reason not to try surveillance cameras as part of a more comprehensive response to the spike in violent crime that West Willow saw last fall.
The township should have some standards in mind for how it will measure whether the test program is a success and that the cost is worth the benefit.
But township officials, the sheriff’s department and residents have been meeting regularly to talk about how to best address crime, and we admire their proactive approach and this commitment to work together.
Surveillance cameras have their limitations, and we can’t predict they’ll be a success in West Willow. But that’s what township officials will find out, and we can’t fault them for trying something that might play even a small role in helping make that neighborhood safer for the people who live there.
View Larger Map
The West Willow neighborhood is bordered to the northwest by the I-94 Service Drive, to the southwest by I-94 and to the east by Wiard Road.
(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and reflects the opinion of the Editorial Board at AnnArbor.com.)
Comments
Sarah Rigg
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 4:16 p.m.
I gather my previous comment was deleted because of the use of all caps. I apologize. I *am* a resident of West Willow, *and* I was recently the victim of an attempted break-in, and still, I do not want these cameras in my neighborhood. If anyone thinks there's a consensus among my neighbors that we favor these cameras, then you are mistaken.
Thomas
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
The point is, the neighbors want the cameras. That's all that matters here. If the police or the township were putting these cameras in without neighborhood approval, all you Debbie Downers would have cause to complain. But they're not, so you don't. Good luck to West Willow!!
FredMax
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
To put one concern to rest, Camera Video cannot be edited, as it carries a digital signature from the time it is captured on the camera until the time it is verified as evidence: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature</a> To tamper with this signature would require a conspiracy of substantial proportions, e.g. requiring participation of an equipment manufacturer.
Angela Barbash
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.
Thank you for putting that issue to rest FredMax!
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 12:23 p.m.
Discloser: I live in Southeast Ann Arbor in a quiet relatively crime free neighborhood. It seems to me it may be hard to quantify to what degree crime is would be prevented by camera's but solving crimes already committed is part of the equation. In that regard they can't hurt. Also taking someone off the street for having committed a crime likely deters future crime by that person as they are locked up. How do you measure that?
Angela Barbash
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:12 p.m.
But it's all in hind sight... when you start predicting what someone *may* do in the future, you truly start getting into 1984-esque "crime thought"
Angela Barbash
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
Hard to say... say we have a guy who after being caught finally confesses to 10 break ins over the last year. You could say that had the guy been caught after the 2nd one by process of elimination of cars on the security cameras going out of the neighborhood around that time, that would have prevented 8 more from occurring, and then quantify that by property damage estimates.
Matt Cooper
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 3:44 a.m.
There's an old axiom that if the government can, it will. If there is a way to abuse the cameras for uses other than taking pictures of criminals, the government will find it and abuse it. I, for one, do not want a government camera on my street corner looking into my living room taking pictures of anything I might be doing.
Matt Cooper
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 12:07 p.m.
Right. The government will have no interest in looking into peoples personal lives. Yah. Secondly, the answer to not havng government intrusion into my life without cause is not "Well, just close your blinds". It is to remove the opportunity to intrude into my life or yours. Are you really so naive that you think the government won't find a way to exploit this new camera system for purposes other than taking blurry pictures of your would-be shooting scenario? Sorry, but I don't trust government that much.
Angela Barbash
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 11:56 a.m.
Well said Craig, and in this case Matt the cameras will be pointed towards the entrance/exit points in the neighborhood specifically to capture vehicles coming through. Typical situation -- we'll have a shooting, everyone will scatter, calls will go in to 911, deputies arrive, interviews commence, they get a lot of "I didn't see anything", "I don't know what you're talking about", except for the people that actually called 911... this is where the trail would usually get cold. Now, we go back to the tapes and see if some of the notorious who's who happened to have been speeding recklessly fast to get out of the neighborhood 60 seconds after the shooting. Trust me, they and we have absolutely no interest in what you're wearing as you sit to eat breakfast... ;)
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 11:48 a.m.
"I, for one, do not want a government camera on my street corner looking into my living room taking pictures of anything I might be doing." Neither does "the Government". They aren't that efficient or conspiratorial. Most of them are civil servants counting the days till retirement. Besides the solution to your concern is to to close your shades. Trust me if your doing anything anybody finds remotely interesting somebody will record it and upload it to youtube.
