A federal plan to build a line of video-surveillance towers along the Northeast Kingdom’s border with Canada has raised questions of the balance between security and privacy.
The proposal, detailed earlier this month by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, calls for eight camera sites across the towns of Derby, Franklin, Highgate, Richford and Troy — along with two sites in Champlain, New York.
Under the agency’s preferred plan, towers equipped with video cameras would be installed in Derby, Franklin, Richford and Troy. Antennas bearing the equipment would be added to existing buildings in the village of Derby Line and in Highgate.
Each tower would hold four cameras, with two remote-control devices split between them, allowing an operator to swivel 360 degrees horizontally and 180 degrees vertically.
The cameras, part of a broader program used by federal agents since 1996, would capture both standard and infrared images, day and night.
Federal officials say they began talking with state, local and tribal agencies about the idea in December 2018.
The surveillance system would let the agency watch over remote, rural areas without sending Border Patrol agents into the field, according to a draft document detailing the plan.
“Without the 24/7 surveillance capability, there is the probability that cross-border violations will increase,” the draft says.
But some local officials, though not opposed to the idea, believe it could give rise to fears about privacy.
VTDigger is underwritten by:
“If they can take these cameras and aim them right straight at the border without infringing on people’s privacy rights, I think that’s OK,” said state Rep. Brian Smith, R-Derby, who is also vice chair of the Derby Selectboard.
If the cameras were recording residents going about their business, he said, it would be an “invasion of privacy.”
A Customs and Border Protection spokesperson, Mike Niezgoda, declined to respond to a question about privacy concerns. He did, however, email a series of links to documents and what appeared to be sections of an FAQ page, but none pertained to the issue of privacy.
The tower proposed in Smith’s town would be 120 feet tall, according to the draft plan, standing in a grassy stretch referred to as Letourneau Field.
“Rolling topography, vegetation and trees, farmsteads and power lines would partially obscure the (surveillance) tower from vantage points along the existing roads in this sector,” the draft says, noting that a small wind turbine attached to a nearby silo similarly does not detract from the rural vista.
A 5-foot pole would be attached to the existing border crossing facility in Derby, too.
Smith said he thinks Border Patrol agents in the area do good work, and he likes their presence in Derby. But he wants to know more about what exactly the cameras will be pointed at and wishes federal officials would meet more with the local selectboard.
He said the board hasn’t yet been approached about the tower proposal.
Troy Selectboard chair Robert Langlands said federal officials haven’t talked to his town, either.
The draft plan proposes first setting up a temporary mobile tower at a vacant duty-free store, east of the border crossing in the village of North Troy. The temporary tower, which could extend up to 84 feet, would then be replaced by a fixed, 120-foot structure, the document says.
“The addition of a … tower, though taller than the surrounding vertical elements, would be compatible with existing features and expected to occur as part of the technologically advanced suite of equipment at modern ports of entry/international crossing,” says the draft.
Langlands said the proposed site isn’t central to the village, but the tower’s visual impact would be based on how tall it will be. He too said he is interested in knowing how much the camera equipment would capture and whether it might infringe on people’s sense of privacy.
Still, he said he understands border officials’ aim with the project. “It’s just a long, wooden border, so it’s easy,” he said of illegal crossing.
State Sen. Russ Ingalls, R-Essex/Orleans, said the video system could lessen the caseload of Border Patrol agents.
VTDigger is underwritten by:
“If they can visualize without having to rush out there, it saves on everything,” said Ingalls, whose Senate district includes tower sites in Derby, Troy and Richford. “It saves on gas; it saves on people power.”
Like Smith, Ingalls said that if the cameras are solely used to monitor the border line, he has no concerns about the proposal.
But, he said, “if these towers were in any way observing citizens, or if they were on the interstate watching speeding cars … I would have a problem with that.”
Ingalls said he’s sure some area residents will take issues with the plans. Vermont communities have a history of fighting efforts to build cellphone towers and similar infrastructure.
“I will say this — good luck to them,” Ingalls said. “We know how people feel about towers.”
The draft document — an environmental assessment that found no significant impact from the project — entered a 30-day public comment period last week.
The federal agency says people must submit comments by March 15.
The cost of the rollout is unclear, but the agency asked for $32.9 million from Congress for the nationwide remote video surveillance system in its 2021 fiscal year budget. That budget also notes a $1.9 million decrease in operations and maintenance costs for the northern border portion of the system — for a total ask of $7.7 million — because of delays in deploying the system in Vermont and northern New York.
Stay on top of all of Vermont's criminal justice news. Sign up here to get a weekly email with all of VTDigger's reporting on courts and crime.
"along" - Google News
February 19, 2021 at 03:58AM
https://ift.tt/37sy5lN
Feds propose video surveillance towers along Canadian border - vtdigger.org
"along" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2z4LAdj
https://ift.tt/35rGyU8
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Feds propose video surveillance towers along Canadian border - vtdigger.org"
Post a Comment