Twenty-four-hour surveillance cameras will be watching Central Square trouble spots within months. The Cambridge City Council voted 7-1 on Monday for police to put up the devices even as they pinned down the policies for their use.
The vote for a test of the technology before more cameras go up in other squares came in response to louder calls for cameras after recent violent crimes and, at Monday’s council meeting, a direct plea from police commissioner Christine Elow.
“We have been really struggling to get a handle on all of the quality-of-life issues” in Central Square, Elow said. “We have deployed a number of police officers to the square. We have added a unit that is there with blue lights on consistently at night … and through numerous meetings with community members and business owners. We’re struggling, and we really wanted to explore the use of overt surveillance cameras as an additional tool.”
Police asked over the summer for the cameras to be requested under Cambridge’s antisurveillance law, which says the council needs to approve the rollout of a new technology. When the City Manager’s Office presented its report Aug. 5, councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler used his “charter right” to pause the conversation so he could look more deeply at the concerns of civil liberties groups.
Prominent in those concerns is how government from outside Cambridge may use the footage. The cameras, only $15,000, would be paid for by Department of Homeland Security grants.
Sobrinho-Wheeler brought police, city solicitor Megan Bayer and civil liberties experts together to talk through those concerns, and Elow came out of those meetings with an understanding, as she told councillors on Monday, that “this isn’t a shortcut. This isn’t a fix. All this is, is another tool.”
While Sobrinho-Wheeler asked to table the manager’s report until there was a policy in place, he knew he was in the minority as it went to a vote. Councillors Sumbul Siddiqui and Ayesha Wilson agreed with his caution, but the majority preferred to signal an embrace of the test. On the next vote, which was to accept the manager’s report, they switched and Sobrinho-Wheeler stood alone against it. “I can see the argument for this, but I don’t feel comfortable,” he said.
Cameras outnumber concerns
The timeline for implementation was unclear. Siddiqui asked if the cameras might be online within six month and was told by Bayer and police officials that the wait would be shorter.
Policies for the test will be in place “by the time we would actually go through the process of getting the cameras and installation,” meaning there should be no delay in turning the cameras on, said James Mulcahy, director of professional standards for the department.
That was enough for the majority of councillors, who noted that between phones, security set up by businesses on private property, cars and video doorbells, residents’ expectations for privacy are different than when the surveillance policy was passed – in 2018. “The conversation has kind of moved along,” councillor Burhan Azeem said. “It’s kind of ironic that we’ve come to a place where everyone can have a camera except for [the city] when we need it.”
Having the surveillance ordinance and the police department’s still-unseen policy suggested that being able to rely on city-owned video could be less invasive than the current practice of officers responding to a crime by asking for footage from private sources, councillor Patty Nolan said. Footage from “home cameras which are not subject to our surveillance ordinance may get out there and be used in ways we might not be comfortable with,” Nolan said.
“I used to have some privacy concerns. For a very long time, I would vote against any any type of civilian surveillance cameras,” Mayor E. Denise Simmons said. “We live in a world where privacy is limited more and more and more.”
Bigger conversation awaits
Police said in August that they will balance individuals’ privacy and public safety and that the cameras would not be monitored 24 hours per day, seven days per week; not record sound; not have a search function such as facial recognition; not capture and search license plate information; and not be interpreted by artificial intelligence.
Vice mayor Marc McGovern still had concerns – that the cameras won’t be as much of a deterrent as people hope, or that they might just shift the problem areas out of sight – but said the test was worth it to get evidence of crimes that victims and witnesses might be too scared to testify to.
And while the cameras went up in Central Square to make unhoused people and others safer from criminals who preyed on them, McGovern said, the Ordinance Committee he co-chairs could convene meetings to put broader policies in place.
“We should be talking about how this is used if there are protests or other things – I don’t want to see us recording people who are peacefully protesting,” McGovern said as an example. “I agree that we have to have the bigger conversation. I just don’t want to hold this hostage to that bigger conversation. Let’s not stop this pilot from moving forward.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
All hail big brother!
Big Brother is watching.
Amazing. Actual progress!
“Police said in August that they will balance individuals’ privacy and public safety and that the cameras would not be monitored 24 hours per day, seven days per week; not record sound; not have a search function such as facial recognition; not capture and search license plate information; and not be interpreted by artificial intelligence.”
Not capture and search license plate information. So… the Council just said that it doesn’t care about hit and run drivers. I can only imagine what the bike lobby thinks.
Among other sites in West Cambridge, there are two where there is a serious bike accident wait to
happen. Serious… as in killing a bike rider.
The intersection of Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen, just east of the Star Market, is a potential death
trap for bicyclists. The city has both screwed up the street markings as well as the lights for
both bicyclists and cars.
Cars in the left hand lane (going west) become very impatient because the lights are both long and not synchronized properly. If the cars want to turn right on to Aberdeen, the cars shouldn’t be in the left lane, but they are because of the markings.
