ACLU You Are Being Watched
ACLU Launches New Video Surveillance Tracking Web Site Youarebeingwatched.us
You Are Being Watched spotlights the high costs of camera surveillance systems, both in terms of money and civil liberties. Do we want a society where we live under an ever-watchful video eye?
"The new site will provide one-stop shopping for users, including the press, who want to know the big picture and the fine details about the spread of video surveillance systems," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
The new site will serve as an information clearinghouse to track the deployment of government-run surveillance systems across the United States. It includes a flash map of the United States showing the location of cities that have installed municipal surveillance cameras, a compendium of press clips and other information about camera deployments, links to studies on the effectiveness of surveillance cameras, and other information about the issue.
"Video surveillance is not the path to a safer America and it's certainly not consistent with our heritage of freedom," said ACLU Technology and Liberty Program Director Barry Steinhardt. "Study after study has shown that video cameras do not work to control crime. Yet DHS appears to be hell-bent upon pushing police video surveillance into American life - and unfortunately, an increasing number of US cities appear to be taking them up on their offer."
The site also includes a "take action" section, including a link allowing individuals to send a message to the DHS secretary requesting that the department stop funding local government video surveillance systems.
"Public video surveillance threatens to fundamentally change the nature of our public spaces, and we need to track what is happening," added Steinhardt. "There are few good sources of information about the spread of video surveillance in the United States - we get regular media requests for such a source - and now we have created it."
ACLU On City Surveillance
An increasing number of American cities and towns are investing millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems. But few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, or creating mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time. There is extensive academic literature on the subject -- studies carried out over many years -- and that research demonstrates that video surveillance has no statistically significant effect on crime rates. Several studies on video surveillance have been conducted in the UK, where surveillance cameras are pervasive. The two main meta-analysis conducted for the British Home Office (equivalent to the US departments of Justice and Homeland Security) show that video surveillance has no impact on crime whatsoever. If it did, then there would be little crime in London, a city estimated to have about 500,000 cameras.Video surveillance systems are more diffuse and less centralized in the United States, and fewer independent studies of their efficacy exist. However, preliminary studies of cameras in California show similar results to studies conducted in the UK: little to no effect in reducing crime.
Studies have shown that cameras are less useful than adding more police officers to neighborhoods, improving lighting conditions in parking lots, or holding meetings among officers and citizens to increase public education about how individuals can protect themselves. It is true that footage from video surveillance cameras has been useful for post-crime investigation in some cases. But note that the cameras' usefulness comes after the crime has already been committed -- and that the funds used for that relatively rare benefit could do more to reduce crime if used more efficiently.
Camera surveillance systems also inevitably raise issues of racial profiling and voyeurism. Everyone has heard of the camera operators who zoom in upon women's breasts or police officers who used infrared video surveillance equipment to watch a couple engaged in romantic activity.
The bottom line is: Are cameras worth the cost in terms of money and civil liberties? Cities and states are still wasting limited security budget dollars on camera surveillance systems. In the last five years, the US Department of Homeland Security had handed out about $300 million in grants for camera surveillance systems. These funds could have gone toward hiring more experienced police officers, improving equipment for first-responders so that they can be ready to help in cases of emergency or other such security needs.
And consider the civil liberty costs of video surveillance systems. Video surveillance technology will only grow more sophisticated. There will come a day when the cameras will be routinely linked with other technologies in attempt to instantly identify you and me via face recognition, RFIDs, or other technologies. Do we want a society where an innocent individual can't walk down the street without being considered a potential criminal? Do we want a society where people are comfortable with constant surveillance?