So you tell me Folks. If YOU owned a building in Downtown Salisbury, Russia, and they installed a surveillance camera on the building right next door to you, knowing you have no choice but to park in the parking lot next door, wouldn't you be suspicious as to why the Police Department is placing a camera there?
Let's see, there's NO CRIME there. Certainly not like Church Street and other high crime areas. I've never had a vehicle broken into there. Yet I step out of my building and take a walk around Downtown and the next thing I know the Chief of Police all of a sudden pops out of nowhere and gives that silly childish smile like he's got one up on me.
Well, maybe he does. However, isn't this harassment? Don't they have to justify these camera going into high crime areas. Isn't it interesting how they're set up at one end of the Plaza at One Plaza East so he can see everyone walking on the Plaza, yet rather than sticking another one at the other end of the Plaza he sticks one where he can see me instead? Talk about Big Brother! Or shall I say. Mr. Paranoid?
Is this abuse of Grant Funding for these cameras? I know that Crime Solvers requires these cameras only in areas where there's a high gun crime. Take the one down near my building Chief before I sue the City for Harassment. One Officer tried to claim they used this camera to try and catch the graffiti guys but guess what, the graffiti still went up and no one was caught anyway. I say, stop your BS excuses and take the camera down and use it where crime is actually high.
I have an Idea - lets get those lacrosse players to take that camera out. You see they could do it and never spend a day in court. Chief Jack & Coke and Mare Dingle berry love you so much Joe they are just keeping an eye on you. Its there so they can watch who you are keeping company with. That way they can form their personal hit list of who to go after to bring down FREE SPEECH. The city would be much better served if they had a working camera in a place where its really needed. the lens on this camera in your picture is not looking down at the street.It would surprise me if it even works.
ReplyDeleteHey Joe,
ReplyDeleteWho's the paranoid one? Or is it that you are just self absorbed? Get a life.
How much is the city paying Randy Taylor to have that thing mounted on his building? You know it's not there for free, he's getting something out of it.
ReplyDeleteJoe have a costume party and they only reveal themselves once inside. OOPS !! I forgot they will illegally run tag #'s from the parking lot. But then again park around the corner and walk a little further. Wonder how quick someone would be dispactched. Let see there will be Chiefy, foot patrol, Bike patrol, Horse patrol, Detectives and possibly five minute passes by marked patrol cars. You could have your own parade. You have costumes and vehicles decorated with lights and sirens.Think they would apply for a parade permit? This would keep Chiefy in City limits and not riding through the College housing properties talking on the phone.
ReplyDeleteScared, aren't you Joe?
ReplyDeleteBarrie Tilghmonov and Cheif Websterovic are out to get you.
ReplyDeleteits invasion of privacy all the way, wymzie is right on cue with all of this stuff, were watching you.
ReplyDeletemy thoughts on this subject having nothing to do with you joe, I was just wondering why these cameras are being wasted in their present location? Fighting crime should be more important and is what the chief is supposed to be doing. If he continue's to not address the needs of the city...he should leave and get someone who will do their job correctly
ReplyDeleteJoe:
ReplyDeleteAnd they know where you live, too!
Maybe, Joe, the chief is trying to protect you. He may know more than you think he does.
ReplyDeleteyet prostitution is still alive and well on RT.13
ReplyDeleteHave you had any threats? There are people who want you out of the way. Leave the light up.
ReplyDeleteHave you had any threats? There are people who want you out of the way. Leave the light up.
ReplyDeleteAt one time, there were many break-ins in cars on that lot. With the apartment rentals on the plaza, could the police be trying to prevent theft against college students? However, when you position yourself as watchable, Joe, you have to accept being watched.
ReplyDeleteWell, now that an Officer has finally commented, anonymous 9:54,
ReplyDeleteI don't have to accept anything. First of all, there was not many cars being broken into in this particular parking lot. If you mean the parking lot behind WMDT, then I'll accept that. However, this exact camera does not help them with that problem.
Perhaps you'll want to use the camera footage from the Old Fire Station and tell us who STOLE the old Sirens there and sold them as scrap metal?
Show everyone what those cameras are actually worth 3rd Floor. Those very expensive sirens were worth a small fortune in scrap and or could have EASILY been re sold to another Fire Station across the Country. Let's see who STOLE them?
