> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Mixed vibes for the ‘eye on the pole’
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/mixed-vibes-for-the-eye-on-the-pole/
- Published: 2002-08-23T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T00:41:38.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Promenade, #archive-import, Homeless

Last week, Q-Line asked: “City officials are considering installing cameras at various intersections throughout the city to bust motorists running red lights... Are these surveillance cameras necessary. Do you think our privacy is compromised when ‘Big Brother’ is watching?”

Here are your responses: ■ “Surveillance cameras are necessary if we want to punish motorists rather than minimize traffic accidents at selected intersections on major streets. A parked police car or a patrolling police cruiser would be cheaper, less intrusive and good use of police presence and law enforcement.

Surveillance cameras on the Promenade would make our visitors from England feel right at home. Surveillance cameras on the beach would eliminate the problem of undercover officers getting sand in their shoes while investigating suspicious beachgoers. Maybe the camera could focus on the smokers epidemic that now threatens our children in city parks.

Are there any significant crime statistics to justify, economically and socially, the ‘Eye on the Pole’ 24/7?

Wouldn’t a wide-ranging public referendum (with citizens actually getting the opportunity to propose alternative traffic control/people surveillance techniques) be more appropriate now than rushing to create a surveillance bureaucracy that would be a ‘cash cow’ for city budget planners later?” ■ “There is no reason for the city to allocate more funding during a budget crisis for these ridiculous cameras. First of all, when a person is pulled over for a traffic violation, the ticket they sign does not mean they are guilty but innocent until proven guilty. When you are sent a ticket through the mail, it pretty much says you are guilty. This is a total violation of our rights to due process. Second, if we allow cameras to be placed in Santa Monica, we will be opening the door to ‘Big Brother.’ In this time of war, we must be vigilant in our preservation of rights. They are being taken away every day. Did you know that federal officers can knock down your door without a warrant? Thank you John Ashcroft. We must not give up ground. We must protect our right to privacy. Third, if a driver knows that there is a camera at a coming intersection and they see the light turn yellow they will brake hard not to go through, which will result in more rear end collisions. If you want people to slow down, have a strong police presence. This is an imperfect system, run by imperfect people. We should not waste our money on these cameras.” ■ “These cameras are not an invasion of privacy. We expect the police to be everywhere we need them, when we need them. This is not realistic thinking. Think of how many times people have been injured or killed by someone running a red light. Now the police will have it on film. Think of the times when a child has been kidnapped. Now the police have a chance of seeing the person taking the child on film. Think about armed robberies when the bad guy is driving away at high rates of speed and runs a red light. Now the police will have his license number. This is nothing more than a tool that will be used to deter crime. You do not have an expectation of privacy when you are risking the lives of others. The police cannot look into your car with these cameras. I don’t see any civil libertarians lining up to work for the police force and risk their lives, do you?” ■ “Video surveillance can be a useful tool for law enforcement, but it is not necessary in this town. We don’t need to spend $5 million on a fancy camera system just to give Chief Butts another excuse to hide his officers behind desks. We have hired a record number of police officers, yet they are assigned to task forces instead of being deployed for permanent patrol. Physical presence of officers is always the best means of crime prevention. We don’t need a secret police force handing out traffic tickets. As a taxpayer, I wonder, would any of the video on Third Street be used to clean up the place? Prosecute the homeless for trespassing, loitering, littering, drinking or using the public sidewalks as an adult motel, washroom and toilet? Not likely. Our city prosecutor has no interest in cleaning up blight. ‘They have rights,’ she protests. As a result, the police rarely enforce any laws against them. Other cities enjoy crime-free streets without resorting to video surveillance. Why? Because they don’t tolerate the presence of scum in the first place. Wake up Santa Monica!”

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 23, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/082302.pdf?ref=smdp.com)