Good news, frolicking girls and slackjawed boys! You no longer need to fly south for the winter to be caught on tape performing arguably illicit activities. In a few weeks, you can simply set foot in the city of Stamford and wave a hearty hello to the new surveillance cameras. Big Brother has come to Stamford, and he’s got lots of DVDs to burn.

It’s no big deal for those of us who don’t want government looking over every shoulder: Just steer clear of any “public streets, public rights of way, property owned by any governmental agency or body politic… or locations identified as critical assets by the State of Connecticut.” In other words, stay indoors with the shades down.

When Stamford first authorized video cameras to help monitor traffic patterns, there was, understandably, a hue and a cry that such cameras aren’t used for any other purpose. Indeed, Stamford law prohibits the use of such cameras for warrantless surveillance.

But that law is likely to change. Those same video cameras, and other “technological devices,” can and will be used for law enforcement and for homeland security. They’ll be placed in high-crime areas, near public housing projects, and around schools and day-care centers. They’ll still pretend to use them for traffic monitoring—but soon enough, what our elected officials will be monitoring is the drug traffic.

This issue gives pause even to me, an avowed Libertarian. On the one hand, I would obviously prefer the government do less surveillance on innocent civilians. On the other, we do have police. In principle, we could have as many police as we have video cameras, each just standing around, enforcing the law and providing homeland security. I support local governments having a police force to combat crime and catch criminals. So why would video cameras, especially if they are cheaper and can reduce taxes, not be a good idea?

First, there is a limit to how large a police force needs to be before it stops being an agent for justice and becomes a tool of oppression. A few cops here and there can enhance safety, deter crime, and promote justice by being able to quickly catch lawbreakers. But how would you feel if we had a cop on every street corner, in every cafe? You’d start to feel occupied, not liberated.

But more cops would be better than more video cameras. Why? Because video cameras can’t stop bad guys. Video cameras can’t hear a woman’s scream from a block away, a block that happens not to be covered on video, and go running to help. Video cameras can’t walk you to your car if you feel unsafe.

There are, of course, all the standard arguments against government using video cameras for surveillance, namely, abuse of power. Operators of the cameras can tend to focus on “suspicious” looking people, where suspicion is defined by skin color. Operators have also been known to use video cameras to peep.

The biggest reason video cameras are bad? They put the chill on free speech and freedom of assembly. If you’re going out for dinner and a walk, would you go to a place where you and your antics will be caught on film, available to anyone filing the appropriate Freedom of Information Act request? Or would you like to go somewhere where you wouldn’t have to worry about the possible embarrassment, or worse, of being caught on film?

Given that they present such an obvious restriction on liberty, why would a government ever agree to these ubiquitous video cameras? Two words: homeland security.

But it’s not yet too late to do something about this.

We have a couple of weeks to enjoy Stamford without feeling like we’re in a Vegas casino with black domes everywhere. In that week, we can stop by and grab a sandwich at the local deli in freedom for one last time, and maybe petition the city to back off before its motto is changed to The City That Lurks.

Your chance to do that is on Jan. 31, at 7 p.m., in the Democratic caucus room at 888 Washington Blvd. There’s a public hearing that night before the legislation moves to a final vote before the City Council on Feb. 5. •

phil@maymin.com
Article originally appeared in the Fairfield County Weekly on January 18, 2007