There is a significant and fundamental difference between public and private property, of which, that difference is the fact that private property is not permitted to be surveilled by the government, unless a properly issued warrant has been put into effect; whereas, public property because it is governmentally owned can be subject to intrusive surveillance, sold under the aegis that this is for public safety, and for crime control.
While there may well be a significant portion of those that live in governmental public housing who appreciate being surveilled for their protection, the problem is that the control of that surveillance and the monitoring, so of, is virtually never in the resident’s hands, but rather is in the control of the government and what the government does or does not do, would appear to be at their discretion, which means that those living in public projects are being surveilled, which thus places them essentially into a fishbowl to be examined, monitored, and dealt with.
So too, when it comes to surveillance and the laws of the land, surveillance is going to permit governmental authorities to have video documented evidence of crimes that have been committed, ranging from serious crimes to crimes that are not only trivial, but often are the type of crimes that are ignored or of little concern to those residing in private housing. In other words, because of this surveillance, it becomes rather easy for the government to concentrate and to target certain residents that they consider to be troubling, not from a true crime perspective, but from the perspective that they are too vocal, complain too much, or are trying to engage other residents in some sort of formal complaint against the public housing authority.
This therefore is one of the main reasons why those being surveilled, aren’t going to appreciate such, because they are thus put into the unenviable position of being susceptible to being arrested or harassed for trivial violations, which could result in their removal, or at a minimum, quiet their voice, which thus means that their freedom has been restricted, which doesn’t seem fair or right, all done under the supposed need to surveil residents for their protection and safety.
The problem with video cameras that are on 24/7 is that they are not only on 24/7, which makes them to be ever monitoring those that are in their view, but that there isn’t ever any relief from that monitoring, and thing about human nature, is that people, need to have space to do their thing, of which, some of those things are going to be considered violations of some part of the criminal code, but in actuality, aren’t really harming anyone or anything. This would indicate that those surveilling public housing should be subject to some sort of residential feedback, review, or pushback, or else that surveillance will be seen for what it truly represents, which is the control and the monitoring of those residents in public housing, as the taxation and price that they have to pay in order to live there.