In the mean time, take that camera down or my Attorneys are going after you. Then you'll have to PROVE there was that many cars being broken into and guess what, I'm going to make you look like fools in Court.
the constitution and bill of rights are on your side joe.
ReplyDelete(a b.b. gun would work to).
These cameras are pure unadulterated BS!
ReplyDeleteThis is not police work, this is invasion of privacy pure and simple.
To have these cameras put up by the government is the ultimate abuse of power and should be stopped!
If you own a building and you want to put up a camera for security fine, but I can guarrantee that it wont be facing the street and the parking lot it would be facing the entrances to your building.
Because the cost of installation and equipment wouldn't justify it.
Only the government would put in $10,000 cameras operated with a toggle switch from headquarters with a zoom in zoom out feature to watch it's citizens. And who is the person watching? If you or I were operating these things and looking at people you know what we would be called? FREAKS!!
But instead we call these people Officer.
I'm sick of the invasion of privacy.
In my town, they have one of these installed at the bridge so they can see who is coming into town and when they leave. They have them also in the high crime area (which is 4 square blocks)yet when a drug deal was witnessed near the police station on one of the cameras nothing was done about it, and the guy wasn't busted.
These cameras aren't used for crime fighting they are used for fear and intimidation of the populace; plain and simple!
Wymzie answered something for me. Since they are operated by toggle, rather than random panning on their own, I say Joe isn't paranoid. The lens is obviously not pointing down at the parking lot in that picture. My GUess: They saw Joe with his camera and toggeld it up so it wouldn't appear that they are watching him. Subpoena the film and prove they are scum!
ReplyDeleteMost of these cameras are purchased using grant moneies from Homeland security. I have put up many of them. The people who place these cameras have to have good justification as to what they need to monitor. When I get an order for a new camera, I am given the main thing they want to look at. Most of the time it is anywhere that people can congregate. You may want to see if they will give you the reason adn funding source behind it with a freedom of information request. It would be interesting to see who funded the camera and if they are in compliance with the mandate for the money.
ReplyDeletebtw...that is not a $10,000 camera system. It looks like a Panasonic HCM style camera. They go for about 800 bucks. Double that for the mount and you still have less than $2000 for that particular camera. It would be interesting to know if Salisbarrie's camera system is continuously monitored or do they have to go to the tape after something happens.
dogg
Joe counter act that with a spot light pointed directly at the head of the camera.It would help to light up the r.t. building.
ReplyDeletedont forget about the stuff i mentioned months ago. you know the satelite that can i.d. you by face imaginery and then send that back
ReplyDeleteto a central computer bank. who will control this bank, the people, i doubt it.
See, if they put these cameras up in 'crime' neighborhoods, the people who live there would be screaming it's an invasion of their privacy too. They would claim it devalues their property to have them there (blame the cameras not the drug pushers and hookers on the corner of course!) So government is forced to put them up where they would be a more accepted part of reality...hence, where they aren't needed. It's along the same lines as fining people for 6" weeds in suburban neighborhoods, but leaving the people alone who have rusted trash in their yards and old couches on their porches. It's based on who they can get the 'most' from.
ReplyDeleteTry using a laser on it & give 'em a black eye!
ReplyDeleteJoe MFP, seems your parnoid, besides if you have nothing to hide what differance does it make. Oh, and get over you "sue" them, you don't have the $ you want everyone to think you do, besides you best save it for your trial.
ReplyDelete9:54 is not an officer or any other law enforcement personnel. But I do find you folks so amusing, barking about "getting the crimnals/terrorists/bad guys/crooked politicians" but not accepting the methods. The past seven years have led us to this and it's gonna take a lot more than Joe Albero getting his rights violated to change it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a long article from Washington Post, 2YEARS AGO. There's a mention of Salisbury and cameras even then:
ReplyDeletewashingtonpost.com
NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | Discussions | Photos & Video | City Guide | CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE
ad_icon
Federal Grants Bring Surveillance Cameras to Small Towns
Village in Vermont Has Almost as Many as D.C.
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; A01
BELLOWS FALLS, Vt. -- This snowy village, in the shadow of Fall Mountain and alongside the iced-over Connecticut River, is the kind of place where a little of anything usually suffices. There are just eight full-time police officers on the town's force, two chairs in the barbershop and one screen in the theater.
