Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Neighborly Surveillance?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Neighborly Surveillance?

    Sheriff's plan to urge people to report suspicious behavior unleashes storm of criticism

    By Ben Wolford, Sun Sentinel 9:07 p.m. EDT, May 16, 2013

    A program in Palm Beach County intended to encourage residents to report suspicious behavior is attracting resistance from around the state.

    Under the proposed "Violence Prevention Program," anyone who sees a potentially dangerous situation — a schizophrenic person with weapons, a war veteran making threats to passersby — could call a 24-hour hotline. Legitimate-sounding calls would trigger a visit by specially trained deputies in plain clothes or by mental health professionals.

    The Palm Beach County Sheriff says a violence prevention unit could thwart would-be killers like the recent mass shooters in Connecticut and Colorado. The program will cost $3.2 million in the first year. The Florida Legislature agreed to pay $1 million of it.

    Despite Sheriff Ric Bradshaw's ostensibly good-willed intent, the plan has been compared to Big Brother, the KGB, Castro's Cuba and Nazi Germany.

    Conservative bloggers around the country are condemning this as a First Amendment violation. They say the government of Palm Beach County is trying to encourage residents to tell on their neighbors for anti-government speech. Email messages have spilled into Gov. Rick Scott's inbox, where hundreds of Florida residents urged him to line-item veto the state funding for the program.

    Florida TaxWatch, a taxpayer watchdog, on Thursday blackballed a portion of the state's $1 million commitment because it was added at the last minute.

    If Scott decides to veto the earmark, in effect denying a statewide contribution to a local project, the county will still go ahead with the plan, a sheriff's office spokeswoman said.

    "There's been a lot of misinformation about this whole program," said Nick Iarossi, a lobbyist for the sheriff's office, which serves a million people and responded to 2,224 mental health related calls last year.

    Iarossi said all the vitriol stems from a quote from Bradshaw in The Palm Beach Post that he says has been widely misinterpreted. In the article, Bradshaw said, "We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he's gonna shoot him. What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, 'Hey, is everything OK?'"

    From that, Iarossi said, "this has been spun into a government issue." Bradshaw has raced to mitigate the backlash.

    In documents submitted to the governor, Bradshaw's office describes four samples of how the program would work, giving examples of when the crime prevention unit would respond and when it wouldn't. It would take action when there are direct threats or when, for example, a person is concerned their schizophrenic relative has access to weapons.

    But here, the sheriff is clear: If your neighbor has "an arsenal of weapons and has made anti-governmental comments but has not made threats," this person would be left alone.

    Hundreds of people, especially those on the political right, say they aren't convinced.

    "This proposed policy is reminiscent of the police state in George Orwell's 1984," one local resident, Milton Smith, wrote in an email to Scott. "Palm Beach County should not be allowed to turn into 1939 Nazi Germany."

    Dmitry Levin, of Boca Raton, grew up in the Soviet Union, where he said the government encouraged neighbors to "snitch on everybody."

    "It's a specific telephone line to report your neighbor who doesn't like the government," Levin said. "When I read that, my jaw dropped. That's KGB in its finest form. The next step would be, what, bonuses for reporting?"

    There will be no cash rewards for calling, a sheriff's office spokeswoman confirmed.

    They also point out that the investment in this program could save money down the road by preventing the health, security and litigation expenses that come from mass shootings.

    "Ultimately," the sheriff's office wrote, "the savings related to preventing one mass shooting can save the taxpayers millions of dollars in addition to anguish and emotional cost of a human life … as well as the public fear."

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/pal...,5606235.story

  • #2
    Re: Neighborly Surveillance?

    Why not just have the IRS give them special attention on their tax returns? That way they won't feel left out...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Neighborly Surveillance?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Neighborly Surveillance?

        If you hear screaming coming from your neighbor's basement....


        Here is a novel approach, how about we put police back on the streets. We assign police to neighborhoods, let them develop relationships with the people they "protect and serve".

        And while we're at it, how about the police put down their cell phones and computer screens and pay attention to their surroundings while they're driving. Maybe even have them spend one day per week outside of their car????

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Neighborly Surveillance?

          Originally posted by LorenS View Post
          If you hear screaming coming from your neighbor's basement....


          Here is a novel approach, how about we put police back on the streets. We assign police to neighborhoods, let them develop relationships with the people they "protect and serve".

