Residents that feel like they’re being watched aren’t alone
(sub) Residents that feel like they’re being watched aren’t alone
By Kevin Herrera
Daily Press Staff Writer
DOWNTOWN — As you read this, you might want to smile. Chances are, you’ve just been caught on camera.
With more than 30 million surveillance cameras in the United States, the average American is caught on tape more than 200 times a day, whether it’s walking down the street, withdrawing cash at the ATM, purchasing clothes at a department store or washing their hands in a public restroom.
Cameras are everywhere, and Santa Monica is no exception. Nearly every inch of the Santa Monica Pier, the Third Street Promenade and the alleys adjacent to it are under surveillance 24 hours a day, seven days a week, thanks to a network of more than 120 cameras connected to City Hall’s computer system.
There are also cameras in the majority of city-owned parking structures, affixed to street lights to monitor traffic patterns, in local schools to catch vandals and on Big Blue Buses to keep tabs on riders.
The Santa Monica Police Department installed cameras in all of its police cars more than two years ago and is in the process of putting a license plate recognition system in one of its patrol cars, a system that will scan hundreds of license plates in a matter of minutes. If successful, that system could expand.
And if those weren’t enough, the City Council recently voted to install red light cameras at three of the city’s most dangerous intersections to catch drivers running red lights. The council also approved a plan to place security cameras in City Hall and in the office of the finance department, which was the victim of a break-in several months ago.
Across the country, extensive media coverage, litigation and congressional debate have centered on domestic surveillance programs operated by the U.S. Department of Defense, the FBI and the National Security Agency, but little attention has been paid to the dramatic expansion in government video surveillance of the public at the local level.
There are those who feel that constant surveillance is needed in a post 9/11 world and welcome the added security they believe comes with placing cameras in public spaces. Then there are those who are afraid of the ever-expanding eye in the sky and picture a world without privacy in which government authorities, using a wide variety of technologies, continuously monitor human activity, enabling government to control every aspect of people’s lives.
“It is kind of scary when you think about it like that,” said Sarah Jane Johnson as she stood near a surveillance camera perched high atop a light post on the promenade. “You kind of wonder where the line will be drawn. I guess if you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to be worried about.
“Then again, it’s kind of creepy to think that someone could be watching you and you don’t even know it.”
Rewind the tape
The concept of using surveillance to deter crime and achieve a level of social control is nothing new. Sociologist Jeremy Bentham developed a theory in the late 18th Century that is best represented by his concept of the “Panopticon,” a model prison where convicts could be observed, but they could not see who was watching them and tell when they were being watched.
The objective of such a system was that the subjects of surveillance would believe that their only option would be to conform to the system and become their own overseer.
That concept moved beyond the prison walls and became the subject of many novels and films, the most familiar being George Orwell’s “1984,” a chilling tale about a futuristic, totalitarian society in which every citizen has their lives documented by the Ministry of Truth, which rewrites history and uses double-speak to influence the minds of many.
While seemingly far-fetched at the time it was written (1949), the concepts and theories examined in the novel have started to be put into practice with the proliferation of surveillance cameras and the introduction of face-recognition software that allows government agencies to quickly identify individuals walking down the street, participating in a political rally or entering a strip club.
Technology also exists for identifying people using a scan of the retina and a patent has been filed for a device that can scan the iris of someone’s eye from a distance.
What is even more frightening for those working to protect privacy rights is a new surveillance technology called radio frequency identification (RFID). RFID tags are tiny computer chips that can be embedded in identify cards or in people’s skin and can be read by devices at a great distance without the person knowing about it. The State Department has already embedded RFID tags in all new passports and the Department of Homeland Security is considering its use in other travel documents and identification cards.
Then there is Google Earth and Street View, a program that allows anyone with a computer and the Internet to download highly-detailed pictures of city streets, businesses and private homes. Some have complained about being photographed by satellites and then having their image posted online for anyone to see.
“It’s kind of cool to be able to see your house or your parents’ house, but I can see where people might have a problem with it,” said Chris Chavez, a college student who was Christmas shopping at the Santa Monica Place mall this week. “It’s like, we all expect to have some level of privacy, particularly in our own homes. I don’t know how I’d feel about it, but I could understand why someone wouldn’t want people looking into their backyards.
“Your home is your sanctuary, but it’s beginning to feel like that isn’t the case anymore.”
Privacy International, a human rights group focused on privacy issues, called Google Earth and Street View “hostile to privacy,” however executives with the search engine said the technology is actually changing the world for the better by helping Iraqis navigate through the sectarian neighborhoods of Baghdad to provide supplies to embattled residents, or by tracking the effects of global warming on the environment.
356,“Google Earth is built from information that is already available from both commercial and public sources,” said Google spokesperson Kate Hurowitz. “The same information is available to anyone who flies over or drives by a piece of property. We believe that the benefits of access to Google Earth for such valuable purposes far outweighs any negatives from potential abuse.
“Google’s freely available technology has been used for vital purposes ranging from fighting forest fires to emergency response, rescue, and relief in natural disasters such as the Kashmir Earthquake relief efforts and the Mithi River Floodplain Project,” Hurowitz added. “Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath demonstrated the powerful utility of Google Earth’s images, as rescuers have reported that they were able to save lives thanks to Google Earth.”
Do cameras deter crime?
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.
574,“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.
200,“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?”
“We’ve had cases in Santa Monica where welcome 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.”
Councilman Kevin McKeown. jumphead - Google Earth drawing criticism
Lucida Grande 40, 4 0 400 0¬ 1 0 40, Minion Black 40, 4 0 2314 0¬ 1 0 40, News Gothic 40, 4 0 3A3E 0¬ 1 0
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 1, 2007. Read the original PDF.