A little of anything -- except surveillance cameras. Bellows Falls has decided it needs 16 of those.
Using federal grant money, police plan to put up the 24-hour cameras at such spots as intersections, a sewage plant and the town square. All told, this hamlet will have just three fewer police surveillance cameras than the District of Columbia, which has 181 times Bellows Falls's population.
Similar cameras are already up in the Virginia communities of Galax and Tazewell, where police can pan right down Main Street, and in tiny Preston, Md., with two police officers and five police cameras. An interest in public, permanent video surveillance -- as well as the federal dollars to pay for it -- seems to be flowing down to the smallest levels of American law enforcement.
So far, the growth of small-town surveillance camera systems has not received much national notice. But it already seems to be changing the way such Mayberry-size places are policed.
"People don't notice things" as they used to in Bellows Falls, said Keith Clark, the village's police chief. Instead, "now, technology is there to do that."
Large police departments have only started to embrace public surveillance in the past six years or so, long after privately owned cameras became ubiquitous at banks, ATMs and stores. D.C. police have placed their 19 cameras around downtown and Georgetown, and similar networks have gone up in places such as Baltimore, Chicago and New York.
But, despite the popularity of these systems, some critics still question whether they are any good at stopping crimes in progress. In Washington, for instance, the worst offense caught on police cameras so far seems to have been a car break-in -- in 2001.
"Nothing will be happening most of the time. Multiply that by several cameras with nothing happening, all the time. It's very difficult for any human being to be vigilant," said Michael Scott, director of the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, which gets federal funding to write guidelines for police procedures.
Small-town surveillance would seem to offer only a whole lot more nothing. Still, some smaller police departments have been drawn in: An informal search turned up 17 with 100 or fewer officers that either had a surveillance system or plans to put one up. All but two of these departments had either created or expanded their system since 2001.
They come as big as the department in Salisbury, Md., with 88 officers, which plans to put up seven cameras this year. The smallest included the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police in Northern California, where the nine-member force often has no officer on duty from 4 to 8 a.m.
In several cases, funding to buy cameras appears to have come from the federal government, either for community policing or homeland security.
On Maryland's Eastern Shore, for example, Ridgely Police Chief Merl Evans got a homeland security grant, funneled through the state, to pay for five cameras apiece in Ridgely, population 1,300, and Preston, population 573. The cameras went up on water towers, at water-treatment plants and in the two small downtowns.
"It was difficult to be able to find something to use the money for," said Evans, who is also temporary chief in Preston. He said because the grants needed to be used on "target hardening" -- protecting infrastructure -- "the cameras fit in real nice."
Spokesmen for the departments of Justice and Homeland Security said they were unable to compile information about how many small-town camera programs the agencies had funded, or how much had been spent.
Privacy advocates said last week that they were concerned that several of the towns have no policies about who or what could be surveilled with the cameras. That's in contrast to the District, where police have agreed to use the cameras only during demonstrations and civic emergencies, and not to arbitrarily monitor anyone because of race or gender.
In the southwestern Virginia town of Galax, for instance, police have no policy for their two downtown cameras and also haven't put up signs alerting passersby that they're being watched.
"What you do in public, you've got no expectation of privacy," said Police Chief Rick Clark.
Many of the police departments had success stories -- license plates spotted, witnesses located or suspects caught through the new camera technology. In Newnan, Ga., for instance, Chief D.L. Meadows recalled a case in which one of his 20 cameras spotted a drug suspect sitting on his front porch, then provided the chief with an electronic view of the arrest.
"I was sitting in my office, and watched him break and run" as officers arrived, Meadows said. "It was great. I mean, I enjoyed it."
But others say too few officers are available to have anyone watching the cameras full time. Instead, the monitors are in front of distracted dispatchers, or not watched live at all -- police look back at the recorded video only after a crime has occurred.
And even then, depending on where small-town lawlessness pops up, the cameras are sometimes no help.
"We have not actually captured any crimes on video," said Capt. William Zbacnik of the Pittsburg, Calif., Police Department, which installed its network of 11 cameras early last year.
Still, Zbacnik said he believes the cameras are worth it.
