The Use of Surveillance Cameras in Large Cities
So you're strolling along a street in your neighborhood. Not many people are out and about. Suddenly, you get the urge to do something, something you wouldn't want anyone else to see. It could be anything - you decide for yourself. You look around. No one can see you, or so you think. Well, before you begin this possibly embarrassing act, you may want to look up. No, not up to God for permission, but up at the lampposts and utility polls. Because there is a pretty good chance there is a security camera posted somewhere, watching your every move. It's the latest in high tech policing. And it's not just for big cities like New York and Chicago - small towns are getting into the Big Brother act.
The United Kingdom is at the forefront of this peeping. There are an estimated two million cameras alone in London, watching as its citizens down their pints at the local pup, and then stumble home. The surveillance camera system is modestly dubbed the "Ring of Steel." The city even has mobile units to deploy at large street gatherings. And there is no effort to disguise them - a periscope with a camera on top, extending twenty feet in the air from a police van, for all to see.
New York City
Mayor Michael Bloomberg was inspired by what he saw on a trip to London last year.
According to a report in the New York Post, Bloomberg intends to install
thousands of more cameras in the Big Apple, a city that already has around
200,000 surveillance cameras. But that is not enough, according to Brian Curry,
who is the head of Earthcam.com, which streams feeds from surveillance cameras
on the Internet. "New York is the biggest city in the world with so few
cameras."
Fine, you
think, you'll just stay off the big city streets, and stick to the small towns,
and everything will be okay. Well, think again. Massachusetts is spending $4.6
million of its Homeland Security money on 95 cameras for such smaller towns as
Quincy (population: 90,000), Somerville (75,000), and Winthrop (20,000).
All of this
surveillance does not sit well with the folks at the America Civil Liberties
Union. While the ACLU says it has no problem with cameras at high profile
places that could be a target for terrorists, such as the U.S. Capitol, "the
impulse to blanket our public spaces and streets with video surveillance is a
bad idea." Among its arguments, the ACLU says the potential for abuse is great.
Bad cops could use what they see on camera for criminal or personal use.
Cameras can be used to watch people in a discriminatory manner. And it cites
studies of Britain's system, where "mostly male (and probably bored) operators
frequently use the cameras to voyeuristic ally spy on women."
And perhaps
most importantly, the ACLU claims, "video surveillance has not been proven
effective" in fighting crime. Don't tell that to British officials, who credit
their camera system with helping them find the suspected terrorists who pulled
off the 2005 subway bombings. Or to local police agencies all over the America,
which say cameras have helped lower crime rates.
Regardless of the objections, it seems like these surveillance systems are here to stay. It looks like we'll have to get used to having Big Brother watching our every move. So the best advice would be don't do anything you wouldn't want anyone else to see unless you are in the privacy of your own home. You are safe there. For now, anyway...