Shawn "Kwip" Williams’s Comments

• Aug 21st, 2009 @ 7:05am

  Re: Re: Sigh...

  on Convicted Stalker Was Approved By Lancaster To Manage Surveillance Cameras
  Actually, crime here is not average. Granted, I'm basing my statements on the 2003 FBI statistics, as they are the most recent ones I have access to. If you have more current statistics, please feel free to correct me. I haven't been able to find any reliable data more recent, so I apologize for that.
  
  From the FBI statistics for 2003:
  Murder Is 1.88 times the National Average
  Forcible Rape Is 1.83 times the National Average
  Robbery Is 2.01 times the National Average
  Aggravated Assault Is 1.32 times the National Average
  All Violent Crime Is 1.67 times the National Average
  
  We are above the average on all counts.
  
  Secondly, I never claimed how effective they are - merely that they have scored a number of wins. And they have been used as evidence in a number of cases - granted, the only evidence I have of that is from the LNP site itself, but I never claimed anything more.
  
  Finally, I don't disagree that the program's been handled irresponsibly. I definitely think there needs to be a plan for governance, and that this needs work. I wasn't trying to state anything contrary - I was trying to explain that we (as a city) didn't enter into this blindly nodding our heads as the piper played on. The decision was made without public input, and the debate about it continues.
• Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:27am

  Sigh...

  on Convicted Stalker Was Approved By Lancaster To Manage Surveillance Cameras
  I know I'm not the only Lancaster resident to read Techdirt (since I discuss it often & share links with other co-workers and friends), but I guess I'm the only one foolish enough to throw my hat into these discussions.
  
  I'd just like to point out (again) that this is not some group-think Orwellian town where we all blindly follow whatever the government puts before us. The camera issue is (and will probably always be) one that is highly controversial. It is a subject of great debate here in town, and while only the 'bad' or 'sensational' aspects seem to ever reach the wider masses, the cameras have scored a lot of wins for law enforcement (and for keeping us, the residents, safe). Yes, I know we can debate 'but at what cost?' till we're blue in the face (and believe me, there's so many blue faces in town you'd think they were filming a Braveheart sequel). But the sad truth is that this isn't a black & white issue.
  
  Lancaster is a small city fighting a very serious crime problem. We're trying to do it the best way we can, even if the popular opinion of some of those ways can (and should) be debated. But please don't paint us (or our wonderful city) as brainwashed masses that don't know (or worse, don't care) about important issues such as freedom and government limits.
  
  And for the record - the 'stalker' is a she, not a he. I know we can all get on our politically correct soapboxes and decry how it doesn't matter, but it'd be nice if folks would actually read the article before making snide comments (on the interweb? I must be mad!).
• Jun 23rd, 2009 @ 5:32am

  Very little debate? (as kwip)

  on Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
  As a resident of Lancaster, I'm more than a little amused that the article says there was "little public debate." Granted, it's from the LA Times, so maybe if there aren't burning cars and firebombed buildings it doesn't quite count, but there has been a great deal of debate about those cameras. We are fighting a rapidly growing gang crime problem (what city isn't?), so on one hand the cameras are good to have - and contrary to what the article reports, there have been a number of crimes that were caught in that act and stopped by a quick response from the police force. Of course that makes it hard to say no to them - but there have also been a lot of concerns about a number of the cameras that point right into people's homes. Then it's no longer an issue of 'public' areas, but private areas that have no business being on camera. Even the border areas - someone's front door - are questionable. But if that someone is suspected of dealing drugs, should they get afforded the same privacy (yes, I know, they SHOULD, because they're only *suspected* - but we're dealing with the real world here, not idealized concepts)? Blah.
  
  Anyway, the subject is still being debated here. Obviously the people that oppose the idea are being railroaded, because the camera installation continues to expand, but it's not like they went around hanging cameras willy-nilly and all of us (and the Amish) cruise by them and give them thumbs up. This article revealing the 'amateur' status of the program's monitors (and gaining national exposure) is sure to open up another round of debates and probably a lawsuit or three...