You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 5:58 a.m.

Law enforcement agencies continue to expand the use of surveillance cameras

By John Counts


Ypsilanti Township has added cameras over the past year including this one in Harris Park.

Courtney Sacco |

Police call them security cameras and maintain they are a great help with investigations.

Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union prefer to call them surveillance cameras and say they are an invasion of privacy.

The word surveillance hints at a population being monitored. The word security implies the cameras are just another safety measure and are there for the citizens' own good.

Despite the debate, cameras continue to pop up more and more in Washtenaw County. Programs in Ypsilanti Township and on the Eastern Michigan University campus are expanding. The University of Michigan also employs cameras on its campus. Other area law enforcement agencies like the Ann Arbor Police Department don’t have them now - but aren’t ruling out their use in the future.

In Ypsilanti Township, cameras were first installed in the West Willow neighborhood in 2011. The program expanded this past September to the Smith-Lakeview area off of Grove Road.

Twenty years ago, there were 14 cameras on EMU’s campus. Now there are 500, said EMU police Chief Bob Heighes.

“It has helped us solve some crimes,” he said.


EMU police point to one recent instance where cameras played a part in solving a crime.

Last month, cameras helped EMU police get to the bottom of a reported armed robbery. A 21-year-old student told police he was robbed by four men in the Green Lot on the northern edge of campus near Huron River Drive. He told police they had a handgun and punched him in the face after taking his wallet.

What was recorded on cameras that cover that area, however, told a different story. There is currently a warrant out for the student’s arrest for filing a false report of a felony.

Heighes said there are 500 cameras that cover just about the entire campus. What used to be a small operation has grown into a million dollar operation. There are both exterior and interior cameras all over campus. Relatively new are video stations near emergency phones at building entrances where a student can call and see and be seen by someone at the police department.

“It’s been an ongoing process,” said Heighes. “The university has made a huge investment into it.” The cameras are not constantly monitored, but the footage comes in handy to review when police are looking into a crime.

“We use them when we have a crime to investigate,” Heighes said. “They’re very good. We’ve been able to give officers locations and descriptions.”

Heighes stressed that the cameras don’t catch the criminals -- it still takes detective work - but the information from the cameras is of great assistance to investigators. It helps police identify people in the area or get a description of where a crime occurred.

Fourteen more cameras were expected to go online at EMU’s College of Business at the end of November.

As far as privacy issues are concerned, Heighes said none of the cameras are trained in residential rooms.

“We’re not prying into private areas,” he said.

U-M also has cameras on campus, though officials did not want to give a specific number of how many. Diane Brown, spokesperson for the U-M Police Department, said campus cameras were mostly at the entrances and exits of residence halls.

Brown said the cameras are not really intended to catch students.

“It’s people coming in to prey on the students,” she said.

In 2009, a camera helped catch a suspect in an arson case on campus.

“We were able to get an image off one of the cameras and put it on a wanted poster,” Brown said.


A college campus is not the same as a neighborhood, however. Having a camera trained on public university property is arguably a little different than having it recording private residences.

Regardless, the program started in Ypsilanti Township in 2011 and expanded this year has helped catch at least one criminal.


Police used this photo from a West Willow camera that helped catch a sex assault suspect.

In May, the West Willow cameras assisted in the arrest of Daniel Jackson, who was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison for sexual assaulting three girls. A snapshot of Jackson riding a bicycle was distributed by police and helped lead to his identification.

The cameras in West Willow and Smith-Lakeview area take quick still photos and help officers with descriptions and identifications, according to police.

“The cameras have measured up to be what we expected them to be,” said Lt. Jim Anuszkiewicz of the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office. “I see law enforcement and cameras moving in the same direction. The camera systems will make the neighborhood safer.”

The cameras didn’t come at the request of the sheriff’s office, however. They were the result of political action on the township board.

“I think Ypsilanti Township is being proactive,” Anuszkiewicz said. “It should be commended. My hope would be that the township continues to expand that program. Technology is key in this day and age.”

The cameras have not been an issue with residents, Anuszkiewicz said.

“We’ve received a positive reaction from the local residents,” he said. “The sheriff’s office has not received any complaints about privacy issues.”

The people in West Willow spoke with neither fully embraced nor rejected the presence of the cameras.

"It could be a good thing," said West Willow homeowner Timothy Hetfinger. "It depends if it's to help you, or to work against you (and) providing they (are) here to benefit my safety, not to impede on my rights and my freedoms. I'm kind of worried about that because I don't think that's what it is sometimes. It's a catch-22 situation. You have to find a medium."