          And while we're at it, how about the police put down their cell phones and computer screens and pay attention to their surroundings while they're driving. Maybe even have them spend one day per week outside of their car????
          +1

          However, aren't the police behaving the same way all the rest of us are? Some other examples that I am sure will be familiar:

          - Executives in their offices "managing" their employees entirely through emailed memos and computerized reports instead of face to face conversation at the "coal face" (does anybody recall MBWA?);
          - Couples on a date at a restaurant, both of them engrossed in their smart phones (previously Crackberries) while they wait for their meals to arrive;
          - Organized family time together replaced with a ceaseless staccato of pictures and notes on Facebook;
          - Youngsters "gaming" with each other over the internet from the computer in their bedrooms instead of on a court or playing field...

          Everybody "sharing" and "connecting" while seeming (to me) living an increasingly isolating life at work, school or home...modern policing isn't any different it would seem.

          This isn't an indictment of the technology - this iTulip community wouldn't exist without it - but the way we sometimes choose to use it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Neighborly Surveillance?

            I think with all the technological distractions society does a lot more "physically together, mentally separate" & in many ways it sacrifices deep shared experiences with a shallow re-representation of the same.

            As you said, there are edge cases like iTulip where there are deep dives, but most folks probably spend more time on Facebook than niche sites like iTulip.

            I have some (perhaps totally arbitrary) boundaries I set for myself. If I am out & about I either don't bring my cell phone or never answer it or use it (outside of maps for driving directions or the to do list for buying groceries). If I am at my computer I don't play any online games, such that there is some separation between work & play. Of course if I ever stop doing online work I would likely nix that last one.

            A couple technologies I rely on that do help me set good habits would be a Fitbit pedometer & an iPod to listen to podcasts while getting my daily steps in. In most cases general purpose computers are an amazing value, but I think vertical devices with boundaries help us keep things separate & prevent us from being in that "always on" distraction mode.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Neighborly Surveillance?

              Originally posted by seobook View Post
              I think with all the technological distractions society does a lot more "physically together, mentally separate" & in many ways it sacrifices deep shared experiences with a shallow re-representation of the same.

              As you said, there are edge cases like iTulip where there are deep dives, but most folks probably spend more time on Facebook than niche sites like iTulip.

              I have some (perhaps totally arbitrary) boundaries I set for myself. If I am out & about I either don't bring my cell phone or never answer it or use it (outside of maps for driving directions or the to do list for buying groceries). If I am at my computer I don't play any online games, such that there is some separation between work & play. Of course if I ever stop doing online work I would likely nix that last one.

              A couple technologies I rely on that do help me set good habits would be a Fitbit pedometer & an iPod to listen to podcasts while getting my daily steps in. In most cases general purpose computers are an amazing value, but I think vertical devices with boundaries help us keep things separate & prevent us from being in that "always on" distraction mode.
              I have refused to ever carry a Blackberry or smart-phone for much the same reasons. I simply don't want to be that "available" to everyone with my email or phone number 24/7. Drives my business partners crazy, but so far over the years I have refused to relent on that.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Neighborly Surveillance?

                Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                +1

                However, aren't the police behaving the same way all the rest of us are? Some other examples that I am sure will be familiar:

                - Executives in their offices "managing" their employees entirely through emailed memos and computerized reports instead of face to face conversation at the "coal face" (does anybody recall MBWA?);
                - Couples on a date at a restaurant, both of them engrossed in their smart phones (previously Crackberries) while they wait for their meals to arrive;
                - Organized family time together replaced with a ceaseless staccato of pictures and notes on Facebook;
                - Youngsters "gaming" with each other over the internet from the computer in their bedrooms instead of on a court or playing field...

                Everybody "sharing" and "connecting" while seeming (to me) living an increasingly isolating life at work, school or home...modern policing isn't any different it would seem.

                This isn't an indictment of the technology - this iTulip community wouldn't exist without it - but the way we sometimes choose to use it.
                The tech was designed to disintermediate direct human-to-human contact so that communications can be monitored, measured, filtered and therefore perceptions managed via infinitesimal feedback adjustments. And decades of media has made all of this cool to young generations across all fields - law enforcement included.

                Here's a little Angelina Jolie flick released the same year the Internet was supposedly launched, making it cool for the counter culture to become computer geeks.
                The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

                Comment

                Working...
                X