[Infowarrior] - US doles out millions for street cameras

[Richard Forno]

US doles out millions for street cameras
Local efforts raise privacy alarms

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/12/us_doles_ou
t_millions_for_street_cameras?mode=PF

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  August 12, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Homeland Security is funneling millions of
dollars to local governments nationwide for purchasing high-tech video
camera networks, accelerating the rise of a "surveillance society" in which
the sense of freedom that stems from being anonymous in public will be lost,
privacy rights advocates warn.

Since 2003, the department has handed out some $23 billion in federal grants
to local governments for equipment and training to help combat terrorism.
Most of the money paid for emergency drills and upgrades to basic items,
from radios to fences. But the department also has doled out millions on
surveillance cameras, transforming city streets and parks into places under
constant observation.

The department will not say how much of its taxpayer-funded grants have gone
to cameras. But a Globe search of local newspapers and congressional press
releases shows that a large number of new surveillance systems, costing at
least tens and probably hundreds of millions of dollars, are being
simultaneously installed around the country as part of homeland security
grants.

In the last month, cities that have moved forward on plans for surveillance
networks financed by the Homeland Security Department include St. Paul,
which got a $1.2 million grant for 60 cameras for downtown; Madison, Wis.,
which is buying a 32-camera network with a $388,000 grant; and Pittsburgh,
which is adding 83 cameras to its downtown with a $2.58 million grant.

Small towns are also getting their share of the federal money for
surveillance to thwart crime and terrorism.

Recent examples include Liberty, Kan. (population 95), which accepted a
federal grant to install a $5,000 G2 Sentinel camera in its park, and
Scottsbluff, Neb. (population 14,000), where police used a $180,000 Homeland
Security Department grant to purchase four closed-circuit digital cameras
and two monitors, a system originally designed for Times Square in New York
City.

"We certainly wouldn't have been able to purchase this system without those
funds," police Captain Brian Wasson told the Scottsbluff Star-Herald.

Other large cities and small towns have also joined in since 2003. Federal
money is helping New York, Baltimore, and Chicago build massive surveillance
systems that may also link thousands of privately owned security cameras.
Boston has installed about 500 cameras in the MBTA system, funded in part
with homeland security funds.

Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said
Homeland Security Department is the primary driver in spreading surveillance
cameras, making their adoption more attractive by offering federal money to
city and state leaders.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke said that it is difficult
to say how much money has been spent on surveillance cameras because many
grants awarded to states or cities contained money for cameras and other
equipment. Knocke defended the funding of video networks as a valuable tool
for protecting the nation. "We will encourage their use in the future," he
added.

But privacy rights advocates say that the technology is putting at risk
something that is hard to define but is core to personal autonomy. The
proliferation of cameras could mean that Americans will feel less free
because legal public behavior -- attending a political rally, entering a
doctor's office, or even joking with friends in a park -- will leave a
permanent record, retrievable by authorities at any time.

Businesses and government buildings have used closed-circuit cameras for
decades, so it is nothing new to be videotaped at an ATM machine. But
technology specialists say the growing surveillance networks are potentially
more powerful than anything the public has experienced.

Until recently, most surveillance cameras produced only grainy analog feeds
and had to be stored on bulky videotape cassettes. But the new, cutting-edge
cameras produce clearer, more detailed images. Moreover, because these
videos are digital, they can be easily transmitted, copied, and stored
indefinitely on ever-cheaper hard-drive space.

In addition, police officers cannot be everywhere at once, and in the past
someone had to watch a monitor, limiting how large or powerful a
surveillance network could be.

But technicians are developing ways to use computers to process real-time
and stored digital video, including license-plate readers, face-recognition
scanners, and software that detects "anomalous behavior." Although still
primitive, these technologies are improving, some with help from research
grants by the Homeland Security Department's Science and Technology
Directorate.

"Being able to collect this much data on people is going to be very
powerful, and it opens people up for abuses of power," said Jennifer King, a
professor at the University of California at Berkeley who studies privacy
and technology. "The problem with explaining this scenario is that today
it's a little futuristic. [A major loss of privacy] is a low risk today, but
five years from now it will present a higher risk."

As this technological capacity evolves, it will be far easier for
individuals to attract police suspicion simply for acting differently and
far easier for police to track that person's movement closely, including
retracing their steps backwards in time. It will also create a greater risk
that the officials who control the cameras could use them for personal or
political gain, specialists said.

The expanded use of surveillance in the name of fighting terrorism has
proved controversial in other arenas, as with the recent debate over
President Bush's programs for eavesdropping on Americans' international
phone calls and e-mails without a warrant.

But public support for installing more surveillance cameras in public
places, both as a means of fighting terrorism and other crime, appears to be
strong. Last month, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 71 percent
of Americans favored increased use of surveillance cameras, while 25 percent
opposed it.

Still, some homeland security specialists point to studies showing that
cameras are not effective in deterring crime or terrorism. Although video
can be useful in apprehending suspects after a crime or attack, the
specialists say that the money used to buy and maintain cameras would be
better spent on hiring more police.

That view is not universal. David Heyman, the homeland security policy
director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, pointed out
that cameras can help catch terrorists before they have time to launch a
second attack. Several recent failed terrorist attacks in England were
followed by quick arrests due in part to surveillance video.

Earlier this month, Senator Joe Lieberman, independent of Connecticut,
proposed an amendment that would require the Homeland Security Department to
develop a "national strategy" for the use of surveillance cameras, from more
effectively using them to thwart terrorism to establishing rules to protect
civil liberties.

"A national strategy for [surveillance cameras] use would help officials at
the federal, state, and local levels use [surveillance] systems effectively
to protect citizens, while at the same time making sure that appropriate
civil liberties protections are implemented for the use of cameras and
recorded data," Lieberman said.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company