Hetfinger, who is white, thinks cameras are sometimes used to unfairly target African-American communities.

"That stuff has to end," he said. "It still goes on till this day."

LaShan Bell, of Romulus, visits her grandmother in the neighborhood everyday. She thinks cameras are no substitute for more of a physical police presence.

"Besides cameras, they need some kind of security riding around here," she said. "I think it would be better than cameras."

The story is a little different in Ann Arbor and Pittsfield Township, where there are currently no cameras. That doesn’t necessarily mean there will never be.

“If a technique such as cameras can be shown to be effective in improving public safety and it does not negatively impact our ability to work together with the community, then it is something that could be considered,” said Ann Arbor police Chief John Seto.

In Pittsfield Township, the public safety department is exploring teaming up with apartment complexes, which might have cameras of their own.

“We do not currently have cameras deployed publicly, but we have done some initial research into partnering with some apartment complexes to further enhance their preventative safety measures,” said Matt Harshberger, Pittsfield Township Director of Public Safety.


There are concerns however. The ACLU released a report in October that claims cameras placed in a residential area of Lansing don’t only undermine the residents’ privacy, but are also ineffective and expensive.

Michael Steinberg, the legal director for the ACLU of Michigan, said his organization is extremely concerned with communities being under surveillance.

“We don’t want to become a Big Brother society,” he said. “We live in a free society. We don’t live in China or Syria. We don’t want to become a police state.”

There are other concerns, too. Steinberg said there have been instances where male police officers abuse the camera systems, such as using them to harass ex-wives and girlfriends. The sophistication of new video technology is also disturbing, according to Steinberg.

“They can watch kids playing in their yards,” he said. “We think it violates our privacy.”

In Ann Arbor, a proposed ordinance that would restrict cameras has been in the works for two years. The Students Against Surveillance, an organization at U-M co-founded by William Leaf, who has since graduated, introduced the ordinance in 2010. Leaf now heads up the group Ann Arbor Privacy, which continues to push for it.

Leaf hopes the ordinance, which wouldn’t necessarily ban cameras, still has life. He said the two Ann Arbor City Council members from the Fifth Ward - Mike Anglin and Chuck Warpehoski - have shown support for the ordinance, which has yet to reach council for a vote.

“Getting city council to act before there is a problem is difficult,” Leaf said. “Few people want to take a stand on something that is controversial and can be delayed.”

The ordinance would allow cameras for short-term surveillance - 15 days or less - under certain conditions. The public would also need to be notified of where the cameras were located. The ordinance calls for signs marking the presence of cameras, as well.

“We want to allow temporary cameras in high-crime areas, but ban permanent neighborhood cameras without residents’ consent,” Leaf said. “The ordinance would be a model for other cities.”

John Counts covers cops and courts for He can be reached at or you can follow him on Twitter.


ms 2013

Thu, Dec 27, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.

good to hear we need some in our building really bad


Thu, Dec 27, 2012 : 11:34 a.m.

To the ACLU attorney, how often have police allegedly committed such abuse, and what example do you have of it actually happening? If the camera coverage area is a public one, there should be no objection from those who support the mission of law enforcement and who want police to be able to better solve crimes. If a citizen is doing no wrong, he or she should have nothing to worry about.


Thu, Dec 27, 2012 : 1:22 a.m.

look if anyone official wants to monitor you its easy.They can track your car,computer,or cell phone.They can track your buying habits or your credit card purchases.If they want to find you its easy unless your completely off the grid .And its hard work to be off it unless your very poor or homeless

Michael Christie

Thu, Dec 27, 2012 : 12:43 a.m.

They need to put them in Liberty Plaza and maybe the harassment of 'non-residents' would go away and the riff raff that hangs out there would stop drinking in the park and becoming belligerent. Must be nice to be on government assistance and be able to kick back with a cold one in a public park, make comments towards women and agressive behaviour, on our tax $$.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 10:49 p.m.

Cameras on roadways that automatically ticket speeder and law breaker are a good thing. It still takes a person to break the law, and another to determine if the law has been broken. If we like to drive faster, or no longer have confidence in a particular law, change the law. We must have faith in those we choose to uphold the law or expose ourselves to a greater level of danger.

Stuart Brown

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 9:05 p.m.

