Locals that dislike being watched have company
While that may be the case for Google Earth, surveillance cameras are a different matter, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Los Angeles, which recently released a report on the proliferation of video surveillance entitled “Under the Watchful Eye,” that found no evidence to suggest cameras are effective in preventing crime and can actually do more harm than good by breeding suspicion of government agencies. It also found that most cities using cameras do not have adequate policies in place to protect against racial profiling or abuse of the system.
The report said constitutional protections are threatened by the increased numbers of cameras because people are less likely to act, speak or associate with other people or groups when they know they are being watched.
“Think of an innocent activity such as dancing at a wedding or party: Many people would wait until others were already dancing the lights were turned down low, so that they would be less visible to onlookers,” authors of the report said.
The ACLU is a strong believer that privacy does not end at the front door, citing laws preventing illegal searches and seizures. A public telephone cannot be tapped without a warrant and a person cannot be forced to give their names before they distribute leaflets.
The report recommends local governments cease deploying cameras and instead look at other alternatives, such as increased lighting or more foot patrols. Cities should also study a surveillance system’s effectiveness and its impact on privacy and hold public hearings.
City Hall did hold public hearings on the installation of security cameras and is one of the few cities that has policies in place that protect against abuse.
Images captured cannot be used by other agencies unless there is a court order. There is also a policy against using the cameras to track individuals arbitrarily or based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or other classifications protected by law.
The SMPD also went a step further and installed cameras in fixed positions to minimize the potential inadvertent capturing of images from areas where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy. The cameras are not equipped with pan, tilt or zoom capabilities, meaning officers monitoring them cannot manipulate the framing or focal length of a video image, except in rare cases and only after written authorization has been given by the chief of police.
Images captured by the cameras are stored for 90 days and then erased.
SMPD Lt. Alex Padilla, a spokesman for the department, said the cameras, which were installed in part to help police protect the public from terrorist activity, have been helpful in apprehending suspects wanted in connection with violent crimes, and while there is no plan to study the impact cameras have on the crime rate, it is clear that their addition has helped law enforcement keep Santa Monica safe.
Footage was used in the apprehension of a murder suspect who beat a homeless man to death in June and also played a role in the capture of a suspect who police believe was responsible for a series of armed robberies of parking structure attendants.
“To take a murder suspect off the street who had been involved in other attempted murders in our community, as well as the robbery suspect, those two things alone have made the cameras well worth the investment,” Padilla said.
The cameras on the pier and the promenade cost the city $1.3 million.
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE?
Residents and visitors aren’t the only ones who are troubled the ever-increasing presence of Big Brother. Councilman Kevin McKeown has been vocal about his concerns with video footage and personal information falling into the hands of other government agencies.
“Keeping an eye out for each other’s safety is what communities do, but I have concerns when neighborly concern gets automated and made part of a database,” McKeown said. “We’ve had cases in Santa Monica where justice was achieved with video support, but at the cost of every one of us becoming part of a vast surveillance database detailing who goes where, when and with whom.”
McKeown worries about cameras capturing people participating in peace marches, labor actions or other activities of free speech that are protected by the Constitution.
“As we trade our civil liberties for perceived security, we should remember that no matter how carefully our own trusted Santa Monica institutions guard our records, those databases can be requested by overriding federal authorities, as happened at our Public Library,” McKeown said.
In the summer of 2003, city librarians posted signs: “Attention library patrons: The FBI has the right to obtain a court order to access any records we have of your transactions in the library, a right given to them by Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act.”
Some groups are fighting back. In New York City, where there are more than 3,000 cameras, a group known as the New York Surveillance Camera Players hold live performances of plays in front of cameras, blocking their view of the general public. Another group in Austria has taken it to the next level, hacking into surveillance systems, and scrambling or blacking out images. They have also used balloons, lasers and infrared devices to block out cameras.
“I just don’t know if I’m sold on this enhanced security that seems to becoming more of the norm,” said resident Dennis Coles. “I know that the technology is out there and it has helped in solving crimes, even preventing some from taking place, but when I think about someone sitting in some room somewhere watching me eat at a restaurant or jog down the street, I just begin to feel uncomfortable.
“I think we all have to decide for ourselves what we are willing to sacrifice in order to be protected,” Coles added. “In a way, we really don’t have a choice. What are we going to do, not leave our house?”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 1, 2007. Read the original PDF.