FredMax
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 11:44 p.m.
This dubious statement caught my eye: "Research has shown that surveillance cameras have little or no effect on deterring crime, and often have not resulted in a reduction in the crime rate in areas where they've been used." ...so I checked the author's link: <a href="http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/05/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/05/</a> Here is the critical text from the "digest" in that link: "Generally, the data suggest that CCTV video surveillance is successful in reducing and preventing crimes and is helpful in prosecuting individuals caught in the act of committing a crime. In addition, there may be public law enforcement cost savings... " Tony, your statement is entirely at odds with your linked research!
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 11:43 a.m.
Good point FredMax. the end of the linked story adds.... "Given the important role that crime prevention plays in law enforcement, surprisingly little is known about the effectiveness of new technologies such as CCTV video surveillance to prevent or discourage crime."
ChunkyPastaSauce
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.
From the article: "Research has shown that surveillance cameras have little or no effect on deterring crime, and often have not resulted in a reduction in the crime rate in areas where they've been used" Really makes no sense why they want to install these; the ultimate goal of a police force is to reduce or eliminate crime. Solving crimes is nice and all but if you're not reducing crime then it's nearly pointless. It has been shown repeatedly that what leads to high crime rate areas are dysfunctional neighborhoods; people don't know each other and they lack a sense of community which results in apathy. An effort to reduce crime is almost always at a loss if the effort does not address this. Well-implemented programs such as neighborhood watch have been shown to reduce crime and $30,000 is way more than enough to set one up for the long term. Community meetings where neighborhoods members can exchange numbers, meet each, and talk about what each person will do when they see something reduces crime. Having police interact with the community (outside of busts) such that people aren't hesitant to call them reduces crime.
Angela Barbash
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 2:08 a.m.
West Willow has one of the most active neighborhood watch groups in the entire county -- we have occasion for residents to meet up, exchange numbers, get to know each other several times a month. With nearly 3,000 residents, it's difficult to reach everyone so a core group of dedicated residents have started grassroots on their own streets. While many people are overwhelmingly apathetic about our quality of life here, slowly but surely people are waking up and getting involved at every turn. That being said, I think you're right that $30,000 could set up a neighborhood watch group for some time. We struggle to fund things like our summer program or our community garden, let alone any other activities we want to host to give people an outlet or a reason to get to know their neighbors. But, we make due with what we have which is not much funding but a lot of dedication.
garrisondyer
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.
Anybody here watch the Simpsons still? I'm not sure if it's still up, but try searching for the episode "To Surveil With Love" on hulu. The real punch line comes all the way at the end.
debling
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.
Cameras should only be installed if the residents in the area covered by the camera vote overwhellmingly YES for it. The video stream should be made public to those residents at all times and at any time should the residents determine the cameras should come down, they should be stopped within 24 hours of the request.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 11:40 a.m.
an ongoing video stream would mitigate the concerns of some about editing.
Angela Barbash
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 3:37 p.m.
I like the idea of having a video stream available to residents... thanks.
BikeProf
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 2:59 p.m.
Maybe this editorial should mention some racial/economic data about this neighborhood, which then might encourage readers to think of the racial and economic double standards of the U.S. war on crime, which might then encourage the editorial board to think through some of its illogical and strained arguments (this policy doesn't really work, except authorities say it does, we shouldn't try it most places, but let's try it here, because authorities say a crime wave is looming). Why don't we put a camera right outside the annarbor.com building on Liberty and record everyone coming and going, just in case anyone is violating some law against disclosing confidential information, or who knows what types of purse-snatching and dope-smoking and whatever else that might uncover? And I see vandalism a lot in mostly white suburban neighborhoods, so put cameras there as well, to catch the mailbox smashers and lawn turfers and toilet paper throwers and potheads and underage drinkers, and probably some white-collar criminals if we are lucky. Who knows what else we might find if we start snooping around based on the standard that if some neighbors want it, and the police want it, then anything goes?
Angela Barbash
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 2:11 a.m.
