This is a two-part poll/question. But first, background.
After some burglaries in our neighborhood, we are considering installing a security camera system. It would be very limited, and would record only cars entering or leaving the area 24/7. The images would be good enough to extract license numbers if necessary, and the data would not be viewed real-time, but stored until there was a need to view them. Short of a court order, only authorized parties would have access to the data, ever.
We have one advantage over other neighborhoods in that there is only one way in and one way out by car, so you couldn’t enter or leave without being recorded.
Vehicular activity is light, especially in the winter, and if the cameras were motion-detect activated, the amount of data collected would be manageable. It would protect about 400 homes and 2 businesses.
The cost would be bourne by a voluntary-membership homeowner’s association. Preliminary cost investigation suggests that it would be affordable (it would cost less than the value of stolen goods to date), so that’s not a major issue.
Now the questions.
Systems exist worldwide where every road, sidewalk and plaza is covered by video surveillance, usually real-time. Have you, or do you, ever go to those places and did you or do you feel uncomfortable with it? Or more secure?
If my limited system were proposed in your residential neighborhood, would you agree that it is a good idea or would you be uncomfortable with the fact that your activities, innocent or legal or not, would be recorded? Is the assurance that no criminal could escape detection insufficient to overcome feelings of privacy invasion?
No problem with the concept. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if some people ended up trying to access the tapes to spy out the comings and goings of their kids or spouses. Or looking for the car of their spouse’s suspected lover, or things like that.
So it might be a fairly big deal about where the recorders are kept and who has they keys. The equipment itself might be cheaper than string the power lines and video cable. If you run it underground, it’s not cheap, and it’s not cheap to make changes later. If you run the signal into someone’s house, what happens when that person moves? If you run it into the president of the associations house, what happens when they don’t get re-elected?
I agree that the data shouldn’t be available without a court order or proper authority. OTOH – reversing the privacy concept – it occured to me that posting all the images realtime on the web might be a better deterrent!
All good concerns, but not show-stoppers. Any cam location will be within video cable distance (probably overhead) from about 4 houses, and any new owner may want to continue the system for their own protection. The Association might offer a small payment for the use of their electricity and space and would certainly pay for all costs like Internet connections.
We even have one homeowner who has been suggesting this for a while, and he would be glad to donate the use of his house in exchange for the extra security we all would receive. Unfortunately he doesn’t live in the best location.
You should also talk to a lawyer or maybe the cops about some legal issues like probable cause for a search. For instance, suppose there’s a burglary over night, and looking at your tape shows that a strange car leaves the area around that time. Even supposing you have the license number, is that sufficent evidence for the cops to get a warrant to search the owner’s home for the stolen swag? IANALawyer, but I doubt it. Video of someone coming out of the broken-into home would be much more compelling, but you won’t have that.