Last year the federal government awarded $335 million in non-profit security grants and here in New Jersey, the State made available grants of $25,000 for security personnel and an additional $100,000 for “target hardening equipment” including cameras, software, credential badges providing facility access and communication equipment. Lakewood Township also made available $10,000 grants for eligible businesses.
The vast majority of Lakewood schools took advantage of available funding with most investing in security cameras, not only as a deterrent but also to record incidents that may take place on school grounds.
In the wake of two troubling incidents over the last few weeks, some schools are rethinking their decision and have begun dismantling their camera systems and removing recording equipment.
On two occasions over that period, the Ocean County Prosecutor's office was called upon to conduct investigations into allegations of impropriety at two different locations. In both cases the Prosecutor's office left with recordings of those incidents, effectively removing the decision to prosecute or not from the owners and leaving the decision solely in the hands of authorities.
An informal survey found that approximately 30% of all schools and other security grant recipients have begun removing cameras and recording equipment inside of their facilities. Most are not removing equipment that monitors activities on the surrounding grounds.
6 comments:
So of course those schools will give the money back to the Feds and Lakewood Township.
Removal doesn't mean they are profiting from them.
They were not made aware at time of acquiring all the terms and conditions
What are these mysterious two troubling incidents?
Are you saying the authorities were able to get the footage without the owners’ consent? How? Did they have warrants?
That is not about terms and conditions. Law enforcement agents always have a right to view security footage. What troubles me is the push-back from the schools. If their allegations are not founded, they have nothing to worry about. But if there is something that is in fact grounds for prosecution, why would they want to circumvent the prosecution?
What are the disturbing instances that prompted this?
Post a Comment