Thank you Tony for a positive story -- AnnArbor.com's reporting on our neighborhood has a tremendous effect on West Willow's perception in the community. Sometimes we feel like for every step forward in advocacy we take, we get knocked back two steps in the media. We appreciate your support.
Monica R-W
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 8:09 p.m.
Regardless of the racial/social-economic data of West Willow, facts are facts. A majority of the actual residents in this neighborhood agree, that Ypsilanti Township installing cameras as an assistance to identify criminal activities, is a positive move. The only ones that would not agree -for the most part- are those who would/might be involved in suspect activities. In my strong opinion, this is NOT about "Big Brother", racial demographics, Governmental control or over-reach. It is about trying to maintain a neighborhood were thousands of families/individuals are trying to maintain a peaceful lifestyle existence, as much as humanity possible.
Tony Dearing
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.
The use of surveillance cameras will always raise concerns, and should. There's nothing in this editorial that endorses the use of surveillance cameras in general, and certainly not in any widespread way, although it does acknowledge that in many places, their use already is widespread. But in this particular case, we were influenced by the fact that the residents, the township and the sheriff's department have been working together, and that this pilot project is something that they've agreed to try. Thanks, Angela, for the perspective and information that you've brought to this discussion.
Angela Barbash
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.
I understand your cynicism, but people are dying out here. During one of the shootings last fall we had a resident just two doors down from me who had a bullet go right through her kitchen window. Not only are residents at risk for stray bullets, but it scares all the decent neighbors out of the area. The more vacant homes we have sitting here, the worse it will get. And most of us can't sell, so we have to make due with the situation we've been handed. Please, if you have what you feel are more effective ideas, we're all ears. As for demographics, this is hot off the presses from the 2010 census: - 2,928 residents - 1,160 homes - 10% of homes are vacant - 22% White - 73% Black - 5% Mixed or other Sorry, I don't have economic stats for you but I would assume maybe 20% of the neighborhood is high-middle income, 30% is middle-low income, and 50% is below or near poverty.
Mr. Ed
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.
I'm putting tin foil on my head, that way no one can see me on the camera's.
G. Orwell
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
These things always start by placing cameras in the worse locations. Logically it makes sense. Unfortunately, then they spread throughout the city, county and state. We already have cameras at many intersections and highways. Add to that all the illegal wiretapping, tracking us through our cell phones, data mining our web searches, illegal search and seizure. Just last week, it was revealed that the Michigan state police was illegally stealing the data from our cell phones. "1984" here we come. One of the problems with survaillence cameras is this. Those that control the cameras will have the power to withhold, delete and edit certain footages they do not want shown. As it was done in several major events in history (i.e. Oklahoma city, 9/11, etc.). Just Google it. I wonder who is benefiting financially from this? Where is the funding coming from? This could get very, very expensive if it goes county wide.
Angela Barbash
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 3:26 p.m.
Fundamentally, I agree with you. I also recognize that we fell down this rabbit hole 20 years ago, it's far too late to reverse the trend now. Maybe that's a pessimistic view, but I consider it a realistic view of our current situation. Yes, any data can be manipulated by those who control it, but there's little incentive to do it. The chance that someone they want to protect would be involved in the crimes around here is nil, and if it was discovered that data was manipulated it would be the elected officials who would lose their seats. The funding is coming from the mileage the Township voted in last fall -- I can't quote exactly who the vendor is, and I don't believe there is any kind of funding available to cover a county-wide program so you shouldn't be too worried about that. My guess is that if they found this successful, they MIGHT take it to MacArthur Blvd. and a couple of other key areas that are plagued with shootings.
Sandy Castle
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
The installation of these cameras might generate a little interest from the criminal element in West Willow in the beginning, but honestly you people are giving this group too much credit. We're not talking criminals who plan jewel heists or elaborate bank robberies here, these are not bright individuals and once they get drugged up or drunk, they won't even remember the cameras are there. I hope this helps because the good people of West Willow deserve to feel safe in their own homes.
Angela Barbash
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.
