Cameras, Cameras Everywhere
By Allan Holmes | Tuesday, July 17, 2007 | 11:29 AM
By Allan Holmes | Tuesday, July 17, 2007 | 11:29 AM
Ever since the public learned that surveillance cameras helped British authorities identify suspects behind last month's foiled car bomb attacks in London, politicians and security experts have called for similar systems in the United States. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, has called for more electronic surveillance systems. New York City is adding to its 4,200 cameras scattered throughout the city. It plans to have by the end of the year more than 100 cameras watching traffic in Lower Manhattan to read license plates. Chicago and Los Angeles, as well as Boston and Baltimore, also have camera surveillance systems.
But the debate on whether the camera surveillance systems are something that we want as a society is revving up. "Under such constant surveillance, you will find yourself becoming painfully conscious of being observed, recorded and judged," wrote John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group. "Without realizing it, you will begin to censor your own actions—in regard to even the most innocuous of things." (The same point was made by George Washington University law prof David Solove.)
In an interview with National Public Radio today, Cortez Trotter, Chicago's former chief of emergency management, explained that the Chicago security officials tried to assuage privacy concerns by meeting with the American Civil Liberties Union and the business community about the city's camera surveillance system before it was built. Privacy was built into the system, he said, such as putting blinders on some cameras and limiting how much the camera can pan to keep it from peering into office buildings.
Despite the concerns, surveillance seemingly will only become more ubiquitous. Look at what's being planned for the next generation of surveillance.
Let us know what you think by clicking the comment link below.
Comments
Ah, the concept of responsibility for one’s actions. Better watch what you do for someone is looking and you will be held accountable. Heard that before and while I will admit there is merit to that argument… Still, I ask the age old question, who guards the guards? Recent discoveries have shown abuses of security/surveillance systems by guards to peep into local competitive businesses and resident boudoirs.
We currently have a relatively benign government, but with personal rights, civil liberties, and protections being restricted by the Patriot’s Act, it is not unfeasible that a future crisis may cause a further crackdown on all political discourse. But by then, all those freedom of speech and freedom marchers will be on tape for later interrogation.
As silly as his depictions may seem today, Benjamin Franklin was ever so wise when he uttered the words:
“The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”
A London-style web of cameras covers all of tourist-accessible Washington. Fox will never be able to film a season of "24" set in DC because CTU would be omniscient.
A guy | Wednesday, July 18, 2007 | 08:02 AMAnd how long before those stops are eliminated? The first time someone uses an office as a vantage point for an attack the cameras will start peering in windows. I say no.
You know me | Wednesday, July 18, 2007 | 07:45 AMIt's important to distinguish between the simple presence of video surveillance cameras, and the actual effectiveness of the equipment for any defined purpose.
Unless the systems are correctly profiled, designed, installed and operated, then no amount of CCTV equipment will provide the results required when most needed.
It's very commendable that in the U.S., Civil Liberties and Privacy issues are being openly debated in this context, something which did not take place here in the U.K.
Our experiences tend to suggest that habituation, in other words, a passive acceptance of the presence of video surveillance, not only failed to impact the average individuals behaviour post installation, but over a period of time, the ineffective nature of the majority of poorly designed CCTV systems has done little to impact on previous crime levels.
Video surveillance has the potential to provide an extremely effective and efficient technique in tackling crime and addressing Homeland Security issues, but only if applied appropriately and with due regard to the wider concerns of Joe Public.
Jon
CCTV Advisor
www.doktorjon.co.uk
Three cheers for cameras. People need restraints on their actions. The only big issue is a generic reminder that cameras etc are observing in any given town or neighborhood.
Wise Old Owl | Tuesday, July 17, 2007 | 02:02 PMABOUT THIS BLOG
Allan Holmes on what's happening and what's being discussed in the world of federal information technology.
feed