Surveillance sets UMass, police at odds

NORTHAMPTON - A Hampshire Superior Court judge has ordered that the University of Massachusetts cease all unnecessary audio recording in its police station immediately.

Not a problem, according to an attorney for UMass, who said no unwarranted recording has occurred.

Judge Mary-Lou Rup ordered the hold Wednesday afternoon at a hearing to determine the course of action to settle a dispute between UMass police and the university over the surveillance system at the police station. Police claim that the security cameras in place throughout the station building can record confidential and private conversations with family or confidential informants outside of interviews or booking procedures, which are always recorded.

According to attorney Thomas A. Kenefick, representing the UMass police, about 32 security cameras are in the station building, which opened in April 2011. In late January, a dispatcher discovered that the cameras have built-in audio capabilities that allow them to record and transmit audio.

Kenefick said that using the system software, the audio capabilities of those cameras can be activated at any time and can record conversations without the knowledge of those being recorded. This would violate the state wiretapping statute.

Kenefick said that only the security cameras in the interview and booking areas should be able to record audio, and that audio recorded elsewhere violates the privacy of the officers in the building and can interfere with confidential police work.

Kenefick is seeking a permanent solution to the recording of the cameras, by either physically disabling the audio capabilities or, barring that, replacing the cameras outright.

Jean Kelley, attorney for UMass said, "As far as we know, there has never been any audio recording outside of detention and booking."

Kelley said the interview and booking rooms already have their own microphones to record those procedures. She said the cameras are integrated units, and she does not know if the audio functions can be disabled without destroying the devices.

Kenefick said that simply covering the cameras' audio input with tape or some other blocking material would be ineffective at muting conversations.

In the meantime, Rup said that she will take the matter of the cameras themselves under advisement and rule at a later date.

Comments

Well...

I think she's saying the audio has been turned off but can't be permanently disabled. Creepy place to work, though, where the boss can see and hear every conversation you have. And what are the chances that something that *can* be done won't be done?

Someone doesn't know the law. Wait, it is the Law !

It appears that the Universitys lawyer is talking in circles and not telling the whole truth. No surprise there, from a lawyer whose client is dead wrong.....

Part 1 - Jean Kelley, attorney for UMass said, "As far as we know, there has never been any audio recording outside of detention and booking."

Part 2 - Kelly said the cameras are integrated units, and she does not know if the audio functions can be disabled without destroying the devices.

If they can't be disabled, then they have been recording the whole time (almost a year). Those would be great recordings to get a hold of.

Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us | Help Center | FAQ | Subscribe to the Gazette | Advertising
Daily Hampshire Gazette © 2011 All rights reserved