|
|
||
Surveillance-camera installation in small fishing town causes clash between police, residents. Date published: 3/13/2006
By ALEX deMARBAN ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS DILLINGHAM, Alaska--If Osama bin Laden ever makes a sneak attack on Dillingham, he might be in big trouble. That's because the quaint fishing community in southwest Alaska, population 2,400, recently installed about 80 surveillance cameras at the port and around town, courtesy of a $202,000 Homeland Security grant. Anchorage has fewer than 40 cameras to protect its port. Dillingham Police Chief Richard Thompson, who came up with the idea of applying for the grant, said the cameras could stop terrorism in Southwest Alaska someday. More to the point, they also may put an end to the drinking, deaths and drug deals that go down at the port every summer when the town fills up with commercial fishermen. If the system prevents even one death, Thompson said, "I don't care what's said about me." But some townsfolk are outraged. The only thing being captured by the cameras, they said, are their civil liberties. The white, plastic devices, clustered atop poles at the port or perched on four city buildings, feel like the glaring eyes of Big Brother. Some, with dual lenses for different lighting conditions, even resemble storm trooper helmets from "Star Wars." "I think it's an invasion of privacy," said Freeman Roberts, a barge captain. "The government shouldn't be in the business of looking at people." A quiet city like Dillingham, without a single street light and more wildlife than humans, doesn't need one camera for every 30 residents, Tim Smeekins said. "There are no jihadist sockeyes swimming into our bay, no militant moose, no bomb-bearing belugas," he said. He and others hope to put the question of removing the cameras on the ballot this fall. More than 200 area residents have signed an informal petition demanding the cameras come down, Smeekins said. The German-made Mobotix cameras are part of a national battle that pits the privacy rights of individuals against government intrusion as it tries to make America safe in the post-Sept. 11 world. Critics also raise ongoing questions about the massive amount of money gushing from the Department of Homeland Security: $2.5 billion in grants last year alone. Opponents complain that money has been poorly spent, often on states with small populations and little security risk. Alaska, for example, trailed only Wyoming last year, receiving $24.83 per person, more than three times the per-capita amount spent in California.
1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
|
|
||||||||||||