"It costs you virtually $100,000 to put an officer on the street, versus $5,000 for a camera," Zbacnik said. "I'd put as many cameras out there as you can."
Although some critics warn that there are hidden costs for camera upkeep and data storage, the market for small-town surveillance doesn't seem to be flagging. This year, a San Diego company called U.S. Relay will start offering a kind of pay-per-view surveillance, in which public cameras are installed and police departments pay to watch them.
So far, Vermont has been one of the few places where police cameras have kicked up a public fuss. Last year in Brattleboro, public outcry helped shoot down a proposal for surveillance of a downtown parking lot.
Also last year, residents in the town of Bristol reacted angrily when they learned that a new police camera could be used to pan across public streets. Finally, officials allowed the camera to remain -- with the caveat that police could not look around unless they thought a crime was occurring or imminent, Selectman Doug Corkins said.
And then there's Bellows Falls, population about 3,050, where police say they would impose strict rules to prevent the cameras from spying on residential areas, and to prevent officers from making tapes of their neighbors' activities.
Still, some people wonder if constant surveillance is really needed here.
"Why?" was the first reaction of Ivy Rawling, 27, who owns Seasonal Soups & Coffee downtown. "This is such a small town," she said.
But one doesn't have to walk far here -- less than a big-city block -- to find someone who believes that the cameras will be worth it because they might stop crime.
Not homicides and terrorism, maybe, as police fear in places such as Washington. But crime nonetheless.
"Within the last two or three years, we've had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight -- at least eight windows broken" downtown, said Patricia A. Fowler, 56, co-owner of Village Square Booksellers. She went on, "We know we have a problem, and maybe this will solve the problem."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Your washingtonpost.com User ID will be displayed with your comment.
Comments: (Limit 5,000 characters)
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company
Ads by Google
Video Surveillance & PCI
Can they coexist? Get a free report on Retail Video & PCI Compliance.
www.3xlogic.com/pci
I know you like to think that your that important that cameras are put up for you, dude get over yourself,
ReplyDeleteIt is Tilghman and Webster's goal to intimidate anyone from visiting my Office on the Plaza, as well as keep record of anyone THEY know visiting as well. The camera comes down or the City gets sued.
ReplyDeleteIt is Tilghman and Webster's goal to intimidate anyone from visiting my Office on the Plaza, as well as keep record of anyone THEY know visiting as well. The camera comes down or the City gets sued.
ReplyDelete3:01 PM
hahahahah
What's wrong idiot? Tell me? It is okay that you follow the Cheif and take pictures of him but now he shit in your cornflakes? Grow up you fucking moron.
OMG this is so funny! I can't stop laughing...how do you like me now?
ReplyDeleteNeed a lawyer? Good Luck!
I recommend Bil Duvall...even he would'nt represent your stupid ass.
ReplyDeletehahahaha you can dish it out but you can't take it like a man. You had it coming and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. Helpless Joe?
does anyone know when they went up?
ReplyDeleteJoe, I'm impressed that you are letting other opinions on here for a change. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteYou sir are an asshole and deserve everything they do to you.
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like YOU are paranoid Joe. You deserve it.
ReplyDeleteif the camera has any lens that allows it to see into any part of any building via windows its illegal. its a violation of the privacy act.
ReplyDeletejoe school is staring soon maybe you canget that loser Jordan to help you take the eye in the sky down.
ReplyDeletejoes paranoid?? there are 24 of those things in the city of salisbury whos paranoid now see if you can find all of them
ReplyDeleteif the camera has any lens that allows it to see into any part of any building via windows its illegal. its a violation of the privacy act.
ReplyDelete4:02 PM
You sir are an idiot..what about all the pictures Joe takes inside the Fire House, inside the Mayors's car, inside the Police Cheif's car? Also how do you even know it is in a position to the inside of his office? You have any proof of that? and how are you related to this moron Joe Albero?
Who cares where the 24 other cameras are idiot? If you have nothing to hide why would you worry about it? Did you know there are hidden cameras just about everywhere you go? At least you have a chance to wave at the viewer here huh?
ReplyDeleteIdiot 6:21 & 6:24,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to continue missing the point.
It's not a matter of hiding anything. It's a matter to our right to privacy and the Mayor and Chief of Police abusing their power.
