How one Mass city watches the watchers, and how others should follow suit On February 2, 2009, the Cambridge City Council voted in unanimous opposition to the installation of eight Department of Homeland Security cameras at major intersections on the basis that “the potential threats to invasion of privacy and individual civil liberties outweigh the current benefits” of accepting the DHS funds. While six such cameras were installed all the same, the council and a vocal citizenry has since successfully opposed their activation. At a follow-up meeting earlier this month, all nine Cambridge councilors reaffirmed their position: the cameras must remain off until police prove beyond doubt that their department has the capacity to balance investigative methods with civil liberties. Such aggressive civilian oversight of law enforcement should serve as a model not only for the Boston region, but for the whole country. Since 9-11, police chiefs, sheriffs, and commissioners have had an open invitation to request any range of surveillance and tactical gear from federal coffers, often without accountability checks to ensure that deployment squares with the Bill of Rights. Between DHS, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense, local overseers can secure every conceivable toy that they could ever covet without spending a dime of their own. From drones, to armored vehicles, to Long Range Acoustic Devices, which are essentially giant human dog whistles, it’s a veritable buffet via federal grants. Since these checks are written by the feds, such arrangements are often executed without […]

Source digboston.com