Bird Dogs and Lap Dogs: Restroom Camera Facts

[XLFD]

"Stick to the Facts in Rest Room Camera Debate" reads the title in the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) editorial for Friday, August 30, 2013.  This is an indication to critical readers of this amusing paper that some facts are soon to be mangled.  The three editors of that newspaper, Steve Begnoche, Patsi Klevorn, and Jeffrey Evans, first mangling of the facts is by using the term "rest room" instead of "restroom".  Look it up people, it's one word.  Use "lavatory" next time if you remember how to spell that.  But here's some more critiques on the COLDNews fact-o-meter.

COLDNews Fact One (top of 2nd column):  "The cameras were first approved years prior due to vandalism and complaints of criminal activity in the rest rooms at James Street and Waterfront Park"  

Reality:  Approval by the City Council was never received for the installation of either of these two camera systems, check out the minutes on demand, and do searches for cameras, surveillance, vandalism, James, Waterfront, etc. and you will note that there was never approval by the City Council, although it was brought up on the August 14, 2000 meeting, where: 

 

 

This was the reported in the COLDNews, by current editorial boarder, Patsi Klevorn:

 

 

One would think that if former City Manager Jim Miller, who oversaw the installation of both systems without formal approval by the City, wanted to curb people from backing up the toilets, he would not be concerned if his cameras were pointed at the toilets, as they are now, and have been for years since the City has officially said they have not tinkered with it since then:

 

 

It should also be noted, that acts of vandalism is the only crime mentioned in justifying these intrusive cameras.  What is a little lost privacy, when you can find out who's throwing toilet paper wads and plugging toilets?

 

COLDNews Fact Two (third column):  "The City has eight public bathrooms and cameras-- or fake cameras-- in two of them.  They're pointed at common areas as allowed by State law and done elsewhere..."  Although they rightly point out a website (not the Torch) that has mangled the facts as presented before, they present a list of 'facts' that their only 'proof' presented is that they have taken the word of City Manager John Shay as gospel truth. 

Reality:  Has the COLDNews editors looked thoroughly at the other bathrooms, have they looked at the camera footage, do they know what the State law says?  The City believes they have the ability to put these cameras in restrooms legally and without approval at public meetings, without a thorough investigation, who's to say cameras are not hidden elsewhere.  The big lies here are in that second sentence; if you had a camera on your penis and turned around at the men's urinal you see this:

 

 

It's the center of attention, and when you look up from urinating at the toilet there, you see a hidden camera lens pointed at you in the center of your stall, while the unhidden one has got your back:

 

 

State law has almost the same amount of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary that this is allowed.  MCL 750.539(j) says: A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both. 

Common areas of bathrooms have often been verified in court as places where a person has an expectation of some privacy.  These cameras, however, go farther.

 

COLDNews Fact Three (bottom of column 3):  "Law abiding citizens who use the comfort stations for what they are provided for have nothing to fear or be concerned about due to the cameras."

 

Reality:  To the point:  law-abiding people expect their government officials to OBEY THE LAW and keep cameras out of their private business.  Law-abiding people use these bathrooms for a lot of purposes where they don't want to have their privacy violated.  One can rightly fear where the camera footage winds up and whether they can be hacked into or utilized by a rogue city employee for their own or other people's perverted enjoyment.  A law abiding citizen not having reasonable suspicion about their activities can be concerned about the blatant Fourth Amendment violation posed by these cameras looking at them when they are guiltless and want to apply some Preparation H or change a tampon.  Yeah, those Fourth Amendment rights that Ludington police have allegedly violated against two citizens in recent years leading to federal lawsuits both of which will be settled this year (Burns v Sailor  and McAdams v Warmuskerken, et. al. found delineated in full at the Ludington Torch).

 

COLDNews Fact Four (column four):  "(Some signs were in place, some were missing early Thursday; Shay said some of the missing ones were being replaced.)

 

Reality:  There was one sign in place outside of a bathroom in plain view of an outdoor camera, so besides a "surveillance camera" sticker at the bottom of one men's room mirror (when two cameras were in the room), there was no signs anywhere on early Thursday.  The signs I have heard have not been there for years, and never before in memory on the north doors of the Waterfront Park restrooms.

 

COLDNews Fact Five:  "But please, stick to the facts and realize that for more than a decade there's been no concern over the practice..."

 

Reality:  Sounds like it could be an early American argument for slavery.  The Ludington Torch has stuck to the available facts of the matter.  We have been the first and only source to report on what the devices in the Stearn's restrooms are, debunking the premise that these were covert surveillance cameras.  Ignorance is likely the main cause of the apathy over these cameras in the past; few knew they were there, even fewer knew some were in the ventilation system intentionally hidden from view and never discussed or approved by the City Council. 