Too many cars want to make a right hand on to Aberdeen from the left lane. They can’t do it because once the light turns green, the cars in the right hand lane move with those in the left lane. What does the first car in the left lane do? It decides to make a right hand turn when the light is red. Unfortunately, because the car in the right lane is blocking its vision, it can’t see the bicycle going west, going west with a green bike signal. The bicycle has the right of way. The car shouldn’t be making a right hand turn with a red light. But, the cars are doing it.
If a car hits a bicycle, and it’s a hit and run, the car just continues up Aberdeen. Why won’t
there be a camera to capture the license plate? What is wrong with this City Council. Please
get your heads out of the sand. Capturing the plate of a hit and run driver mowing down a
bicycle is more important than your thoughts about privacy on a public street. There is
no privacy on a public street in Cambridge.
The same thing is going to happen at the intersection of Mt. Auburn, Route 2 and Elmwood, just west of Mount Auburn Hospital. Just a question of when, not if.
So sad that some very vocal bike advocates on this site talk about Big Brother, rather than thinking about hit and run drivers gunning down bicyclists. And these are the same people who rightly think about bike safety.
Would have thought that someone driving a car, and who hits a cyclist, and then drives away, would be someone that cyclists would want to permanently get off the road.
Wonder what their rationale is. Doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps one of them will explain it on this site.
People walking, cyclists, and drivers of cars, have no right to privacy when they are on public streets. Get the license plate numbers of those drivers involved in hit and runs.
And next, get the state to allow cameras at traffic lights, so that drivers running red lights are caught.
Concerned43, traffic cameras are currently not allowed at the State level. The City Council voted to be part of a pilot that would allow us to use traffic cameras. Hopefully that will move forward. The cameras discussed last night are a different type of camera, for a different purpose. The majority of the Council supports traffic cams.
Marc McGovern,
This is what I said. “And next, get the state to allow cameras at traffic lights, so that drivers running red lights are caught.”
Tell us what the purpose is? Why aren’t license plate numbers allowed to be taken? Are hit and run drivers okay with this Council.
Marc, I contributed a decent sum to your most recent campaign. I thought you were one of the few on the Council who was rational. Perhaps I misjudged.
Stop fooling around. Safety on our streets comes before privacy on our streets. It’s difficult to believe that you do not see this.
Concerned43, I voted for the cameras. I voted for the traffic cameras. So I support what your asking for. I’m not sure I’m your problem on this one. The cameras we voted on last night were for a pilot program in Central to address some of the criminal activity that is going on in certain locations. They aren’t going to be angled to take license plates. If they were, I would have voted for them as well.
I’m pleased to hear that you would have voted for the cameras to be angled to capture license plates.
Why hasn’t the Council allowed them to be angled? Once again, is the Council putting so called “privacy on public streets” above safety?
Put yourself in Slaw’s place. Slaw gets hit on Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen. The driver takes off. Slaw, his family, and friends want that person to never be able to drive again. If it were you, one of your family or friends, wouldn’t you think that that person should never drive again?
Why is this so difficult? Marc, we’re talking lives here. At the next Council meeting, why don’t you propose angling the cameras, and explain why this is so necessary right now. And, not only in Central Square. If a driver kills or injures a cyclist, does the Council want it on its conscience that the driver will remain unknown.
I’ve said enough.
I’m for bike lanes and other safety improvements and I’m for cameras too.
Our streets are unsafe. Every bit helps. But cameras are NOT an excuse for making safety improvements to our streets.
It’s the 21st century, you can assume you are on camera in public in most places in the world.
Thanks Marc! Appreciate your continued leadership
My g-d, red light cameras please!!! Many locations we need them!
I hope this will at a minimum give the police, council and community an idea of how much crime and brazen drug use going on in Central. There is open crack ( looks like) and heroine ( looks like) as well as just pure craziness . We have a small business and it can be very difficult to enter or for patrons to come and go. Hopefully seeing how common and regular criminal activity is will allow us to have a plan to enforce the laws. Its a great start. The behavior is so brazen cameras may not help but it will help investigators or the serious crimes and the predators among the street population. This is a good start!
I cannot understand all the concerns about “privacy”. What exactly are you doing on a sidewalk in Cambridge that is Ok for everyone there to see, but not for the police to see? Ridiculous. Give the police however many cameras they want. Red light cameras too please, everywhere.
Concerned43
How about this? Pedestrian gets hit by bike in intersection. They have no license, so they leave and there is no chance for enforcement or redress for the poor dead pedestrian and family.
Instead of putting up cameras to review crimes after the fact, the city should make structural changes to Central to reduce crime in the first place.
Like not having large plazas hidden from the street. And maybe enforcing laws against anti-social behaviors, and holding the social service organizations responsible if they draw people committing crimes to the square.
Instead we’re getting an even bigger plaza with a graffiti-covered ribbon sculpture.
Would you send your 11 year old to Central alone to run an errand? Until the answer is yes, the city is doing something wrong.