For security, not Big Brother

Date: 01/08/2005
Source: Usa Today
Author: -

Security cameras, it seems, are becoming a vital tool in the war on terrorism, raising provocative questions about where and how they should be used. Where lies the safe path between the specter of terrorism and the specter of Big Brother?

London, which installed cameras in its subway system after years of IRA bombings, appears to have found part of the answer.

Within 24 hours of the botched bombing attempts in the city's Underground on July 21, surveillance images of four suspects flashed around the world. That produced thousands of tips and the arrest of all four, including one who had fled to Italy. Suspects in the bombings that killed 56 Londoners two weeks earlier also were identified.

The value is hard to deny, but civil liberties groups here sense the London success will open the floodgates to invasions of privacy.

Surveillance cameras were commonplace even before the war on terror — at ATMs, convenience stores and parking garages. More are on the way. The Department of Homeland Security is giving $800 million to 50 cities this year to help set up surveillance systems, and not just to stop terrorists:

• In Los Angeles, eight cameras installed last year in crime-ridden MacArthur Park helped police make more than 600 arrests.

• In Chicago, 250 cameras are being added in high-crime areas and linked to 2,000 cameras that monitor highways and public buildings. The cameras have helped drive crime rates to 40-year lows.

An active imagination sees a 1984-like world in those developments. But there is a common denominator among government cameras deployed so far, and it suggests a sensible dividing line.

They all monitor public spaces. It is illogical to say that cameras should not be able to see what any police officer, or citizen, or private photographer can freely observe and record. No city has the manpower or money to station an officer at every intersection. Cameras can help fill that gap.

The problems lie more in how the cameras are used. No one would dispute their value in identifying terrorists or major criminals. Many already have questioned their value as automated dispensers of tickets for "gotcha" misdemeanors such as traffic violations or littering. In at least one instance, camera operators have been disciplined for voyeurism.

To manage this, cities follow guidelines from the American Bar Association (ABA) and International Association of Chiefs of Police. They include informing the public about the presence of cameras; focusing them only on public areas; not targeting individuals arbitrarily or based on any racial profile; erasing the images after a brief time except for those needed as evidence; limiting access to the recordings; and punishing those who break the rules.

Properly regulated surveillance systems reduce crime and save lives. Big Brother hasn't arrived just yet.

This article may be reproduced as long as the source Footprint Home Security is provided as a link.

Back to Free Expert Advice

Back to Footprint Home Security