Do you ever read the Washington City Paper? It’s a well-written free indie publication that you can pick up pretty much where all the other newspapers are. They cover more community-based stories that the Post tends to not report (they’re too busy with more pressing international issues such as Japan’s overreaction to North Korea’s missile launches).
Okay, to the point. I found this great article, Speaker of the House, by Dave Jamieson. Basically, you know how there can be large apartment complexes which employ security guards to stand around and make sure all’s good and quiet?
At the 112-unit low-income Faircliff Plaza West apartment complex in Columbia Heights, those security guards were replaced by security cameras and an one-way intercom system.
An one-way intercom system? Yeah. So it regularly barks out things like:
Hey, you in the red shirt at 1432–step away from the window. This is private property. You’re under surveillance.
Oof. How’d you like to hear that when you’re just hanging out in the building that you pay rent to live in? I never dreamed that this type of active survelliance would actually be implemented, but it’s a reality for the Faircliff Plaza West residents.
Sure, it’s cheaper than hiring guards, but at what cost to the concept of privacy? It’s not too far a stretch to start imagining the intercom system assembling morning calisthetics classes, ordering residents to bend down and touch their toes.
Ugh. I’m disgusted by this. No one should ever have to live under the Camera’s Gimlet Eye. To borrow a cliche: Who watches the watchers? Read the article.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
32 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I read that article, and I was disgusted by the attitude the spokesperson for the real estate company took towards the tenants of Faircliff Plaza West. Can you imagine growing up in that environment as a young child where your every move is being constantly questioned?
100 visitors/residents whose privacy “feels” invaded versus 1 violent crime prevented?
Sorry, but I think I disagree with you, Adam.
I guess you’re not a resident there.
I can see how survelliance cameras go a long way towards preventing violent crime. They use it at 7-11. It’s a great deterrent.
But an one-way intercom? Telling children to not sit on the steps or play near their own windows? How does that prevent violent crime? If the intercom was used to chase away a would-be burglar, wonderful. Use it for that, and not for broadcasting Miss Manners.
Last time I heard, the residents don’t “rent” the space outside in front of their apartment for purposes of loitering. The purpose of this added surveillance apparently is to “shed its reputation as an open-air drug market”.
And as we all know too well, drugs is pretty much the gateway to further violence. Yeah, the security officer could probably use some tact- but if you want scum off the street, then you have to do some serious scrubbing. Check back in about a year and see if the crime rates have gone down.
Adam- are you now saying that we CAN have a such system in place for chasing away a would-be burglar? :)
Would you be in favor of such a system where you currently live? Would you be okay with some unseen person telling you what you could and could not touch, where you could and could not go? Would you be okay with that on a daily basis?
I would! Think about it. A hall is for coming and going, steps are for going up and down. they aren’t extensions of your home, but common areas. Why not use the newly renovated interior of their own homes for socializing? What is more, I do not need anyone to tell me what I can or can not touch, go or not go, etc. I know how to behave when walking around my complex, and that doesn’t involve standing outside someone’s window to talk to them.
Yes, I would be fine with this, Noelle. I think I already made this clear the first time I responded, anyway.
Noelle, people like JT don’t like to think on their own so they need others to tell JT what to think, what to say.
That’s Orwell’s 1984 for you.
I finally understand why Rome fell and how Germany became fascism under Hitler’s iron hand. America is making the same mistakes as Rome and others did in the past, sadly. Heck, even a well-respected conservative, John Dean, warned about the Bush Admin and far right fascist-like conservatives which is driving Republic America into Fascist/Authoritarian America. To Founding Fathers/Republic/Constitution: farewell and it’s great to know you all.
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it” - George Santayana
Indeedy.
Thank you, Jason, for articulating what is so upsetting about this situation. It’s a slippery slope. Once we say OK to something small, it snowballs. Before much longer, we’ll be in an Orwellian country. The founding fathers are surely turning over in their graves, thanks to people who are so willing to surrender civil liberties all in the name of safety. Who decides what is safe? Who decides what is acceptable? ‘Tis dangerous when we allow the government and big business to draw the lines for us.
Jason Bourne, you wrote:
Noelle, people like JT don’t like to think on their own so they need others to tell JT what to think, what to say.
Actually, Noelle may not know it- but I agree with her on many other things- I had seen this as just being one of the few topics on which we didn’t see eye-to-eye. After all, I’ve always had strong feelings about the misguided paranoia regarding privacy issues. Based on my own life experiences, which probably were different from yours. Not that there’s anything wrong with taking a different stand, as long as you know it’s true to your own beliefs. But now that you put it this way, I have but to realize how right you are. My thoughts are indeed dominated by the actions of others; namely, that of my 15-year-old daughter! For the sake of preserving this oft-named-but-rarely-reliable slippery slope argument, I will sign off so that I can go and ask my daughter what she thinks I should wear for work today.
