With 120 surveillance cameras watching its streets and sidewalks, Lancaster city has already been called the most watched city in the nation.

And 45 more cameras soon will be installed.

A new group is calling on the city and the public to stop the expansion of the camera system.

The Lancaster Coalition for Sensible Security, a recently formed group sponsored by the Lancaster Coalition for Peace and Justice, wants to put a lens cap on the seven-year-old Lancaster Community Safety Coalition.

"We want to call for a moratorium on the camera system until there are some laws in place to govern it," said Brian Coulter, who spoke on the coalition's behalf at a public meeting Sunday at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Lancaster, 538 W. Chestnut St.

Sensible Security Coalition members raised a litany of objections to the cameras before an audience of about 65 people.

They did so without opposing views. Although the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition — the group that operates the camera system — was contacted, no one from the organization attended the meeting.

Executive Director Joe Morales was at a conference in Florida, and the board chairwoman was also unavailable, Morales said Friday.

In their absence, Sensible Security Coalition members sought to shift the public discussion of cameras from one of safety and security to one of privacy and civil liberties.

They also sought to refute the claims made by camera backers.

Security Coalition organizer Bill Adams disputed the claim that cameras stop crime.

Adams said Great Britain began installing surveillance cameras in the 1990s. But with 4.2 million cameras now in place, studies have not shown any difference in crime rates between communities with cameras and those without, Adams said.

He said only 3 percent of British crimes had been solved by camera evidence.

"Cameras don't stop crime. If that were true, people wouldn't rob Turkey Hills," audience member Andrew Marker later commented.

Coulter attempted to refute the assertion that people do not, and should not, expect privacy when they are in a public place, such as walking on a city sidewalk.

With the extensive camera system in the city, there is "blanket surveillance," he said. That means monitors can use a series of cameras in different locations to watch people as they travel through the city, rather than seeing just a video snapshot of one location. Coulter called it the equivalent of video stalking.

"Nobody would like it if I followed behind them 10 or 15 feet with a video camera," Coulter said.

Keith Staman objected to the view that if someone is doing nothing wrong, then they should not be concerned about the cameras on poles and buildings above them.

"It turns the whole legal system on its head and says that you're guilty until proven innocent," Staman said of camera monitors watching all the people all the time.

Renee Baumgartner said she fears that facial-recognition software could be added to the camera system. With a database of drivers' license photos, monitors would instantly know the identities of people walking down a sidewalk, along with their ages, addresses and other personal information, she said.

"I really believe that you will find this in these cameras in the future if we don't do something to stop it," Baumgartner said. She called for legislation that would bar the use of facial-recognition software with Lancaster's camera system.

Security coalition members said that unlike audio wiretapping, video surveillance has no laws to regulate it. And, they said, there is no public oversight of the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition because it is a nonprofit organization that is not answerable to the police, elected officials or voters.

Even so, the presentation failed to change some minds.

"If I had the ability, I would donate so that I could have three cameras on my street," said the first person from the audience to speak.

"I'm not an alarmist and I totally support the use of cameras," said the man, who identified himself only as Greg.

District Judge Cheryl Hartman also said she would gladly have cameras on her street.

"I understand your concerns, but I don't see this having a chilling effect on my life," Hartman said of being watched.

Jim Groff, speaking on behalf of the security coalition, emphasized that the group's concern is the erosion of civil liberties.

"We're not deaf to the people who support cameras," Groff said. "We want to work with the community to find the best solution for Lancaster."

Barry Russell, also of the security coalition, said the town meeting was the first of several the group plans to hold to discuss the issue.

E-mail: bharris@lnpnews.com