Security Cameras Erode Liberties Without Increasing Safety

August 22, 2007 by Mark Schlosberg and Nicole Ozer, Daily Journal

Three-thousand video-surveillance cameras forming a "Ring of Steel" in lower Manhattan; an amendment by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., in the Homeland Security appropriations bill to develop a national strategy for closed-circuit television; dozens of public-street cameras in San Francisco with plans to install even more next year; and a recently completed contract by the city of Richmond to deploy 113 advanced surveillance cameras at a cost of $4 million.

Stories about new video-surveillance systems have been in the news in the past month, but the proliferation of public video surveillance is certainly not new. For several years, the federal government has been doling out hundreds of millions of dollars to local governments for surveillance cameras and networks.

On Monday, the ACLU affiliates of California issued "Under the Watchful Eye," a report documenting the proliferation of video surveillance in local communities, examining the law enforcement justifications for these programs and discussing the impact of video surveillance on privacy and free speech. The public records survey conducted for the report revealed that a growing number of California communities, such as Fresno, Santa Monica and San Francisco, have installed public-surveillance systems, often with little or no regulation, oversight or public debate about the effectiveness of the cameras and the real costs of ubiquitous surveillance.

Advocates of increased surveillance often tout video cameras as an effective way to reduce crime and thwart terrorist attacks. Lieberman, for example, in a press release to trumpet his recent amendment, claimed that "London has a widespread surveillance network that has been credited with helping prevent crime." However, study after study tells a very different story, demonstrating that cameras do not significantly prevent or reduce crime, but either shift illegal activity from one location to another or end up having little to no impact at all.

The most comprehensive study on cameras' effect on crime was conducted by researchers at the University of Leicester. It evaluated cameras in 13 jurisdictions throughout Britain and found that "CCTV has generally failed" to reduce crime. The researchers also found that the cameras did not make people feel safer.

The installation of camera systems in Bay Area communities appears to be an equally ineffective and unwise investment. San Francisco crime statistics in January 2007 revealed that crime had actually increased in more than half of the surveillance-camera locations. The San Francisco Chronicle also recently reported that the 178 cameras installed at public-housing locations, costing more than $200,000, have never assisted in even one of the homicide arrests that provided their justification.

The minimal impact of cameras on crime comes as no surprise when one considers surveys that have been conducted of offenders. Offenders generally list video surveillance as one of the factors least likely to deter them. Cameras have not deterred terrorists from attacking Britain, nor have they impeded street-level offenders, who report that they can avoid cameras by wearing a disguise, looking away from the cameras or changing the manner in which they commit a crime.

While cameras provide little crime-reduction benefit, the money used to fund them reduces the revenue available for other, more effective crime-reduction measures. Studies show that a simple, non-invasive change, such as improved lighting, can by itself reduce crime by an average of 20 percent. Additional resources for foot patrols and other local policing measures have also led to safer communities. Ironically, the vast sums spent on surveillance may ultimately harm public safety efforts because of monetary trade-offs.

The cost of video surveillance to our community is far greater than the price tag in dollars. We also pay dearly with our privacy and free speech. Sophisticated cameras can zoom in close enough to read and record the book you are carrying, the name of the doctor's office you are entering or the face of the person you are talking to or kissing goodbye. Everything a camera sees or hears can be stored on its hard drive or in a central database forever. Few jurisdictions have meaningful regulations governing the cameras. Once information is collected, there is no way to know how it might be used or abused.

The privacy and free speech implications of the cameras further multiply when combined with sophisticated technologies such as facial recognition and radio frequency identification. The future integrated use of technologies could give the government the ability to monitor and identify individuals as they move through public space, eliminating the ability to exist anonymously, invading our privacy and turning our free speech rights into relics of yesteryear. Remember those Supreme Court cases protecting anonymous protests? That becomes practically impossible when technology enables the government to identify an individual whenever they walk, speak or meet in public. There is no need to employ hypotheticals to imagine our future if video-surveillance systems continue unchecked. In Britain, there are 4.2 million cameras. That is one camera for every 300 people - monitoring and recording the activities of individuals from morning until night. While the cameras have not been effective in reducing violent crime or preventing terrorism, they have become a handy tool for governmental abuse.

British cameras, which are monitored in real time by law enforcement, are often used to target racial minorities or ogle women. According to one report, "the young, the male and the black were systematically and disproportionately targeted, not because of their involvement in crime or disorder, but for 'no obvious reason.'"

Some members of British law enforcement are beginning to question the level of surveillance. Ian Redhead, deputy chief constable of Hampshire, England, recently sounded a warning about the already significant surveillance society in Britain: "I'm really concerned about what happens to the produce of these cameras and what comes next? [A]re we really moving towards an Orwellian situation where cameras are at every street corner? I really don't think that's the kind of country I want to live in."

Ubiquitous video surveillance may soon be a reality in our communities if California cities continue down their current path. Fresno has already spent $1.4 million for 70 cameras and recently voted to further expand its video-surveillance program. Clovis, another Central Valley city, has a similar system in place. The San Francisco pilot program,s which started with a single street corner, has grown to more than 70 cameras in two years, with plans for more next year. Mayor Gavin Newsom initially looked to Chicago as a model for video surveillance. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said earlier this year that he hopes to have cameras on every street corner by 2016.

We do not need to continue down this path. Attorney General and former Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown had it right in 1999 when he opposed video-surveillance cameras in Oakland: "Reducing crime is something the community and police must work on together. Installing a few or a few dozen surveillance cameras will not make us safer. It should also not be forgotten that the intrusive powers of the state are growing with each passing decade." We should not waste our limited resources on ineffective and intrusive cameras, but instead work together to invest in real solutions that will actually make our communities safer while preserving fundamental rights.

Mark Schlosberg is the police practices policy director and Nicole Ozer is the technology & civil liberties policy director for ACLU of Northern California.