Who's watching you?

I don't know who's at the other end of the camera that just went up in downtown St. Paul at the corner of Seventh and Cedar...

But I wonder if they got nervous when someone walked up to it and took its picture, and I wonder why they'd be nervous -- or at least concerned -- about being photographed.

Did they kick it up the chain of camera command when I walked up two blocks and photographed another? (I don't know why I found the image of the Capitol in the background ironic, but I did).

And then walked another block and took a picture of the one at 10th and Cedar.

Which is about 10 feet away from the ones on the side of the human resources building.

I'm not the only one wondering. On Midday today, a caller asked who is monitoring the cameras and are they being monitored outside of St. Paul. Mayor Chris Coleman said the St. Paul Police Department is monitoring them, and Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak recalled the brouhaha when cameras were installed in his downtown some years ago.

But that was then. Eight, nine years ago, this sort of surveillance was a big deal. But not anymore.

If you want to have some fun during the Republican National Convention, look up, and see if you can spot the people or machines that are watching you.

The issue is being debated on St. Paul's e-democracy.org forum.

Many people don't give a hoot if they're legal. They're creepy, they are unwelcoming, they're a boon to those who want to stalk downtown residents (imagine having a camera with public access to the feed watching your home 24/7), and they ought to be sold on eBay after the convention.

.. and..

Before we adopt our own "Operation Sentinel" (the name given NYC's plan to watch everyone all the time everywhere), why hasn't there been a public discussion of the decision to make them permanent? How did accepting the money to pay for temporary but necessary security measures turn into permanent surveillance?

Ward 2 City Council member Dave Thune says after the convention is over, there will be a public discussion on whether they should stay.

I don't know about this one. If it is on a public street surrounded by businesses and government buildings, I wouldn't mind. And if police officers are legitimately monitoring them, all the time. That would be good for high crime areas for a more permanent installment. My question is, are people really going to be monitoring them well and for the right reasons, or is this going to be a waste of money that could be put to better use? Also, if it is near residential areas, that is another matter. That would just be creepy, I agree.

Love your news updates, Bob! Keep up the good work.

TTFN,
Dorianne

I'm looking at one out the window of our office here. It's at the same level as the newsroom. Theoretically, I suppose they could do more than just look at the street.

And that's always been the complaint about these things, not the legitimate use, but the potential for misuse.

If it's just a matter of deterring crime, then why aren't they up on the East Side?

By the way, just for fun, I want to make a little map of where all the cameras are, so if you're in St. Paul and stroll past a few, post their location. We'll figure out where the "shadows" are.

I'll be totally honest: I jaywalk from time to time in downtown, especially extremely early in the morning or late at night when I am walking home from work. At these hours of the day, I feel like jaywalking is a victimless crime, so I'm a little fearful that I could get a ticket for crossing an empty road at 4am. Yes, I know, laws are laws, but will the St. Paul police use this as an opportunity to issue more tickets?

I think I've just effectively scared myself out of ever jaywalking in downtown again. I guess the cameras work.

"By the way, just for fun, I want to make a little map of where all the cameras are, so if you're in St. Paul and stroll past a few, post their location. We'll figure out where the "shadows" are."

Bob just earned himself a special visit from homeland security...

bsimon - Yep, but Bob the question is not who is watching but who 'can' watch are these camera's on a direct hard line or broadcast over some network.

I'm not sure what is better, perhaps if the camera was broadcast live 24/7 it would be better.

Kind of like the test that the state of Texas did http://www.texasborderwatch.com/ I think in 2006, but I can't find any current sites with 'security' camera's though as an example.

But in some area's the community 'watch' out patroling the area might not be the safest thing, where camera's that they could watch from there home might be a better idea.

Anyway this reply started in my head as agaist the camera's and well now I am not sure...