The concern comes up when people try to organize change using the so called "Democratic Process" (in case you did not know, Democracy only matters when it can be uses as an excuse to go to war--it is to be fought and died for, but never, ever used effectively by the sheeple.) The threat of Big Brother becomes apparent when anyone tries to organize opposition to the status quo (look what happens at Occupy Wall Street type demos or any mass gatherings of citizens exercising their right to assemble and petition the government--mass arrests.) These surveillance cameras can be used to harass and intimidate anyone trying to organize political change (one of the reasons why we are always forced to choose between bad and worse than bad on the ballot.) The government is not interested in what regular sheeple are doing as long as they are working their tails off and paying their taxes; no, only when some of the sheeple stop being sheeple does the state bare its fangs and deploy its dirty tricks to contain the "contagion".

Stuart Brown

Mon, Dec 31, 2012 : 7:30 a.m.

arborani, Sometimes the truth hurts.


Fri, Dec 28, 2012 : 5:54 p.m.

Any time I see the word "sheeple" used (twice here!), my eyes cross and my tongue feels fuzzy.

Stuart Brown

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 10:48 p.m.

APWBD123, Thanks for expressing the Sheeple/Good German viewpoint! The part about coupons is really rich given 30 years of trickle-down war on the poor economics. The Occupy Wall Street movement was often smeared with the accusation of using violence when in fact most of the violence was blatant police state violence against peaceful demonstrators. Glad to see you are paying attention to what is really happening.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.

Of course they were arrested. They needed to be arrested! They completely trashed several public parks, were acting as a nusciance to area residents, and, however correct they might be at some of the deficiencies of Wall Street, when a person gets to a certain age they recognize that throwing a temper tantrum in the store because the person in front of them got their coupons accepted and they did not doesn't solve anything. In the end they embarass themselves, annoy other shoppers, and end up complaining because they were kicked out of the store. Was the intial situaion fair? No. Was it fair to the other shoppers behind the yelling and screaming patron who had to wait an extra 20 minutes because one person didnt get a coupon? No Was it fair to the employee who gets yelled at who has nothing to do with the situation but who has to escort the customer out of the store? No. Write a letter, run for senator, campaign for someone. Sign a petition. but dont complain about so called Big Brother arresting a violent mob destroying community property and wanting to tare and feather some dishonest bankers. Mob rule is still Mob rule.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 8:37 p.m.

I agree with Billy that if cameras are filming public areas, how can it be an invasion. I do not believe that anyone would have an expectation of "privacy" in a public area. With all the cutbacks in the police department and the elimination of park rangers in Ann Arbor, the cameras give us one more tool to deter crime (or at least to catch the perps).


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 7:54 p.m.

A derisive issue to say the least and one which I think highlights the democratic slippery slope of societal good w/potential for individual harm vs. individual rights w/potential for societal harm. While there is undoubtablly a great deal of merit and reason for fear regarding widespread surveillence and monitering by "Big Brother", on a practical level, the issue poses little if any threat to our democratic tradition and individual rights, and if anything highlights how much say the public has in directing community/state/and national policy regarding this issue. The idea that an already cash and personal strapped police force could intrusivly and activly monitor the 250,000+ members of the local community even if there were 10,000 cameras is ludicrous at best, especially as they are primarly used retroactivly to identify potential perpetrators, criminal patterns, etc. within a specific area. Additionally, widespread camera placement would allow for policing of areas with little to no criminal activity, something that would serve to psychologically or physcially detere possible criminals in areas which would not otherwise be allocated routine physcial patrols. Additionally, the abuse of a camera system by a law enforcement body would not only prevent their ability to actually prosecute alleged suspects, but which would subject the body itself to such negative public scrutiny as to naturally remove its members through legislative or administrative means. Theoretically, the idea of our going down a road to a big brother goverment is both very possible and very frightning. Realistically however, its both impractical, impausable and will not be because goverment agencies are trying to work with extremely limited resources to help keep our communities safe, while more accuratly, cost effectivly, and judiciously identifying and prosecuting criminal activity then could be done traditionally.


Fri, Dec 28, 2012 : 5:51 p.m.


Gordon Dooley

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 7:48 p.m.

This is an instance where I feel greater good is served by having these cameras. If a rapist is off the streets 1 min sooner due to having cameras I'm for it. Instances where they are used improperly, I would hope would be caught and those offenders are punished accordingly as well. I like the proposed ordinance, a warrant to review these videos would be a good suitable option as well. If all this fails you, then you should probably move lol

Jim Osborn

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.

