Lancaster, Pa. ? This historic town, where America’s founding fathers plotted during the Revolution and Milton Hershey later crafted his first chocolates, now boasts another distinction.

It may become the nation’s most closely watched small city.

Approximately 165 closed-circuit TV cameras soon will provide live, round-the-clock scrutiny of nearly every street, park and other public space used by the 55,000 residents. That’s more outdoor cameras than many major cities, including San Francisco and Boston, currently use.

Unlike anywhere else, cash-strapped Lancaster outsourced its surveillance to a private nonprofit group that hires civilians to tilt, pan and zoom the cameras — and to call police if they spot suspicious activity. No government agency is directly involved.

Perhaps most surprising, the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate of whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy.

“Years ago, there’s no way we could do this,” said Keith Sadler, Lancaster’s police chief. “It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and 1984. It’s just funny how Americans have softened on these issues.”

“No one talks about it,” agreed Scott Martin, a Lancaster county commissioner who wants to expand the program further. “Because people feel safer. Those who are law abiding citizens, they don’t have anything to worry about.”

A few dozen people attended four community meetings held last spring to discuss what sponsors called “this exciting public safety initiative.” But opposition has grown since big red bulbs, which shield the video cameras, began appearing on corner after corner.

Mary Pat Donnellon, head of Mission Research, a local software company, vowed to move if she finds one on her block. “I don’t want to live like that,” she said. “I’m not afraid. And I don’t need to be under surveillance.”

“No one has the right to know who goes in and out my front door,” agreed David Mowrer, a laborer for a company that supplies quarry pits. “That’s my business. That’s not what America is about.”

Hundreds of municipalities — including at least 37 California cities — have built or expanded camera networks since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In most cases, U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants helped cover the cost.

In the most ambitious project, New York City police announced plans several years ago to link 3,000 public and private security cameras across Lower Manhattan to help deter, track or detect terrorists. The network is not yet complete.

How they influence crime is open to debate. In the largest U.S. study, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley evaluated 71 cameras that San Francisco put in high crime areas starting in 2005. Their final report, released in December, found “no evidence” of a drop in violent crime but “substantial declines” in property crime near the cameras.

Only a few communities have said no. In February, the city council in Cambridge, Mass., voted not to use eight cameras already purchased with federal funds for fear police would spy on residents improperly.