[Infowarrior] - Who Watches The Watchers In Surveillance Society?

[Richard Forno]

Who Watches The Watchers In Surveillance Society?

By Reuters
InformationWeek Sun Feb 4, 9:08 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070205/tc_cmp/197003126

CHICAGO - In some cities in Europe and the United States, a person can be
videotaped by surveillance cameras hundreds of times a day, and it's safe to
say that most of the time no one is actually watching.

But the advent of "intelligent video" -- software that raises the alarm if
something on camera appears amiss -- means Big Brother will soon be able to
keep a more constant watch, a prospect that is sure to heighten privacy
concerns.

Combining motion detection technology with the learning capabilities of
video game software, these new systems can detect people loitering, walking
in circles or leaving a package.

New microphone technology can isolate the sound of a gunshot and direct the
attached camera to swivel and zoom in on the source. Sensitivity may reach
the point where microphones could pick out the word "explosives" spoken in a
crowd.

"There's just not enough personnel to watch every single camera," said
Chicago emergency operations chief Andrew Velasquez. "We are piloting
analytic software right now ... where you can set that particular camera to
watch for erratic behavior, or someone leaving a suitcase on the sidewalk."

Since the attacks on the United States of Sept. 11, 2001, sections of New
York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago and even a few smaller U.S. towns
have been blanketed with closed-circuit cameras. Privately owned cameras are
also proliferating.

FALSE POSITIVES

The encroachment on privacy in what civil libertarians call a "surveillance
society" may be a price willingly paid by citizens who fear terrorism and
crime.

But ever-alert software capable of maintaining a continuous "watch" on
security cameras multiplies the risks of harassing innocent people, privacy
experts say.

"I don't buy it. The number of false positives are going to be
astronomical," said David Holtzman, author of "Privacy Lost." "It's
extremely dangerous to abrogate legitimate law enforcement authority ... to
a camera."

In Chicago's darkened, windowless surveillance center, Velasquez looks
forward to using new technology, which has had some success elsewhere.

The port of Jacksonville, Florida, has dispensed with human monitoring of
cameras altogether by sending alerts and live video to the personal digital
assistant of the nearest officer on patrol, according to a spokesman for
ObjectView Inc.

ObjectView is one of two dozen companies seeking to perfect so-called
intelligent video -- an industry whose sales will grow from $60 million to
$400 million within five years, according to global consulting group Frost &
Sullivan.

Meanwhile, Texas is evaluating a pilot program in which it allowed Internet
access to video of unmanned sections of its border with Mexico and urged
viewers to send an e-mail if they spotted something.

"The cameras don't replace police officers. They are in essence a force
multiplier. They serve as an extra set of eyes," Velasquez said.

OGLING

The Chicago center is manned 24 hours a day by veteran police officers. A
dozen screens depict a few street corners and a stadium, while others are
tuned to cable news or Web sites.

They can retrieve video from thousands of cameras and their universe is
expanded by private cameras owned by cooperating buildings and stores, but
they can monitor only a few at a time.

Velasquez said his officers receive training on privacy and constitutional
rights -- for example it is illegal to look into private homes and offices
-- and digital recordings hold his officers accountable and prevent abuses
that have occurred elsewhere.

In Britain, which has 4.2 million government security cameras, 2 million in
London alone, a study showed that male surveillance workers sometimes ogled
women on their screens, while others focused on minorities excessively.

But privacy experts also note another British study, from 2002, which said
surveillance cameras did not lower overall crime rates, and mereley pushes
crime elsewhere.

"Cameras are great tools for solving crime. They're not really that helpful
in preventing crime," said Ed Yohnka of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Velasquez disputed the conclusion that cameras don't prevent crime, saying
he constantly fields requests from residents asking for a camera to make
their neighborhood safer.

He said cameras contributed to a drop in violent crime in the city of
Chicago in recent years, a drop that is widely attributed to improved police
work in countering gangs and street-corner drug dealing. At the same time,
gang activity has surged in some Chicago suburbs.

The city's prosecutors said they rarely use video evidence in court from the
cameras, which are encased in bulletproof boxes topped by blue flashing
lights and are a common sight in crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Downtown, the cameras are less obtrusive, though a pair mounted on a park
fountain was removed after an outcry that they defiled the art.

Holtzman, the privacy expert, wondered where the line will be drawn if
authorities opt to use the cameras to spy on suspects or to sniff out
low-level crimes.

There are no legal barriers to video being subpoenaed by, for instance, a
divorce lawyer seeking evidence of infidelity, he said.

"I think there's a certain amount of freedom you want to give people that
live in the city to kind of screw up a little bit," he said.

By: Andrew Stern

Copyright 2006 Reuters.