These cameras can protect the innocent from false charges, even from police chiefs such as Matt Harshberger of Pittsfield Township. Without them, it can be a drunk or lying person's word against that of another. While disliked for the loss of privacy, they can certainly vindicate the innocent and leave the police holding an empty bag. It can be wonderful when a bad cop makes false charges, and unknown to them, cameras have recorded everything. Rodney King was certainly glad of this 21-1/2 years ago.

Homeland Conspiracy

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 8:18 p.m.

Mr King still took a beating & the cops got off even with it all on camera


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 7:05 p.m.

I am sure in due time the ACLU will file suit claiming the cameras violate a criminal's right to privacy while commiting a crime in public.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 6:48 p.m.

Dramatize a mouse sufficiently: and it becomes a lion. ;-)

Homeland Conspiracy

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 6:28 p.m.

One Nation Under Surveillance


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 6:25 p.m.

If you're not doing anything wrong, then why should cameras in PUBLIC places be a problem?

Frustrated in A2

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 10:16 p.m.



Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 6:18 p.m.

The poll question is just plain stupid and probably aimed at one of those predetermined results some news agents and political groups love so well. It's HOW the cameras are used which determines whether or not they invade privacy. Just remarking: it seems those individuals who most "fear" being observed in public are the ones most against surveillance cameras. I'm no legal expert but it seems to me that any public place we happen to be in is "open range" for observation. IF such cop-operated cameras are aimed AT/INTO private spaces, then they're illegal and their removal can be demanded, even forced through legal action. Not mentioned: what about crime prevention cameras installed on-but-outside of homes? These "may" record activity far away on public property if the field of view is wide enough. For that matter, it's an "issue" with come people that store use security cameras to record people and what they're doing - but some people don't object at all. Same here: an clearer understanding of what these public surveillance cameras do and how they affect our privacy rights is needed.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 5:45 p.m.

"...Steinberg said there have been instances where male police officers abuse the camera systems, such as using them to harass ex-wives and girlfriends..." Mr. Steinberg, please provide a source for this claim, specific instances where a police officer used public surveillance cameras to monitor wives and girlfriends, the offending officer's name and whether or not his employment was terminated. It may have happened once or twice but I cannot find a specific example.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 5:41 p.m.

Most people, as evidenced here, do not understand the concept of surveillance. Some folks seem to thing the the police or the government are monitoring you every move and watching you. Not true. Cameras can record hour after hour of activity, but that recording is not seen by anyone unless some reason comes up and whoever in control goes back and reviews the recording. If an incident occurs but the time is unknown, it takes a long time to review the recording. Once, a burglary occurred in a building where all the doors (9) were recorded. The burglary happened over the weekend. From 5pm Friday to 8 am on Monday is 63 hours, times 9 doors is 562 hours of tape to watch. You speed up the tape and people entering zoom by and you can miss them. Who is going to watch all that recording? Sure they help but they are in reality a minor intrusion in your life and the issues is does the benefit outweigh the intrusion making it reasonable, which is why the authors of the Constitution used the work "reasonable" in regard to govt intrusion on your rights granted by the govt. Cameras do not prevent crime but they are invaluable in solving them when an offender can be recognized.


Fri, Dec 28, 2012 : 5:48 p.m.

Finally, a whiff of sanity here.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.

On the bright side, this technology will provide employment for our ambulatory impaired young people. I envision wheelchair-bound young people enrolling in college criminal justice programs. They will train in both monitoring the cameras and cyber policing the Internet. To give their eyes a respite, they could team-up at the cop shop and, during their 8 hour shift, alternate between TV-watching the camera feed vs cyber policing on a computer screen. I post this constructively, not sarcastically. I know a young man, crippled by an IED in Afghan, who is planning a career in the public safety field.

David Muzzatti

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.

Behold....The Brave New World. It is a certainty that the Police State environment will nurture our youth & condition them that around-the-clock-surveillance is normal in a so-called free society. You are free to fact if you don't....this will be perceived as suspicious activity.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 6:46 p.m.

Just pointing out: the main threat featured in Brave New World was universal tranquilizing. But still - there're plenty of people "fighting" to have universal access to and use of marijuana. Dramatize a mouse sufficiently: it becomes a lion. ;-)


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 4:42 p.m.

The black helicopters are circling.

Craig Lounsbury

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.

As others have said, I find it bizarre that anyone thinks there is a right to privacy on the corner of Huron and Main.....or any other street corner for that matter. If you are out in public and witness a crime, an armed robbery or a rape or a murder and you can identify the perpetrator do you come forward or respect his privacy? Assuming most folks would come forward then we can logically conclude there are limits to ones right to privacy in a public place. Further, if you witnessed the crime it means you were looking at both the criminal and victim in a public place. If its OK for you to look at people and report illegal activity you witness how much of a stretch is a passive camera pointing in the same general direction your eyes would if you were there?


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.

I wonder how many of the people in this forum who are critical of the public surveillance cameras are the same people who plaster every minute detail of their lives on Facebook everyday?


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 3:40 p.m.

George Orwell foresaw this development. He was born in India and served as a police superintendent in Burma, commanding officers policing a 200,000 population district. More eyes, less crime? Just asking . . .

Craig Lounsbury

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.

I like my privacy when I'm walking down the street as much as the next guy. So from now on I demand that everybody outside look to the ground no more than 3 feet ahead of your shoes lest you see somebody and invade their public privacy. I further demand that all cell phones with cameras be turned off when in public to respect my public privacy.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.

TDW, Not sure if you dislike the sarcasm or are one of the people I think should be monitored. My real point is many of the people who think monitoring others behavior, never want to be the ones monitored. Whoever said " I love my country but fear my government" seems to have summed it up the best.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 3:24 p.m.

Likewise, many of those who dont want cameras will suddenly tone down the rhetoric when a family member is the victim of a serial rape in a public place -- and the police have no leads because there is no video coverage.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 3:10 p.m.

outdoor....No I don't particularly want to be monitored but If I or the people who support this are in public areas that are being monitored then that's the way it goes.Let's face it,fact is that they would more than likely be only in high risk areas.The costs ( $ ) would be too high to have them everywhere.Now my question is where do you get the idea that if someone who is for this would object to it ? As someone else said it's not like they are pointed at your window


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.

should have read, monitoring others behavior is OK,


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 2:49 p.m.

This is an aspect of the ongoing obliteration of our human rights and freedoms. For anyone interested, here are 2 reads:


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.

That loss is partially due to the lack of common sense and human decency.

Jeffersonian Liberal

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.

While the Police are admitting they can do nothing to prevent crime, you sheep are just more than happy to trade in our Liberty for some false sense of security. Enjoy the re-education camps.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 5:22 p.m.

Cameras should only be focused on purley public space to be sure. But, what kind of Orwellian leap is it to take us into re-education camps? I always thought of Jefferson as a libertarian and certainly not a liberal in the nascent sense.

Homeland Conspiracy

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 4:45 p.m.

Glen Beck LOL


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.

Then why didn't Jefferson include a Right to Privacy in his text? Where are these re-education camps? Glenn Beck took 3 days to show you they don't exist,


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.

The Supreme Court has ruled that we have no expectation of privacy in public places. I don't see that changing. The only question remaining then is do communities want to pay for camera surveillance. That should be the poll.

Basic Bob

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.

If it makes people feel better to put up security cameras in their gated communities, they are free to do so. When they put up cameras in dense urban neighborhoods, they are simply trying to capture minorities for the prison system. Otherwise they would put them up in every neighborhood where crime occurs, which is any of them.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 1:49 p.m.

Any time you are on public property there is a "risk" of being on camera these days. It's the American way. If you're not doing anything wrong, what's the big deal?


Thu, Dec 27, 2012 : 3:17 p.m.

@Plubius: Our e-mails are already being captured, stored, and read. In the name of not letting the terrorists win.

Ben Petiprin

Thu, Dec 27, 2012 : 2:13 a.m.

I hate this argument of "if you're not doing anything wrong." I'm a spiritual man so I believe that SOMETHING is watching me at all times, and I act accordingly. But in the religious scenario, the watcher is a righteous being. I concede that he can judge me because he is all good. But who's on the other side of these cameras? From the article, more often than not it's just some cop with an axe to grind. I don't submit to their morality because they're just other men. Who are they to sit back in anonymity and judge me? Especially in the case of the national government. This huge entity that overthrows countries for its oil interests has the nerve to sit in judgement over me? Get out of here with that stuff.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 5:21 p.m.