As a single woman living alone, I LOVE the idea of knowing people are being kept away from my windows! “Giving up privacy” — privacy for what? I’m not doing anything except coming and going from my unit. Why would I be loitering in the hall or steps? As far as children go, I’m all for parents teaching them how to conduct themselves in common areas. But until kids learn to internalize those rules, they will continue to need monitoring and reminders that someone is watching them and will tell their moms if they misbehave. Playing on steps without supervision is not safe and it would be within reason for management to want to protect themselves. There is no difference between having a guard walking around and having a camera do it.
Did you read the article that was linked by Adam in his post?
yes. why? just read it again, too. I hate walking past groups of kids hanging around on steps or in halls, drinking and eating, spilling sticky soda, playing their music loud, leaving fast food litter and dropping chewing gum everywhere. The place used to be an open air drug market. No wonder they don’t like people hanging in the windows.
I think that everyone by now should have realized and accepted that there is no privacy whatsoever in society nowadays. If you’re doing nothing wrong, what do you have to worry about?
About this specific instance, please keep in mind that the ‘renters’ do not own the building. The owners have every right to do whatever they want with their property. They, unlike the ‘renters,’ have a strong interest in keeping the peace. If the renters do not like it, they can simply find another place to live.
Except that many of these renters depend on federal housing vouchers. Moving elsewhere is not such a simple proposition for them.
Again, it’s the talking-back through the one-way intercom that really irks me. Do you want someone ordering you around your building? This is a nanny-state gone too far.
No one likes being told what to do, especially in a rude or peremptory tone. But sometimes that’s what is needed to change behaviors, especially those that are ingrained. A person whose behavior is within the boundaries of acceptable would not need to worry about getting barked at. To me, those rules are simple and few, reasonable, and not hard to follow. And I bet they would not be hard for you to follow either, Adam.
That sounds a little racist to me. What do you mean by “especially those that are ingrained?”
hmmm… I did not think about that way. I guess I’m revealing my background here. Where I come from — Midwest, West — no one stands around in the hall or sits on the steps to chat with neighbors or “chill.” We didn’t need to — we had backyards, houses, parks, malls, etc. In urban areas, people may hang out in halls and on stoops or steps because they live in congested cities where space is at a premium and there’s no place else to go. So even though this newly renovated apartment complex has a playground and a community center, the people who live there may continue to socialize in halls and on the steps because that’s what they’re used to doing. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that, per se. Just seems to me that there was some correlation between permitting residents to congregate in halls and steps, and the drug dealing and violent crimes that were a problem previously.
You see…..I hang out on the stoop of my building all the time, or on the bench in the front yard. Granted, my place is a townhome in a nice neighborhood, but it’s close to Columbia Heights. Just because I hang out on the stoop or the bench does not mean that I am inclined to deal in drugs. And should the elderly really be yelled at not to use their chairs outside? If you read the article, you would’ve read the part that says only two benches are provided to the housing complex. Elderly people love to socialize, and they do it outside like in Texas where I’m from.
Noelle, in your situation, it’s acceptable for you to sit outside and socialize with the neighbors because drugs and crime aren’t a problem in your area. That’s not the case at the Faircliff at all. It has a history of drugs and crime, and the increased security is necessary. The article mentioned that the cameras and intercoms are used where they are most needed, not everywhere. Certainly it’s great for elderly people to socialize, and the ones at Faircliff can invite people inside, keep their doors open, telephone each other, or go to the community center. They have options, no one is saying they have to stay indoors like a jail. For 99% of other apartment complexes, there is really no problem doing things outside, and that should continue. It’s only a problem at the Faircliff, and just because it’s a problem there does not mean that every other place has a need to install them, or that civil rights are going down the drain.
Since when did apartment buildings become centers for behaviorial modification? Not to sound too extreme, but what you are describing sounds exactly like a police state.
If you haven’t noticed yet, we are quite fast losing any rights to privacy with the Bush administration’s paranoia and widespread and as yet undisclosed tapping of everything. This is merely a soft police state.
I’m being sarcastic when I say that a soft police state is a great place to be in — no dangers whatsoever. Yes, our founding fathers were incorrect to believe that liberty trumps safety.
Adam, really! There’s a big difference between the normal socialization process and a police state. You’ve probably forgotten all the times your mom and dad yellowed at you not to do things. Then those regular reminders of socially appropriate behavior have become automatic, so you don’t need to be told not to do them any more. that’s what I’m talking about.
Safe, not Sorry: Are we to delegate the job of parental discipline to a Voice Coming From A Black Box?
Parents put daycare centers through a rigorous review process to make sure that the daycare employees are the types of role models the parents want their children to emulate. Somehow I don’t think parents would like rent-a-cops telling their kids how to behave, particularly if they’re hiding behind cameras and intercom systems.
