No Candid Cameras

After outcry, Vermont village rejects federally funded security surveillance.

By Diann Daniel

May 01, 2006 — CSO —

Places as varied as Washington, D.C., Tazewell, Va., (population 4,200) and college campuses deploy surveillance cameras as a way to fight crime. But cameras placed in public venues highlight a struggle fraught with heated emotion: security versus privacy.

Bellows Falls, a Vermont town with 3,000 residents and eight full-time police officers, was home to such a struggle last winter. In February, town trustees voted down plans to install 16 surveillance cameras, a plan funded by a federal grant.

Chief Keith Clark proposed the project at the end of 2004 as a way to support crime-fighting efforts (particularly antivandalism), speed investigations and guard critical facilities such as the water treatment plant. Bellows Falls, he points out, does have crime; the village reported no murders, but there were 11 aggravated assaults, two rapes and 16 burglaries in 2004. The village received $98,664 in grant money from the Department of Justice COPS Technology Program and approval from the town trustees. Clark publicized the project, but he says it received little notice, at first.

Then came the privacy concerns furor. At the end of December, the Brattleboro Reformer ran the headline "Spy cameras coming to BF" in the midst of media revelations that President Bush had approved domestic surveillance on Americans' communications without a court warrant.

Bellows Falls' camera project "wasn't an issue until surveillance broke in the press; it became part of something much bigger," says town trustee Luise Light, who once called the project "wonderful." No longer. "Some of our feelings may be extreme, but we have reason to be cautious," she says. Light says she worries that tapes of civic demonstrations would be kept by the federal government and used against citizens.

Citizens in Bellows Falls are not alone in these concerns. Take Dillingham, Alaska. So far, more than 200 residents have signed a petition demanding the town take down the 80 not-yet-active surveillance cameras installed primarily in its port areas, according to CBS News.

Allen Gilbert, executive director of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, says he finds the cameras unnecessary in a small town with a low crime rate. Further, he believes the cameras, which have pan-tilt-zoom capabilities, went further than what courts have allowedcameras that see no more than a cop on the beat. Such systems inhibit people's freedom of expression, says Gilbert.

Clark sees the issue differently. Cameras can speed crime investigations, he says, leaving police more time for community watch and involvement. Clark also says he believes in clear usage policies for the systems. He points out that the images are erased and taped over after seven days. Only images to be used in court cases, or in investigations, would be copied for long-term use.

For now, privacy concerns have trumped surveillance cameras in Bellows Falls. After the media coverage, residents circulated a petition against the project (the petition received 200 signatures from residents and 300 others from people who live as far away as Washington, D.C.). On Feb. 14, town trustees voted the plans down.

Of this controversy, Clark says he learned a valuable lesson: "A mistake I made was underestimating the impact the media can have on a project like this. Do everything you can to educate the public on what the system [you are considering] is capable of, and continue monitoring how they feel."

Read more about video surveillance in CSOonline's Video Surveillance section.

• Print