If you’re in a public place in downtown State College, there’s a chance a camera is capturing your every move. The borough has just finished putting in a new public security camera system that brings the number of downtown cameras from three to seventy-one.
New technology
Police Lieutenant Gregory Brauser said the move to seventy-one cameras is just keeping up with technological advances.
“We’ve been using these for over ten years. It was just time for the system that we had to be upgraded to a more digital, modern system,” he said.
The previous system consisted of three 360-degree cameras. Now, the seventy-one cameras cover fourteen downtown locations, plus the municipal building and parking garages. Footage is stored for thirty days, then erased. And it’s only accessible by those with security clearance. The system costs $450,000 for equipment, installation, and three years' maintenance and is being funded by the borough through the Capital Improvement Fund.
The CSI effect
Brauser said it’s not even a matter of the general public not caring if they’re being recorded—they expect it.
“TV has made it where juries now expect everything to have the CSI effect where there’s video, finger prints, blood evidence—all those things they see on TV regularly, they expect us to have too,” he said.
Brauser said the part security cameras played in identifying the Boston Marathon bombers is a good example of why surveillance cameras are important—and accepted. And the American public seems to agree—in polls after the Boston bombing last year, 70% or more of Americans said they approve the use of security cameras in public places.
Brauser said in State College, footage has helped solve crimes involving riots, theft, and vandalism.
Hillary Pasch is the State College Borough's IT Project Manager. She, along with Lieutenant Brauser, is part of the committee that chose the new camera system. Pasch has access to the camera footage on her office computer because she’s overseeing the implementation. She said the software is easy to use and the footage is quite clear.
“You can see this gentleman walking across the street here. You can tell the color of his shirt, what he has on here. The other day--it’s funny--I could see the kind of smoothie this girl had,” she said.
It’s not CSI-level quality, of course—as Pasch joked, you can’t distinguish the exact shade of someone’s lipstick. But still, it’s impressive. You can certainly see identifying details. The cameras are angled and spaced out so you can follow a person’s path as he makes his way downtown.
Pasch says there are no plans for live monitoring. The footage is meant to help solve crimes after the fact.
More cameras?
In a restaurant downtown, Laird Jones sits with his neighbor, Susan Venegoni. How do they feel about potentially being recorded when they’re downtown?
“Don’t pick your nose in public. What can you say about it?” Said Jones.
Venegoni adds, “it doesn’t bother me at all. I figure virtually everyone has a camera in their pocket anyway.”
In fact, Venegoni said many of her neighbors want the borough to expand the camera system—beyond downtown and into the neighborhood. Venegoni lives in the Highlands, the neighborhood that borders State College’s downtown area. She’s the president of the Highland Civic Association.
“It’s always been my feeling that cameras are something that was wanted in the neighborhood. This has been a long-standing issue that hasn’t gone away,” she said.
Jones also lives in the Highlands neighborhood, near several fraternities. He’s recently been appointed chair of an exploratory committee tasked with looking into a possible trial placement of security cameras in the neighborhood streets. For him, it’s personal. He sees a lot of drunk people walk by his house late at night.
“Several nights a week, there are just a lot of people there and they’ve had a lot of alcohol… and bad things happen. Having cameras could identify people, or at least create a record of the situation or simply get more resources to the area next time,” he said.
Jim Rosenberger also lives near fraternities. He said he doesn’t have strong objections, but he thinks cameras are unnecessary in the neighborhood.
“I just don’t think it’s of great need or urgency. We’ve lived there over thirty years and we’ve not had any serious problem. Despite noise and foot traffic that can be noisy late at night, it feels like a very safe neighborhood,” he said.
Rosenberger is the president of the borough council. He’s actually the only council member who voted against the downtown camera expansion plan. He said it was partly because of the $450,000 price tag and his view that the new system might more than necessary.
But he concedes that in general, “I’ve heard more people calling for cameras than people objecting to cameras, so the fact that we’ve invested in cameras is in keeping with the wishes of the community.”
It’s too soon to tell if more cameras will be installed in the neighborhood streets. The first meeting of the neighborhood camera exploratory committee will take place this afternoon.