I rightly fear that these ventilation cameras were surreptitiously placed there for prurient purposes, and the Waterfront cameras recording stall and urinal activity, can and have been reviewed at some point, contrary to the City's assertion that it has never had its footage reviewed before.  I will not be relieved by some COLDNews editors telling me that it's okay because it's been happening for a long time, like it's some kind of legal easement into our Fourth Amendment rights. 

 

And lastly, I wholeheartedly approve of their characterization of me as someone "who bird dogs everything the City does"  (first column).  This would mean I follow, watch carefully, or investigate what the City does-- which is appropriate, because I believe the City has unethical leadership and policies, almost all of which is unreported on by what should be our watchdog, our press.  I would only hope that the COLDNews and their offspring at the Mason County Press would bird dog the City one of these days, instead of being journalists "who are lap dogs for everything the City does."  This would mean they are servile dependents or followers as regards City policy and officials.

 

But for another laugher, read the COLDNews report below on a beach "rest room" (two words again) having a  humidity detector (it's not) in it.  It also claims the tapes were not looked at for the MSP investigation (in contradiction to the above editorial), that I used all my five minutes on the placement of these cameras (I started off with a plea to be able to one again defend my FOIA appeals before the council as I was told I could by the City Attorney), the City Attorney talking some unrelated  year 1989 interpretations of year 2004 state laws and other unnamed older court rulings, and a false interpretation of the 2004 law.  

 

Rest room has humidity detector, not camera in beach rest room

Brian Mulherin - Daily News Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Ludington City Councilors Monday night affirmed the city’s Freedom of Information Act coordinator’s response to Tom Rotta that would require him to pay the costs of having video from the city’s public restrooms at Waterfront Park reviewed by a staff member. 

Although the tapes are covered by FOIA, Shay said the possibility exists that someone changed clothes in the common area of the restrooms on the weekend Rotta inquired about, so the city would have to review the tapes at a cost of roughly $140. The city is asking that Rotta pay $70 in advance before the tapes will be reviewed and will only provide the tapes to him after the entire $139 and change has been received.

Asked how often the tapes of the bathrooms had been reviewed, Shay said Chief Mark Barnett reviewed tapes from the James Street Plaza restrooms twice since 2001, both times after vandalism occurred. The third review would be the one at Rotta’s request.

Rotta used his entire five minutes during the public comment period pointing out where cameras are placed. While he stated there are cameras inside smoke detectors at the newly renovated north concession stand at Stearns Park, the city showed the Ludington Daily News the devices are neither smoke detectors nor cameras but humidity detectors and a sensor to turn on fans and lights automatically.

City Attorney Richard Wilson also corrected Rotta’s statements that people should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of a public restroom and said the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court have made three decisions that state just the opposite of Rotta’s claims.

The law allows for cameras in common areas of the restrooms but not the stalls.

The city has had a mix of actual cameras and fake cameras in and around rest rooms, including some placed to view common areas in the Waterfront Park restrooms more than a decade ago after vandalism issues.

 

[XLFD]

"Comfort Stations" are 'rest rooms' that you can excrete in comfort because you know it's all being recorded by the police for your safety and security.

These are good points you put on the table, because VHS tapes do have their limits as recording media, they can hold at most up to 24-48 hrs. of footage in longest time lapse mode, and thus if this is used, you either need to have someone physically change out these tapes at the end of every 1 or 2 days, or have it be able to loop around, so that you have at most the last 48 hours at your disposal.  This last option would still require occasional maintenance, as VHS tapes would be unusable and/or get jammed after a couple months, one would think.

Since we are told VHS tapes are used, one would think the Waterfront bathroom cam footage is split into quadrants for the four bathroom cams presuming they use only one VHS recorder. 

According to wiki, closed-circuit television (CCTV) is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place, on a limited set of monitors.  There is the possibility that one recording VHS machine is not the only receiver of these signals, the signals could be sent and received by anyone whom the LPD have blessed with that capability, or even hacked into by enterprising creeps. 

With all the resulting publicity of this, your bowel movement at the Waterfront Park could be number one in the Nielsen ratings of pervcams. 

 

[Willy]

After 13 years or so of video recording people doing their business it seems there should be quite a few recordings that have been collected. What has happened to all the 13 years of recordings. Possibly in some City employees video collection maybe? They may have reused some of the recording media but I bet some perv is watching the ones not reused, as we speak. The City has a lot to answer for, such as the procedures for recording, viewing, storage, deletion or elimination of all 13 years of recordings. Who is in charge of the recordings? Have they been monitored to assure no hanky panky has been going on? Who has been in charge of the recordings in the women,s bathrooms? A woman I hope. Why didn't the LDN report on the City policies regarding the cameras and their use? If the LDN is going to editorialize then they should gather the facts before once again being the City of Ludington's journalistic lackeys. LDN I have a piece of advice for you. Produce your paper with the public in mind not how you can provide cover for City officials.

