USA TODAY
July 22, 2002
Public cameras accost privacy
By Adam Goodheart
Summer tourists visiting Washington might notice something a
bit unusual about some of the capital's famous monuments: The
white marble structures along the Mall have sprouted electronic
eyes. From the gleaming cornice of the Lincoln Memorial, for
example, video cameras now loom over its famous steps.
The cameras are part of a high-tech surveillance network that
local and federal police have been quietly developing in the capital
over the past few months. It deploys hundreds of video cameras
trained at schools, monuments, parks and ordinary street
corners. The full network was put to use during the July Fourth
celebration; most of it, police promised, was shut off afterward,
at least temporarily. At a command center that day, officers
watched a wall of monitors, which they plan to expand to include
live images from security cameras in stores and subway stations.
What's going on in Washington is part of a nationwide move
toward video surveillance as a response to post-Sept. 11
concerns about terrorism. As the federal government encourages
municipalities across America to take responsibility for their own
protection, security cameras are among the most popular options
under consideration by many mayors and police chiefs. This
month, for example, officials in Virginia Beach, Va., unveiled a
system of video cameras installed over popular pedestrian areas
and equipped with face-recognition technology.
Independence vs. surveillance
It is ironic that the latest ramping up of video surveillance in
Washington coincided with the celebration of national
independence. Before Americans quietly accept such curtailments
of privacy as a necessary cost of the war on terrorism, they
should consider the threat this trend poses to our freedoms.
They also should take a close look at evidence that suggests
more surveillance cameras are unlikely to make our country more
secure.
First, the privacy concerns. Police are required to obtain warrants
to conduct searches or to tape citizens' conversations. But such
protections have not been extended by the courts to cover video
surveillance.
''Police need a surveillance warrant to engage in any form of audio
taping,'' says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the
Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center. ''But
they're doing video recording with no authority whatsoever. And
video cameras are, if anything, even more intrusive.''
Rep. Connie Morella, R-Md., whose House subcommittee held
hearings in March on the Washington camera network, discovered
that there are no standards on where cameras can be installed,
who is allowed to view the tapes and how long they are kept on
file.
''Security is of critical importance,'' she says. ''But let's please
establish some standards and guidelines. There's something
wrong about a situation where you can be walking down the
street . . . and there's a camera there and you don't know it.''
Freedom of Information Act requests, Rotenberg says, have
revealed that federal authorities have used video cameras for
surveillance of political demonstrations, a fact District of Columbia
police officials have acknowledged.
Eyes on protesters
Consider those cameras on the façade of the Lincoln Memorial.
Then consider the political demonstrations that have taken place
on the monument's steps. Would the 1963 March on
Washington, or the Vietnam War protests, or even recent rallies
against abortion or for gay rights, have been as free and
unfettered if they had been there then?
The First Amendment right to assembly becomes a mockery if any
public gathering can come under the hidden eye of authorities.
Secondly, there is no evidence that these video cameras are
effective in deterring terrorists or other criminals. Take Great
Britain, one of several nations that already have extensive visual
monitoring systems. Great Britain has installed more than 1.5
million video cameras in public places in response to domestic
attacks by IRA terrorists as well as increasing concerns about
violent crime. According to one estimate, the average Londoner is
now photographed some 300 times in the course of a typical day.
Yet the cameras have proven to be ineffective weapons against
even relatively minor offenses: Britain's rate of street crime
continues to rise steadily. There's no known instance, according
to the American Civil Liberties Union, of a video camera thwarting
or deterring a terrorist attack.
Many Britons have begun to complain of a growing sense of
uneasiness under the watchful eye of an electronic Big Brother.
Their concerns are understandable, because experience shows
that any video surveillance system is only as good -- and only as
incorruptible -- as the people who are in control of the cameras.
Our government undoubtedly needs to step up its vigilance
against potential terrorism. Yet if the events of recent times have
taught us anything, it's that most terrorist strikes unfold almost
invisibly until it is too late.
Cameras would be ineffective
Last month, a Palestinian with bombs hidden under his clothing
boarded a bus in Israel as a police surveillance helicopter hovered
directly overhead. As the officers watched from above, he blew
himself up and killed 19 people.
Similarly, it is unlikely that surveillance cameras could have averted
the July 4 shooting at Los Angeles International Airport. The
suspect, who killed two people, carried two handguns and a knife
hidden from view. A van filled with explosives or a bomb hidden in
a shoe of an airline passenger also would be perfectly invisible to
a camera.
For politicians and police as well as for the public, it's tempting to
look for easy, high-tech solutions to protect us from terrorists.
Training cameras on our country's own citizens, however, may fail
to deter any attacks, breed fear rather than dispel it and
undermine the very freedoms Americans are fighting to defend.
Adam Goodheart, a Washington writer, is a member of USA
TODAY's board of contributors.
back to CLASS
MATERIALS