I agree with Dexterreader and I believe Plubius raises a point that I consider often. I refer to it as cracking open a door and how wide will it open once it is cracked open. Read 1984 by George Orwell and I suppose most people will say, "Nah, that will never happen." But in 100 or 200 years where will we be? Orwell figured it would only take 35 years. I think you crack the door open and you risk behavior in the future that we today might consider horrendous. As generations grow up with cameras, etc., they consider it natural are less opposed to future enhancements. This is one reason besides my religion why I oppose abortion.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 2:33 p.m.

The "American way" is to be under surveillance? No, I think that's more like the "Chinese way".


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 1:59 p.m.

Why not allow the authorities to read your mail and email - heck, if you are doing nothing wrong, what's the big deal? How about letting the authorities see the list of books and movies you are borrowing - heck, if you are doing nothing wrong, what's the big deal? What about having to provide the authorities a log of all the places/people you visit on a daily basis - heck, if you are doing nothing wrong, what's the big deal?


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 1:19 p.m.

Dear Winston & Julia, There will be cameras in the woods now. For your own safety.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 1:09 p.m.

I'm all for those red light cameras. It might reduce the number of people that feel red lights mean speed up.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 1:01 p.m.

I think we should expand the use of cameras. First spot would be offices and homes of all public officials and police. Phase 2 would be homes and worksites of those that think it is OK to have cameras watch others. Are survailance tapes subject to FOA requests?


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.

Big Brother is watching you.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 6:41 p.m.

Yes, he is: and if you post one more cliche, he's gonna put parental controls back on your computer. ;-)


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.

The editing room of should have surveillance cameras. There are quite a few typos in this article (and no, I won't point them out for you!)


Fri, Dec 28, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.

Who doesn't pay for this? Maybe I'm a fool to subscribe??


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 8:30 p.m.

TruBlu, You don't even have to pay for this service! Why not just take it the way it comes and enjoy what you read or don't.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.

And that doesn't even take into account their propensity for posting "made to order" polls to produce the results they want. With the Ann Arbor News print newspaper, at least we knew that the occasional typos were just mistakes, NOT what the reporting staff believes is correct spelling. Here?... not so much. ;-) Also - "choice of words" on these (web) pages is juvenile - "lodged" in place of "jailed" (or "held by police"). They apparently think Holiday Inn is equivalent to Washtenaw Sheriff's Jail. Funny- if it happened on a high school newsletter.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 3:48 p.m.

Typos and usage errors. My, my.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 11:55 a.m.

IN ADDITION....... "Steinberg said there have been instances where male police officers abuse the camera systems, such as using them to harass ex-wives and girlfriends. " Way to go picking THAT as an example. The crime that was committed here....was "MISUSE OF OFFICIAL POLICE EQUIPMENT." What this yahoo has implied is EXACTLY the same as saying "Oh well if we give the officers GUNS they might use them to harass ex-wives and girlfriends." Those cameras are EXACTLY the same as a firearm in that it is a tool that police use and is intended to be used in the CORRECT manner. I'm sorry but this guy has done nothing to convince us that these cameras would be an "invasion of privacy." In fact because of the specific kind of weak arguments he used to prop up his point, I'm convinced otherwise...that these camera probably have little to no real threat of invasion of privacy. If they were a real threat...then he could cite legitimate examples....not rare exceptions to the rule....


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 6:34 p.m.

As you see, a few people can't read George Orwell's books without going into neurotic paroxysms of fear. (But they also think Aldous Huxley's Brave New World with universal "tranquilizing" is just a nice proposal for greater availability of marijuana..)


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 11:49 a.m.

If the cameras are filming PUBLIC in the WORLD is that bad or even REMOTELY an invasion of privacy? If that camera was aimed INTO the window of someone's house then YES...that would be wrong...but is that where the camera is aimed? ALSO....even IF they were to use the camera to record something INSIDE someone's house do you think they'd even TRY to use that in court? That right there would be BEYOND a constitutional violation.....on top of the hornet nest it would be kicking by "exposing" to the public this kind of practice by law enforcement.


Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 10:30 p.m.

I'm going to follow you around and film everything you do in public. It won't REMOTELY resemble an invasion of your privacy.

Basic Bob

Wed, Dec 26, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.

As long as "most people" and the supreme court don't mind, it is OK? What is the use of thousands of surveillance cameras when the net effect has been to challenge a false arrest and take a snapshot of a previously identified suspect? The only purpose is to scare the general populace into believing that Big Brother is watching them. Most of us still enjoy the illusion of freedom.