I hope you realize that not only are children being ordered around, but also adults and the elderly. That just seems extraordinarily disrespectful to me. I’d much rather a security guard take care of issues like that. This way, residents can actually form a relationship with their community law enforcement officers. An one-way intercom that, to quote Ridor, “barks and yowls,” changes the power structure and is ultimately an insult to the residents.
Exactly, and if the management company is so worried about “security,” why don’t they provide the residents with a security system in the form of alarms? And for the D.C. cops to be actual cops in patrolling these “drug-ridden” neighborhoods? Why not encourage the formation of neighborhood civic programs within the housing complex? It would be so much better for the inhabitants overall instead of treating them like pre-criminals.
Points accepted. The rent-a-cops could certainly be more polite, but the respect goes both ways, don’t you think? I’m certainly not in favor of having elderly people yelled at. I don’t know about an intercom being more intrinsically insulting than a security guard and a face to face encounter. The owner’s motivation is clearly and primarily economic, with human dignity a distant second. Once again, the rules are simple, few, easy to follow, make sense (most of the time) and are designed to prevent problems, not create them. I agree with JT and others, if your behavior isn’t a problem, you won’t be hearing that intercom.
Why should exceptions be made for those who depend on federal housing vouchers? Even those who don’t have such dependency issues would have a hard time finding new places to live for separate reasons.
Point is, some people don’t mind. If they don’t mind, great. If they do mind, then they can move. But don’t use the personal situation of those renters as an excuse; any landlords in any type of commodities can easily make similar decisions.
I think Christian has a point that many people here aren’t really absorbing — Big Brother has been around for quite a while, and privacy is only a relative term. (Besides, those are common areas under surveillance, not necessarily individual units.)
But I also think — and correct me if I’m wrong — that Adam isn’t reacting as strongly to the camera as he is to the juxtaposition of that and the one-way system. Seems to me he wouldn’t object as much if it were a two-way system.
On another note… am wondering what good that one-way intercom would do for a deaf resident. ;-)
Thank you, Alli… I was waiting for someone to bring up the notion that a “loiterer” could be deaf. If someone “barks out” a command to leave, and the person is deaf and doesn’t understand, much less hear it… what happens? Red and blue lights come merrily down the street?
*kinda amused* that no one else mentioned this.
Funny, many people ask the Bush Admin the same question and yet they yelled at top of their lungs: “State Secrets!” “State Secrets!” If they’re doing nothing wrong, why don’t they just quit using those stupid excuses and reveal everything to get over it?
Or are you giving me the same sh**, “State Secrets!” as they did to people? And no, you’re wrong. It’s only conservatvies who decided to be bed-wetters and give up their liberities that the Founding Fathers fought so hard to give us. Many people beside bed-wetters prefer the liberities and refuse to accept that there is no privacy.
Bed-wetters should’ve known better but they choose to not. “Ignorance is strength” is perfect example of bed-wetters, seriously.
Founding Fathers are weeping for you all.
Many thanks for enclosing this City Paper article, Adam! I am wholly agree with you about the nightmarish nanny-state cameras and their behavior modifications. Kinda scary and freakish!
The presence of security guards always bring real humanity like interacting with residents or help out them whether emergency situation occurs. I once ask my former Thomas Circle apartment complex’s security guard to call the ambulance for me because I couldn’t bend down myself to make TTY call (low back sprain). Thank goodness for the presence of security guard! Security guards could be your best friends or worst enemy! They usually help me with the inside information about apartment management or I would not know what is going on with the apartment complex or management. Human presence still is truly part of daily necessity.
Security guards would be more effective about dealing with different personalities (residents) than the “Big Brother” system. Those guards would greet me at the door unlike the impersonable cameras. How can I hear the intercom?
The installation of high-tech survilleances in Great Britian did not prevent last year’s bombings of buses and subway trains. That country done for more than 20 years of high-tech survilleance which could not deter any act of terrorism in the first place! Look at the latest National Mall muggings and sexual assaults! The presence of Park Police officers would prevent this kind of incident in the first place!
Remmy ‘HAL 4500″ the sinister computer survilleance from the “Space Odyssey 2001″ 60s film?? The remaining survivors managed to outfox the so-called perfect artifical survilleance whose was a control freak.
Many people believed that the “HAL 4500″ computer was homosexual! Good riddance for some people imagine about the artifical existence having sexual orientation.
If you watch this 60s film again and look for the ‘HAL 4500″’s panty relationship with the last remaining survivor. It asked the survivor to come closer to the camera eye and want to see what this person look like in a close-up. In the end, ‘HAL 4500″ went beserk.
That would be a perfect warning for the nanny-state cameras! No one could replace humanity with cold and calacuting artificial existence. Humans will find some way to beat the high-tech system anyway! The animal kingdom, too! Animals are not really dumb and have survival instincts!
Robert L. Mason (RLM)