GovernmentExecutive.com

Police departments nationwide continue to push their local jurisdictions to provide more surveillance cameras mounted throughout cities to capture images of crowds and traffic in hopes of solving crimes. The latest request comes from Alameda Co., Calif., where the county seat is Oakland. County police chiefs have asked the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency to begin recording the traffic from about two dozen cameras that stream images of traffic on San Pablo Ave., a major thoroughfare through the county, according to an article in The Oakland Tribune.

The police say if the traffic on the avenue had been recorded (the congestion agency does not store traffic video streams), they could have identified cars used in crimes and then worked from there to identify suspects. Police Chief Scott Kirkland in El Cerrito, Calif., in Alameda Co. says the footage could have helped the police department solve the 2005 killings of a gas station clerk, a customer of a hamburger joint, a teenager, a restaurateur in 2007, and a robbery victim last month.

Ever since cameras in London helped police there identify and arrest in June the suspected plotters of the foiled car bomb attacks, many public policy experts have argued for more cameras in U.S. cities. Here's a recent Tech Insider post on the subject.

But privacy advocates have raised concerns, similar to the objections raised in Alameda Co. Privacy advocates there say that if the county's cameras stored the footage, and if the cameras were upgraded so that license plates and other details of the cars and traffic could be viewed, the police may be tempted to use the information for other purposes that infringe on our right to privacy.

An interesting note about the Oakland Tribune article is that no one in the article made the argument against the privacy advocates' position by saying that drivers and pedestrians who have nothing to hide shouldn't worry about the cameras. I bring up again a recent post about a compelling paper (access to paper here) written on that very subject by George Washington University law professor Daniel J. Solove. The paper, "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy," is worth a read and its arguments are too detailed to go into here. One quick quote, however: "The key misunderstanding is that the 'nothing to hide' argument views privacy in a particular way – as a form of secrecy, as the right to hide things. But there are many other types of harm involved beyond exposing one’s secrets to the government."

To find out what those might be, read the paper.