After the Boston Marathon bombings, government officials called for a city-run system of eye-level street surveillance cameras and domestic reconnaissance drones to protect civilians from future terrorist attacks.
City Council President Stephen Murphy said he supports the installment of street surveillance technology because they are necessary to prevent further attacks on Boston.
“I believe street surveillance cameras have a place in our public safety toolbox,” he said. “As former chair of public safety for the Boston City Council, I am keenly aware of the difficult tasks executed by our city’s law enforcement officials and support measures that help these officials protect the public.”
Murphy said street surveillance cameras are one measure that help protect the public, and their value was demonstrated when footage from a commercial surveillance camera aided in the identification of the bombing suspects.
“The city of Boston currently has about 700 street cameras already in use,” he said. “The mayor’s administration is responsible for deciding whether or not to install additional street surveillance cameras. In the past, Homeland Security has provided the funds for installation of the cameras. I’m not sure if those funds are still available.”
The cameras in use are mostly on government buildings, but should be expanded elsewhere in the city, Murphy said.
“We need to harden our target here,” Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told the Boston Herald on Wednesday. “We need to make sure terrorists understand that if they’re thinking about coming here, we have certain things in place that would make that not a good idea. Because they could hit any place. They’re going to go for the softest, easiest thing to hit.”
U.S. senatorial candidates Ed Markey and Stephen Lynch went head to head on the issue of security in Massachusetts in the final debate on April 23 before the Democratic primary.
Lynch said he would continue to stress the importance of the Join Terrorism Task Force. Markey said he would only vote against security legislation that was not strong enough for the Commonwealth.
Hugh Baxter, a law professor at Boston University, said any issues people have about surveillance cameras will deal with privacy rights of individuals.
“The objections to programs focus less on defendants’ rights and more on invasions of the privacy of the public at large,” he said.
Rick Manning, vice president of public policy and communications at Americans for Limited Government, said individuals right to privacy are often infringed upon when cities are attacked.
“The obvious tragedy that occurred at the Boston Marathon affects everyone,” he said. “However, the traditional view of government is that the people should keep their eye on the government — not the government keep their eye on the people.”
Manning said any proposals to randomly put surveillance cameras or other technologies around the city would be a mistake and an insult to the privacy of every Bostonian.
“It’s a tough issue dealing with the aftermath of all that happened, but people need to keep in mind that you have to live with the choices you make as a result of these tragic events,” he said. “Those rights you trade away in that aftermath, you then have tremendous difficulty getting back.”
A number of residents around Boston said they are willing to give up some of their civil liberties if it means the city will be safer.
“I’d like to have more of these cameras,” said Philippe Jacques, 60, a resident of Brighton who works in management services. “We have to keep the city safe, any kind of crime should be taken care of by whatever means necessary and this helps.”
Jacques said people should not be worried about their privacy rights out in public.
“It’s not real to say you are worried about privacy here [on the streets],” he said. “It’s a street. You are just walking.”
Tracie McCray, 43, a personal care attendant from Cambridge, said the cameras would be useful if they are placed strategically enough to capture an image of culprits and working.
“I don’t feel as though it’d be too much of an issue with our privacy because even outside of someone’s apartment, when something happens — like if you’re robbed or raped — there may not be any witnesses or evidence and [surveillance cameras] would help a lot with situations like that,” she said.
Daniel Dinku, 25, a customer service employee from Brighton, said more security footage would make it easier for the police to locate criminals.
“It would be good for just about anything ranging from petty thefts to bigger crimes, like we saw last week with the bombers,” he said.
Dinku said national security should come before someone’s privacy.
“When it comes to security there should be no question, even on privacy,” he said. “It’s more important to be safe.”
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