[XLFD]

I worked at two facilities as a security officer where we had a surveillance system in recent years.  Both facilities used time lapse VHS taping to record one to four cameras for a 24 hour period.  The tapes would be changed manually and one had about 30 tapes they would cycle through, so that a month's worth of coverage was available on demand, the other facility had a similar system, but did not disclose the amount of tapes used. 

But you can't really record and record over the same VHS tape and get any reasonable product after only a very short while.  Here is an illustrative video of someone recording the same video (Roxette's Fading Like a Flower-- it does!) up to 23 times on the same tape.  Before it's done a dozen times its effectively worthless for identification of just about anything.  Thus even a 'looping' time lapse VHS recording system would still have to be maintained less than every two weeks or you get just a bunch of fuzziness:

[AQUAMAN]

Add to that the fact that VHS tapes are becoming almost impossible to replace or buy now. It's been long out-dated by cd's. On this past Saturday, upon eating a Dave's Dogs meal, I noticed a large truck from out of town posting new signage around the waterfront park bathrooms too. That truck also was blocking the exit out of the one way drive thru. Several cars had to backtrack out via the wrong one way entrance, thus causing more traffic hazards and confusion to boot. I think the only place a camera is warranted around any bathrooms, is outside the doors coming and going. It surely can be evidence of wrong-doers having jollies in vandalism, and is proof enough. Since no major crimes have been caught on the current video system after 16 years, I think it's time to make some major changes to the entire system. It's hard to believe that even this event has COL officials in complete agreement to keep the offensive system intact, and keep violating privacy rights of the public. And lastly as for the LDN, it's editorials are always skewed to the benefactors that advertise so often and expensively. That clearly shows where their loyalty is, in their pocketbooks, not the best interests of the public at large.

[XLFD]

I'll have to check out the new signage.  The City's obstinacy is enhanced by the COLDNews doggish devotion to their causes, no matter what the effect it has on the majority of the people who plunk down pesos to purchase their pablum.  The City will give them easy-to-get news stories with minimal effort, and they will not have to worry about displeasing their other advertisers in the process, or stirring up any real controversy, deserved or not. 

The only thing difficult for the COLDNews' staff would be for them to sleep at nights, I would guess.

[Willy]

That is a very interesting VHS demonstration.

[XLFD]

I, or others, may soon be getting that footage as part of discovery, so why spend the extra money on an edited video when the unedited one will be more enlightening as to the extent of the violations by the City of Ludington. 

EyE, you are correct in noting that the generations from the demonstration are a bit different from what is going on when you record 'new' footage over and over again on the same tape, but I could not find anything that showed such degradation as this one does.  I do know, however, that if VHS recording is done, as the City has indicated, their does need to be significantly more maintenance required than they have said. 

According to the City, the Waterfront Park tapes have never before been accessed/reviewed for over 4000 days.  I find that hard to believe.  I also question the deterrent effect of security cameras that are concealed in vents pointing down into bathroom stalls. 

[AQUAMAN]

I would think that the dispersion of such tapes to the public at no charge, would help substantiate the fact that they are working for the betterment and security of these bathrooms. Instead, we see that the COL continues to thwart any efforts to see what they see in the bathrooms, and/or allows them the time to edit what will and won't be seen by the public. Why pay for edited tapes that virtually have the Shyster Shay stamp of approval? While at the waterfront park last Saturday, I also noticed that a patron male was headed to the bathroom from my picnic table. I mentioned that he should be aware that he will be on candid camera. His wife then quickly replied that those cameras are there to prevent child kidnapping. I replied by asking her when was the last time in 16 years that a child kidnapper was caught on tape? She went mute.

[XLFD]

Good comeback, Aquaman.  One could also note to those who say it will "prevent child kidnapping" that cameras on the outside of the door would be better-placed to capture a good shot of the kidnapper (and kidnappee) who has to use one of either two doors to get out. 

From the camera angle noted inside the bathroom, from the vent or the other, you likely would not get a meaningful shot of the perp.  And due to the laws of our State, the defense could properly claim the interior footage was inadmissible.

The City's usual CYA activity will be followed, and they will depend on their lapdogs to sweep the matter out of the public's consciousness, but I doubt it's going to work for them this time.

[Willy]

Good points Aquaman