Security Cameras part II

mhp 2017-01-12 23:21:56 UTC #1

I know there’s been some hesitance around installing cameras because of the “implicit” security and potential lawsuits. That said, if the streets and light posts are owned by the city, I shouldn’t bear any risk if I can somehow convince (or pay myself) the city to install cameras, right?

Nick1 2017-01-13 00:28:35 UTC #2

If the city installs the cameras on its poles, aren’t they then the owners of said cameras? Who pays for them? More to the point, if the city owns and operates the cameras, would you have access to the footage? What are the legal implications of this, both to you and the city?

Sounds like legal quicksand.

Ivan_ilych 2017-01-13 06:23:32 UTC #3

I didn’t know about lawsuits due to security cameras. Can somebody fill me in or point to some reading?

Ivan_ilych 2017-01-14 04:57:24 UTC #4

:bump: Anybody? What is the issue with installing security cameras on your own streets?

Randy_CA 2017-01-15 18:42:12 UTC #5

Ok, here goes;

Years ago there was a famously bad ruling in a case where a landlord was held liable due to negligence for a woman being raped by an intruder who gained access to her apartment by crawling through a window. What did the landlord do that was so horrible? He didn’t install the window screen.

And you thought they were designed to just keep bugs out.

After that, landlords became very paranoid about doing anything that might be interpreted as providing safety for their tenants. If you put yourself in the safety business, and something goes wrong, well, that means your measures were not adequate. Right? Think of what a slimy John Edwards type attorney could make out of what your tenants thought your cameras guaranteed. “Do you mean you put up security cameras but you failed to pay for the staff to monitor them. You put them up because you knew your park was unsafe, but your profits were more important to you than the safety of you tenants.”

Yikes! You don’t want to be in that movie.

So what a lot of landlords have done since the infamous window screen case is to put in the rental contract a provision that address safety. It has the tenant acknowledge that the landlord is not responsible for safety and if cameras are installed they will not necessarily be in working order, they will not be monitored, and they do not necessarily deter crime… and on and on.

Ivan_ilych 2017-01-16 03:19:31 UTC #6

@Randy_CA - wow, I did not know that. Makes sense though. I was guessing the sec cam issue was more that residents would claim you are somehow violating their privacy. If legal it seems like a genius way to get rid of suspected drug dealers - skip paying for the off duty cop to hang out. Instead mount a wireless web cam prominently on a pole and aim it right at his driveway and front door. Couple weeks of that and I figure he’ll get out of town. But - if it’s illegal - no dice.

I also was thinking security cameras as a way of remote property monitoring - rule violations were in my mind, not safety. Parking on the streets, junk in yards, etc.

Broadband capabilities are growing better and better every year, so I would think this would be eventually possible to help monitor a portfolio of parks.

:Resident with loud subwoofers in his car receives text message on phone:

“Attention Mr. Loudguy. Our microphones detect 60 hz sound waves coming from your trunk at a volume of 100 decibels from 30 feet away. You are now fined $5 million dollars, due immediately, for interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of your neighbors. Be advised our security cameras taped you sitting in your car playing the music as well. Thank you and have a nice day. Sincerely, robo-park-cop.”