Rusty Saber: Intersection cameras don't invade privacy

|tab|

I have half a mind to pass up this topic. It's a controversial issue that should be a nonissue, yet some folks believe to be an issue. I hesitate to get involved with this sort of thing. You know what they say: He who hesitates is lost. Besides, most people would say that I have half a mind, but no more. What the heck, I might as well toss in my nickel's worth on the topic of surveillance cameras at intersections to help catch red-light runners.|ret||ret||tab|

Being a police officer must be frustrating. First the public enthusiastically demands that something be done about the well-documented propensity Springfield drivers have for going through red lights and turn arrows like they weren't there. The police respond by zapping more violators with tickets. Everybody should happy. |ret||ret||tab|

Au contraire. The same public that cried out for the police to rid Springfield streets of those death-defying red light-violators are aggravated. |ret||ret||tab|

Instead of harassing "law abiding" citizens, they whine, the police should be arresting "real criminals." Translation: Don't arrest "law-abiding criminals," arrest only "criminals who aren't law-abiding." I suspect the loudest of the whiners are "law-abiding" citizens who got caught breaking the law. It's a damned-if-you-don't and damned-if-you-do bind that the police are in.|ret||ret||tab|

Reason to the rescue: The option to stationing cops at every intersection to ticket red-light-running morons who threaten the lives of those foolish enough to go when their light is green, is cameras to capture the morons in the act. Hey, this should do the trick. It's a no-brainer, and it's a lot cheaper than stationing cops at busy intersections. It has worked in other cities, it should work here. Surely no one has a problem with this seemingly reasonable plan. |ret||ret||tab|

Not so. The idea has drawn the ire of some who hold the notion that these cameras are an invasion of privacy. Because SBJ is a classy publication, I can't use the proper animal byproduct reference this accusation deserves; I'll use a different animal: Hogwash!|ret||ret||tab|

"Big Brother is watching you" is the phrase often used by those hostile to the plan. I'm sorry, I have to again use the bull substitute: Hogwash! As I understand video intersection surveillance, the camera clicks on only when the light is red. The only cars having their pictures taken are those breaking the law by running red lights. It isn't like Big Brother is peeping at us, recording our every move; he is only interested in law breakers! Stop when the light or arrow is red, and "Big Brother" won't even know we were in the neighborhood.|ret||ret||tab|

Intersection cameras don't invade privacy, but even if they did, the harm would be far less than the danger caused by drivers willy-nilly breaking laws as they see fit. The U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights of privacy, but by no means does it guarantee the right to break the law in public. A police officer hiding behind a billboard watching for traffic violators isn't considered an invasion of privacy, why would a camera that photographs lawbreakers be an invasion?|ret||ret||tab|

Never have I heard privacy libertarians rant against surveillance cameras in banks, stores, parking lots and just about every place where the public gathers. Unlike cameras at intersections, those cameras don't just come on when a crime is taking place. They record that you were there, who you were with, what you were wearing, what you purchased and what you paid for it. |ret||ret||tab|

At an ATM, personal financial transactions are recorded. Police use surveillance footage to place criminals at the scene of a crime. Why aren't there cries of invasion of privacy? I'll tell you why. They aren't invasions of privacy.|ret||ret||tab|

I have driven in cities with traffic surveillance cameras. They make me a safer driver because I know if I zip through the intersection after the amber changes to red, that foolishness is going to be caught on tape and I'll have to pay the price: a traffic ticket.|ret||ret||tab|

If cameras can keep drivers honest and help catch the dangerous violators, shouldn't we pounce on it like a duck on a June bug? Even a writer with half a mind knows the answer to that one.|ret||ret||tab|

|bold_on|(Joe McAdoo is former chairman of the communication department at Drury University and a Springfield public relations consultant.)[[In-content Ad]]