They can watch who pullos up and nters my building, therefore trying to intimidate anyone from doing business with Salisbury News.
I'm not going to waste any more time explaining this to you because obviously you're joined at the hip with one of these two.
Remove the camera or deal with the pounding I'll be delivering. It's that simple. Oh, if anyone wants to challenge me on wheather or not I'll follow through with this one, it won't happen over night. Sit tight Chiefy because I'm coming after you.
Joe how can you say that it's about your right to privacy. This is on a city street, a public place.
ReplyDeleteOh my Joe..let's have some more conversation regarding any police officer abusing their power, not just the Salisbury Police Cheif. It doesn't seem to be an issue until it is you they have abused right Joe? It seems important to you now huh? I wouldn't waste my money if I were you. The police are protected with no monetary loss. Their supervisor's will protect them as well as the State's Attorney. They will win right or wrong. There are plenty of professionals out there and there are a great deal of liars out there protecting us. I don't believe you have a lawsuit at all. If they put one up by Kuhn's would that mean they are intimidating the patrons? NO! Also you do not know what crime has occured in that area. God knows you claim crime is all over the place in Salisbury. Well stop complaining. It is not your choice where they put cameras up. Maybe they did it to catch anyone who is going to the plaza and causing any destruction there.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeletePolice in this City and County abuse their power everyday. Get used to it. It will never be addressed here. They violate peoples rights everyday in this country and it will continue.
The Cheif is sitting back having a drink. He said to bring it on.
ReplyDeleteTell us Joe how it feels to be a star? You wanted all of the publicity, now you have it. You know, there is alot of crime out there in the city remember? Now you can feel safe. I wish they would protect me like that. I would welcome 24 hour police survalliance. If anyone including the police assaults you, it would be on video, but there again the tape may go missing by accident or the superiors may cover it up.
ReplyDeleteHow do you do business with a one sided free blogsite?
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong Joe? Where are all of your support? You seem to have quit posting our opinions. Is it because nobody is coming to your rescue.Now be fair. You claim you are harassed, but you fail to explain the difference between what you are doing and what they have done to you. Lost for worsds now huh?
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of business does Salisbury News do?
ReplyDeleteIdiot 6:32
ReplyDeleteYou are a walking disaster! What goes around comes back around and smacks you right in the face you moron...this is just too funny. If you see the Mayor and Cheif can you buy them a drink on me?
Joe, Do you use cocaine in large quantities? Your overt paranoia and demands for retribution seem to indicate a self loathing brought on by ingestion of benzoylmethl ecgonine. There's a 12 step group with your name on it.
ReplyDeletejoe, this drinks for you buddy, bottoms-up.
ReplyDelete6;21, idiot, dont think so. if the pictures you speak of are in a public space and non-intrusive of a REAL PROPERTY. thats where the law comes in, its personal privacy protection. you lose, everytime. shout into a canyon if you want to hear an idiot. scared your arrogance went to far, huh. you should be, stupidity will carry you so far then your just a fool !!!
ReplyDeleteMaybe they are trying to catch the people committing the dreaded U-turns you talk about.
ReplyDeleteThose camera's are supposed to be able to be moved if they were bought with Homeland Security money. Crime moves, when the crime moves to another area so should the camera's. These camera's by now are obvious and a waste of taxpayer time and money. Why weren't they moved to hookers hangout on the hi-way? It may have caught the murder's vehicle picking up the hooker that was killed.
ReplyDeletethink about that chief sherlock bundy the al bundy of law enforcement
ReplyDeleteForget the issue of whether Joe is paranoid or not. Ignore the question of whether the Chief is spending too much time and energy (while "on the clock") pursuing Joe and his sources. Let's agree that there are areas of the city with HIGHER crime than where this camera is pointed. IF the purpose of the cameras is to deter crime, or to be used to help prosecute criminals, then put the thing where the most good can be done. I can hardly believe that anything going on at Joe's office is THAT important.
ReplyDeleteDG
Heres how you get the city to move them
ReplyDeletePark in camera range,roll up your windows,drop trou and give em what folks call a "pressed fruit-bowl".
ROFLMAO Totmom
ReplyDeleteYo, Joe,
ReplyDeletePlease get a laser, 120 volt plug in type, mount on a tri-pod and have it pointed at the camera.
Enjoy!