According to the LA Times, Lancaster has been installing cameras at a rapid pace since the September 11th attacks. Cash strapped Lancaster cannot afford to monitor these cameras, so they have been outsourced to private non-profit group that hires civilians to monitor the screens and operate the cameras.
"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief. "It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues."
"No one talks about it," agreed Scott Martin, a Lancaster County commissioner who wants to expand the program. "Because people feel safer. Those who are law-abiding citizens, they don't have anything to worry about."
According to City Data, Lancaster's 2004 – 2007 crime counts have been on the rise. 2004 is when the first 70 cameras went live.
Officials explained the increase by saying cameras caught lesser offenses, such as prostitution and drunkenness, that otherwise often escape prosecution. The cameras also helped police capture and convict a murderer, and solve several other violent crimes.
Another local crime meeting last year urged an expansion of the video network, and the city and county governments agreed to share the $3-million cost with the coalition. Work crews are trying to connect 95 additional high-resolution cameras by mid-July.
"Per capita, we're the most watched city in the state, if not the entire United States," said Joseph Morales, a city councilman who is executive director of the coalition. "There are very few public streets that are not visible to our cameras."
If a camera records a crime in progress, the video is given to police and prosecutors, and may be subpoenaed by defense lawyers in a criminal case. More than 300 tapes were handed over last year, records show
It sounds like the city of Lancaster may have had some success here. 300 incidents were recorded and handed to to defense lawyers. I wonder how effective those recordings were? If Lancaster is declaring themselves the "highest CCTV camera per capita" capital, it would only make sense for them to enhance their reporting standards so that other towns and cities could understand just how effective their pricey monitoring scheme really is.
I applaud Lancaster County's creativity toward monitoring – having the nonprofit monitoring is similar to what has taken place in other cities, essentially extending the concept of neighborhood watch to include electronic means as well. Your point about reporting has another dimension to it – note, Lancaster, that publicly reporting your results also can help raise/attract
private/public funds and partnerships, and provide a means to obtain some financial assistance from the private community.