Thank you Sandy, I suspect much the same -- these are not sophisticated criminals. The vast majority of them opportunistic 17-22 year old's, with a few major people running drugs through county lines. A West Willow resident was telling me recently about the teenagers around her house and how they think they're avoiding the cameras she has installed on her house by ducking around them when really they can still be entirely seen on camera. They have also threatened to shoot them out on multiple occasions, but they are still there unscathed.
zip the cat
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
The only people who will benefit from these cameras is the company that will be replaceing them when they are shot out. With all the guns in west willow they won't last a week. I wonder whose brain storm idea this was
Angela Barbash
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.
A lot of people, myself included, expected our new entry signs that were installed in December to be vandalized within days. Four months later and they are pristine. I know entry signs don't pose the same threat to criminals as cameras, but for all the criminals know there are cameras inside the signs... As for whose idea this was, the Township officials, the Sheriff's Department, and the residents have been in brainstorming mode for a 9 months now throwing every idea we have on the table and then breaking it down by feasibility, budget, effectiveness, public support, and sustainability. Some of these tactics will stick, some will not. We have no way to know until we try it. And the situation we have now is that gun crimes happen, and then no one wants to talk to the law about it. They go on like nothing ever happened, and then let street justice deal with it. If they're not willing to face wicked retaliation for turning over information to the police then we need another way to get some facts about who, what, where, when.
Andrew Jason Clock
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 1:08 p.m.
Lets start popping these puppies up on Greenwood and Monroe, as well as other streets near campus in A2. There has been a rash of crimes, including multiple violent cremes, around U of M's campus lately that AAPD has had no leads in solving them. Aren't surveillance cameras worth a try? I bet a lot of those out-of-state students living in the area don't read the aa.com, they probably won't even realize they are being put under surveillance.
jcj
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 1:03 p.m.
@Clark I find it interesting that you say: "It would be nice to hear data from somebody besides a single word quote from the guy who operates the EMU cameras" and then go on to reference a single politician in Britain. I think cameras can have a significant impact on crime in a small area. I look at it this way. Below are a few links to pieces on surveillance cameras. I don't have a dog in this particular fight so I have tried to include link to both sides of the argument. <a href="http://ipvideomarket.info/report/is_public_cctv_effective" rel='nofollow'>http://ipvideomarket.info/report/is_public_cctv_effective</a> <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/surveillance_cameras_fighting_1.html" rel='nofollow'>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/surveillance_cameras_fighting_1.html</a> <a href="http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/05/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/05/</a> <a href="http://www.video-surveillance-guide.com/public-video-surveillance.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.video-surveillance-guide.com/public-video-surveillance.htm</a> <a href="http://www.police.govt.nz/crime-prevention-cameras-cctv-public-places" rel='nofollow'>http://www.police.govt.nz/crime-prevention-cameras-cctv-public-places</a>
clark
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 12:16 p.m.
Maybe cameras help solve crimes. Maybe they don't. It would be nice to hear data from somebody besides a single word quote from the guy who operates the EMU cameras. He says they help, the BBC, in the meantime, cites a report saying it takes 1000 cameras to solve one crime (). So with luck, we can expect one fewer crime in West Willow over the next two centuries. Maybe the distinction between a business owner defending his assets and a police department with authority to monitor all their citizens isn't important to you. It is to some of us. At any rate, "we should do it because everyone else is doing it" is a pretty poor justification. I don't understand the guarantee that installing cameras won't impact police services, either. At the end of the day, budgeting is a zero sum game. If you spend city dollars installing cameras, that's fewer dollars you have to spend on other things.
Angela Barbash
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.
Thank you Thomas, but we don't fault other Ypsi Township residents for having an opinion as this comes from their tax dollars. Outside of Ypsi Township residents, other opinions are just that. We do appreciate additional information sources in terms of links to research and new stories.
Thomas
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
Unless you're a resident of West Willow, take your negativity somewhere else and let them try this. The neighbors apparently want it and it's their neighborhood.
clark
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 12:17 p.m.
Sorry, the BBC link disappeared from my post. It would be nice if the commenting system warned you about that. Anyway, here it is again: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8219022.stm" rel='nofollow'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8219022.stm</a>
eyeonthenews
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.
Thanks Tony for the story. There's always going to be a division in people's opinions regarding the installation of these cameras but hopefully the majority of West Willow residents will see the benefit out weighs any reason for skepticism.