To the Editor,

How much privacy are Warwick residents willing to forego in order to

gain some additional safety from police surveillance cameras?  Is the

tradeoff a worthwhile transaction?  At what point might government

monitoring of residents' activities increase to the oppressive state

envisioned in George Orwell's dystopian tale, "1984"?

These are questions Warwick residents should be asking as the city

council considers approving Warwick Police Chief Brad Connor's request to

install ten surveillance cameras at various key locations around Warwick.

Police says the proposed cameras aren't for "surveillance" since they

won't be monitored by police in real-time; instead they just record

activities that can be reviewed later as needed.  Does that matter?

Whether police watch our activity as it occurs or a day later, it's still

surveillance of our citizens-99.999% of whom are doing nothing wrong.

Warwick's mayor, Frank Picozzi, says we have nothing to worry about if

we're doing nothing wrong.  The worry isn't about being caught doing

something wrong.  It's the justified worry that our every movement is being

captured by government; that what little privacy we have left is being

stripped from us.

As a former police officer, I understand the need for safety and

security.  However, there is a tipping point at which gaining a tiny bit of

security at the expense of giving up a great deal of privacy just isn't

worth it.  With surveillance cameras proliferating throughout our country,

we are approaching the "government is always watching" level found in

totalitarian countries.

Ben Franklin's quote, though not meant in exactly the same context as

most writers use it, is still appropriate here: "Those who would give up

essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither

Liberty nor Safety."

Lonnie Barham

Warwick