There’s been great fuss and bother in the Houston blogosphere / media about HPD’s proposed installation of surveillance cameras to help “fight crime” in the city. Is it the beginning of the Orwellian End to freedom and privacy, or is it simply another tool commonly used elsewhere?
Polimom’s been trying to sort out what has been said, blogged, or speculated, leading to a thundering silence here on the blog… cuz what I’ve read just doesn’t make sense. The earliest release of the story (that I could find) said:
Building permits should require malls and large apartment complexes to install surveillance cameras, Hurtt said. And if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property, he said.
However, the Seattle PI’s version of the AP article looked like this:
Houston’s police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.
[emphases mine]
It’s really not clear what Hurtt actually said… but there’s a world of difference between the two paragraphs. (Amazing what a difference “in” and “of” make, hunh?)
If the media (in the form of the Seattle PI) fostered some hysteria, that would explain the surreal quality to this:
The Hurtt Prize is a $1420 (and growing) reward for the first person who can provide definitive videotaped evidence of Houston police chief Harold Hurtt committing a crime, any crime. This evidence will posted here and forward to the Houston Police Department along with a demand that action be taken.
What would make a person put a “bounty” on hunting the police chief for “any” illegal activity? Polimom gets an immediate visual of people skulking around outside and near Hurtt, camouflaged or disguised, video cameras loaded and ready. Does that sound a bit over the top to anybody but me?
Polimom’s thinking the original version of the story looks a lot more reasonable, and probably wouldn’t have set everybody off to nearly the degree we’ve seen. There’s really nothing newsworthy about cameras on public buildings. If you don’t realize you’re being watched by now in public venues, then there’s likely some really interesting footage of you out there.
It’s the apartments and homes that bring reasonable debate, and Polimom thinks something must have gotten twisted up, because requiring cameras “in” homes is illegal beyond all imagination.
If that’s really what Hurtt said, then clearly the man has lost his mind and needs to be replaced. But that “if” is another important little two-letter word.