Pubdate: Tue, 01 June 1999
Source: Vancouver Sun (Canada)
Copyright: The Vancouver Sun 1999
Contact:  http://www.vancouversun.com/
Author: Doug Ward, Vancouver Sun

POLICE WANT VIDEO CAMERAS IN DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE

Residents in the Downtown Eastside are divided over a Vancouver police
department proposal to install video surveillance cameras in the
crime-ridden community.

The police say the placement of up to 22 video cameras, at a potential cost
of $400,000, could dramatically cut crime in the area.

The idea has won support among many Downtown Eastside residents, who are
upset about the explosion of drug-related crime in the area.

The proposal is opposed by other residents, and many activists, who believe
the cameras will undermine their civil liberties and displace rather than
reduce criminal activity.

"There is a Big-Brother-is-watching attitude that we don't like," said Frank
Gilbert, president of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association.

"But, at the same time, many residents down here are saying that if it makes
our streets safer, well, maybe this is something we should support."

Gilbert said that a majority of the residents he knows favour the idea.

"When people can't go out of their houses after dark, we have to do
something about it. And if it takes this, well Big Brother, come along."

The divisions were evident Friday at a public meeting staged by DERA at the
Carnegie Community Centre.

Constable Grant Fredericks, coordinator of the police department's forensic
video squad, told about 30 people that a video-surveillance system would
disrupt patterns of criminal activity.

Fredericks said that about half of all crime in the Downtown Eastside is
conducted by people who live elsewhere.

"What we want to do with the cameras is let them know they are not welcome
down here."

Fredericks admitted the cameras raise serious issues of privacy. "But
sometimes we have to compromise on the perceived infringement on our
personal privacy with the expectation of being secure from any harm."

Fredericks said the cameras would be monitored at all times to ensure an
immediate response to a criminal act.

"You won't have to wait for someone to call the police because it will
probably be viewed by the monitor."

This view failed to win over local resident Jon Todd, who raised the issue
of privacy.

"The phantom of security has always been used to take away people's civil
liberties," said Todd.

Another critic Lee Donough said that cameras would be a "totally esthetic"
measure. "We need more detox centres. We need more policemen on the beat."

Fredericks told the audience that similar video surveillance systems have
dramatically cut street crime in Britain.

That point was challenged by local anti-poverty activist Jeff Summers, who
said that most of the research available on surveillance video systems comes
from the security industry that supplies them.

Summers said that new technology won't change the fact that the response
time by police to crime in the area is "pathetic."

- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D