Small Town Rejects Surveillance Proposals

By Carlton Purvis, Published Jul 08, 2013, 12:00am EDT (Info+)

For many local governments, one of the first reactions to an increase in crime is the call for more surveillance cameras. Last month, however, a small town in South Dakota decided that adding cameras just wasn’t worth the cost. For this update we talked to city officials and reviewed the proposals the town received when it considered installing security cameras.

Background

Earlier this year, the city of Dell Rapids, South Dakota, population 3,600, started receiving complaints about vandalism occurring at businesses and private property located near the city park. A few Dell Rapids citizens appealed to the city to put up surveillance cameras to deter activity in the area at night and possibly provide evidence of who was responsible.

The city took the complaints seriously and looked into the cost of purchasing three cameras -- two for the city park and one for a nearby block. The city had around $5,000 to spend.

The Proposals

The city received two proposals for the work.

The first proposal, from Safe-N-Secure Security Equipment suggested three 2MP bullet cameras with integrated IR ($985/each [link no longer available]), 32GB of SD storage and wireless routers. The total cost would be $5,767. Deputies, would have the ability to view live footage from their vehicles only when within range of the routers. See below.

*** ********** **** ** ***** **** to ******* * *** **** *** the ******* ** *** *** **** view ** *** ****. **** ******** *** much ** *** ***** ****, ********* ** an ***** **** *** ********** ** the ****.

********* ********, ********** ******** *******, ***., ** **** ********, ******** ***** 1MP *******, **** ** ** *******, and ******* *** ********. *** ******** price: $*,***. **** ******** *** *** include ******** ******. ** ** ***** ** the **** ***** **** *** ********, Dakota ******** ******* ********* ** ******* *** difference **** ******, “****** **** **** the ******* **** ** *** ********* use *** *********** **********. ** *** ****** **** quote ** ******* *** **** ******* that *** *********** ** *******, *******, I ***'* ***** *** ***** ** happy **** ****." 

* *****, **** ****** ******** **** from * **** ******** ****** * recent ******* *******, ******* *** **** ****** *******. *** ****'* ******* ******* ******** *** **** just ******* ****** ****** ** *** park *********. "**** ** ***’** ** officer ******* **, *** *** *** if *****’* ******** ** *** ******** because *** ******** ** **," *** was ******. 

*******

** *** ***, *** **** ***** not ** ******* *** *******. “*** issues ****’* **** ******* ** ******* the **** ** **** *** ***** cameras,” **** * **** ******** * spoke ** ***** **** ******* ******* against ****** *******.

“** ***'* **** *** ********* *** there ***** ** ***** ******** **** to * ******* ** * ***. It *** ****** *** ** * mesh *******, ***** ***** ** ********* or *** * ******** ****** ***** the ****** ** **** ****** *** within * ******* ******** **** *** see *** ******, *** **** ****** would **** ** ** *** *****. It ***** **** ** ** **** in **, *** ** ***** **** really **** ** **** ***** *** an ********, ** ** ***** ** reactive ****** **** *********,” ** ****. 

*******, *** **** ** ****** ****** lights ** *** *********.

IPVM ********

*******, **** **** **** ********** ****** (at $*,*** *** ******), ******** ** cities *** ********* ***** $**,***+ *** camera. ******* ****, *** **** ***** still *** ******* **.

**** ******* ***** ********** *** ****'* goal ** ******** *** **** ** night, *******, ** ******* ** ** integrated ** ****** ** ** ******** low ***** ****** ******* ** (*** Axis ***********). ***** **** *** *** the ******** ******, ** ** ** increasingly *********** *** ** ******** ** the ***** ****** *** *** ***** similar.

*** ****** ***** *** ** ********* to * ****** ******** ******* ******* the **** **** *** **** ***. A **** ******** **** ******* * mesh ******* ** ******* ***** ******* *** not ** ******, *** ** **** already *** ***, *** ***** *** system, *** *******, ** ** **** likely *** ******* ***** **** **** added. *******, ****** * ********** ***** for * ****/**** ** *,*** ***** be * ************ *** ** *** money.

Comments (2)

They systems may have been reasonably priced, but would they have been happy with them? No, I don't think so. What would they have had to do to view the cameras... configure their laptops to connect to the wireless routers each time they were in range? Will someone be in charge of making sure each laptop that would be used ould be properly configured and setup in such a small city with such small resources? And why wireless routers and not wireless bridges? If they meant bridges or access points but called them routers, what does that say about the installer..?

I think they city made the right decision. If they don't have the money to install a better system, don't install a jury rig.

I think a 4G enabled trail cam could be an interesting option for such situations, like Buckeye Cam or Reconyx

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports