Letters to the Editor: Video surveillance registry | #TpromoCom #Police #VideoSurveillance | The issue of police access to home and business video surveillance systems is one contested by many and approved by even more of local populations. http://bit.ly/2M0wInb
Editor's Note: To read the letter to the editor on this issue, scroll down the page a bit, it's the second letter covered by The Sun. --Al ColomboRecently, the City Council approved a motion for the city manager to investigate creating a registry of residents, business owners and others who have video surveillance systems.
"After surveillance camera owners raise their hands to be included in a registry, they could be compelled by the courts through subpoenas to turn over their video data. Doing so will not be voluntary.
There was a day when I was animatedly against access to public cameras by law enforcement. Some of our readers will remember when I mentioned a case in Boston where a young nurse, the mother of two young children, was murdered and the police had absolutely no clues... until another day when an investigator revisited the crime scene.
After being told about this situation by the CEO of a video camera manufacturer in the late 90's, early 2000's, I've changed my mind--police should have access to video, when it's associated with a criminal event. However, I still maintain my position on personal and societal privacy in that no one outside your home or business should have real-time access to your video surveillance system.
There's been talk out and about regarding making such a connection mandatory by municipalities, especially where it involves high-rise and large facilities. What's your opinion on all of this?
I'd like to hear your thoughts. Please send me an email with "public video" in the subject line: Click Here! Also, please share this with others using the share icons at the bottom of this page.
Follow us on Social Media or email us: