Don’t you think it is time to find out who is watching what the more than 25 surveillance cameras that are spying on the comings and goings of residents and visitors to Columbia?

 Don’t you think the people of Columbia deserve to know who gets to see the digital files; where and how long they are stored and who else gets to watch the files and why they’re watching them?

Does the borough manager watch them? The mayor? The borough council? How about their friends and supporters?

The cameras in the city of Lancaster are monitored by the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition. According to the organization’s Website, “The Lancaster Community Safety Coalition exists with one goal in mind: to enhance the safety and quality of life for every resident and visitor in the City of Lancaster, PA. Lancaster is a great city — vibrant, growing and diverse — and is a wonderful place to live, work and play.

“The Lancaster Community Safety Coalition, or LCSC, is a local non-profit organization (the organization is registered at the Pennsylvania Department of State Website database) that supports the effectiveness and efficiency of emergency services in order to keep Lancaster a “hardened target” where criminals find it difficult to offend without consequence. Strong, proactive communities like Lancaster can stem the “big city to small city” criminal migration trend, and be a model of prosperity in the region.

The decision to investigate and eventually install surveillance cameras was not a political decision. “Addressing issues of public safety was a goal when the Lancaster Crime Commission convened in August 2000. The concept for the LCSC began in the spring of 2001 when the initial Lancaster Crime Commission report was published. That was followed by a series of public meetings held at the Southern Market Center and at the Lancaster General Hospital. A year later, a feasibility analysis was completed, and following the Lancaster Crime Commission’s Final Report in February 2003 the LCSC was formed and opened their offices in the UGI Building on Conestoga Street. The Lancaster Alliance was the lead organization in the creation of the LCSC as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.”

The Website continues, “Like most nonprofit organizations, the Coalition is overseen by a volunteer board of directors. Board members include representatives from the business community, city police, city fire department, city residents, community organizations, the Mayor’s office and the office of the District Attorney.”

The American Civil Liberties Union has identified these considerations for deliberation about surveillance cameras:

• In a free and open society, people should be able to use parks and other public spaces without the government recording their activities.
• What surveillance cameras overwhelmingly capture are the innocent activities of law-abiding citizens.
• Research by the ACLU and others has shown that public surveillance cameras do not prevent crime; they simply move it elsewhere, outside the eyes of the cameras.
• Other, more effective alternatives exist to deal with concerns about crime, including improved lighting and increased police presence.
• Cameras that are installed for one purpose – say, looking for crime in public areas  can later be used for other purposes – say, tracking participants in political rallies
• or even peering into people’s homes.

A spokesperson for the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition assured us that in Lancaster, the cameras do not peer into, nor record, second and third floor windows. The spokesperson assured us that the Coalition adheres to the Constitution Project’s Guidelines for Video Surveillance: A Guide to Protecting Communities and preserving Civil Liberties. The guide stipulates the “Core Principles Governing the Creation and Design of Public Video Surveillance Systems:”

1. Create a public video surveillance system only to further a clearly articulated law enforcement purpose.
2. Create permanent public video surveillance systems only to address serious threats to public safety that are of indefinite duration.
3. Ensure that public video surveillance systems are capable of effectively achieving their articulated purposes.
4. Compare the cost of a public video surveillance system to alternative means of addressing the stated purposes of the system.
5. Assess the impact of a public video surveillance system on constitutional rights and values.
6. Design the scope and capabilities of a public video surveillance system to minimize its negative impact on constitutional rights and values.
7. Create technological and administrative safeguards to reduce the potential for misuse and abuse of the system.
8. Ensure that the decision to create a public video surveillance system, as well as major decisions affecting its design, are made through an open and publicly accountable process.

Who will provide responsible explanations for citizens to these questions?