| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Cameras that caught Stockholm blast ordered down |
| 2010-12-22 |
| A shopkeeper who handed police video footage of the Stockholm suicide bombing says he will think twice before helping authorities again after being ordered to dismantle his security cameras for lacking the right permit. Naresh Lakhwani owns a watch store in the downtown shopping district where the bomber blew himself up and injured two people on Dec. 11. Lakhwani said Tuesday that security cameras he had installed outside the store caught the bomber on tape before the explosion and he didn't hesitate to hand it over to police. "I have pretty much the whole sequence of events on there, with the bomber running up and down the street," Lakhwani said. He said investigators were grateful for the tape, but that didn't stop the County Administrative Board, which handles permits for security cameras, to take action. A legal expert at the board, Cecilia Forssell, said it had ordered Lakhwani to remove the equipment after receiving several complaints from people who had seen his surveillance video in Swedish media. She said no one is questioning his decision to hand over the material to police, but the placement of the four cameras on a busy pedestrian street. "This location is sensitive in terms of integrity," Forssell said. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 Frank, permits generally involve fees, and probably the board wasn't collecting its fees, hence their indignation. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-12-22 10:28 |
| #3 that's a pretty big leap, Moose. His cameras were his own security cameras (a watch store also usually has jewelry) and not, apparently, connected to a wider network for prurient snoopey voyeurism. I'd say the Board should issue him the permits on the spot and STFU |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-12-22 10:09 |
| #2 I see the Administrative Board's point, and wonder if it should be the wave of the future in the west. That is, Britain is just covered with cameras, with grotesque Big Brother, but ineffective, voyeurism. Since nobody but a clinical moron can spend all day staring at dozens of camera monitors, without going crackers, they have reached the point where they are paying citizens to monitor other citizens, via the Internet, for rewards if they see anything unlawful. This is just plain wrong. Terribly sorry if the intensely paranoid and invasive among us need their rush of thinking that they can peer at anyone whenever they want, that it will give them *power*. The truth of the matter is that it is just dehumanizing, and diverts resources away from law enforcement and anti-terrorism. Britain is using cameras, which catch almost nobody, as an excuse to lay off policemen, who *do* catch criminals. So the bottom line should be that there need to be a few cameras in public, usually to watch crowds, and people should feel free to monitor their own property. But otherwise, there needs to be a local controlling authority with a bias to not putting cameras everywhere. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-12-22 09:10 |
| #1 They caught the boomer, so there's no need for the cameras anymore! I mean, rules are rules! Sad. But it happens here all the time, too. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2010-12-22 06:11 |