March 21, 2008
Analysis of Cameras on Crime in San Francisco
[From Crime cameras not capturing many crimes - Chronicle]
Preliminary results are being released on a study of the effectiveness of cameras in San Francisco. The cameras have slightly reduced nonviolent threats, otherwise they have had no effect on crime.
The city contracted with the UC Berkeley's Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society to evaluate the cameras. The final report won't be available for a few months. I am glad San Francisco is doing this and I wish other cities (ahem . . Chicago) would allow researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of cameras. An important factor to consider is that the cameras in San Francisco are not monitored in real-time (lowering costs, but also lowering effectiveness).
Researchers examined data from the San Francisco Police Department detailing the 59,706 crimes committed within 1,000 feet of the camera locations between Jan. 1, 2005, and Jan. 28, 2008. . . . The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected - except for homicides, which had an interesting pattern. Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.
Posted by rshah at 11:58 AM | Comments (0)
March 18, 2008
Surveillance and Government
I found two recent columns on surveillance and government interesting. The first is by Lorne Gunter and offers a fresh perspective on the role of surveillance cameras. I really like this quote:
I enjoy as much as the next person television shows such as 24 and the BBC's excellent equivalent MI-5, but I am under no illusion that super agents using super computers are able to monitor terrorists in real time as they make their way through city streets and malls so they can be interdicted before they carry out their plots. The best that can be hoped for from cameras is that they deter would-be terrorists. But cameras cannot actually prevent terrorism, unless a perpetrator is very dumb and slow and authorities are extraordinarily lucky.
Another useful observation:
In the 1990s, New York City made great strides in cleaning up its subway system and streets. But it did so by putting more officers on platforms and trains. Police can see what cameras cannot, and they can respond immediately, rather than waiting to be summoned by those monitoring cameras. Cameras are a sop, a symbolic reaction that merely enables timid politicians to say, "Look. See? We're doing something."
A second column I found interest is by Julian Sanchez on wiretapping. This is an issue of great contemporary political import. The core of this debate has implications for the use of surveillance cameras by government. Read the column, but here are some key insights:
Without meaningful oversight, presidents and intelligence agencies can -- and repeatedly have -- abused their surveillance authority to spy on political enemies and dissenters. The original FISA law was passed in 1978 after a thorough congressional investigation headed by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) revealed that for decades, intelligence analysts -- and the presidents they served -- had spied on the letters and phone conversations of union chiefs, civil rights leaders, journalists, antiwar activists, lobbyists, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices -- even Eleanor Roosevelt and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Church Committee reports painstakingly documented how the information obtained was often "collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action."
. . .
In that light, the security-versus-privacy framing of the contemporary FISA debate seems oddly incomplete. Your personal phone calls and e-mails may be of limited interest to the spymasters of Langley and Ft. Meade. But if you think an executive branch unchecked by courts won't turn its "national security" surveillance powers to political ends -- well, it would be a first.
Posted by rshah at 02:25 PM | Comments (0)
February 15, 2008
Surveillance Regulation
[From Rethinking Surveillance - washingtonpost.com]
A thoughtful opinion by Frank Baitman on whether it is time to regulate surveillance. Frank Baitman is president of Petards, the Baltimore-based subsidiary of Britain-based Petards Group. He has been obviously influenced by the laws in Britain and believes they can serve as a model of us. He points to three specifics areas:
Specifically, Congress should consider establishing laws to:
Ensure that surveillance technologies satisfy their mission for crime and terror control without the potential for misuse.
Reassure the public that their images are being collected for bona fide objectives, and that there are penalties for those who misuse surveillance recordings.
Promote the adoption of open standards to ensure interoperability, which in turn would promote the introduction of emerging technologies.
Posted by rshah at 12:54 PM | Comments (0)
February 02, 2008
Limiting Facial Recognition to China
[From Keeping an Eye on China’s Security - New York Times]
The article notes the Commerce Department is drafting new rules on what security equipment companies can sell to China. They could restrict the export of facial recognition software:
The move comes in response to rapid advances in surveillance technology and the increasing involvement of American companies in the Chinese market as the Olympics approach. People involved with the process said the Commerce Department was singling out biometric technology — face-recognition software, in particular — which Chinese security agencies could use to identify political and religious dissidents.
Chinese security agencies are rapidly increasing their spending on video systems with powerful computer analysis tools. American companies, with heavy financial backing from American hedge funds, have played a central role in helping Chinese cities install thousands of street surveillance cameras and use computers to process the video.
Congress has become concerned about the export controls on such activity. “It remains extremely important to have such controls in place so that our country’s exports do not enable governments abroad to repress the fundamental freedoms that we cherish here at home,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who presides over the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. “I will be watching closely as this process develops to ensure that current U.S. export controls are not weakened.”
Posted by rshah at 11:16 PM | Comments (0)
January 25, 2008
Cameras in NYC Schools
[From City Limits: News for NYC's Nonprofit, Policy and Activist World]
A very good investigative article on the camera systems in schools. The article is noteworthy for several reasons, but I like the fact that it carefully details the problems in the camera installation. As yesterday's post also noted regarding the NYC subway camera system, installation is never a slam dunk. While I am sure those inside the industry hear these stories all the time, they are rarely brought to the attention of the public (or me), especially for camera systems designed for security. However, its an important point that getting these systems up and running outside of the lab can be difficult in real world environments with budgets.
Another good point in Winston's story is the use of the cameras and access to the footage. She details the rules regarding archived footage and the difficulty for parents and students in gaining access to the footage. I am sure the issues here occur for lots of cities and schools using cameras. Putting into places rules and procedures for camera footage is not accomplished overnight. Its a mixture of bureaucratic, legal, and technical issues.
Posted by rshah at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)
November 22, 2007
The Picture Of Conformity
From Washington Post
A nice article on the creepy side of surveillance. At some point people feel that surveillance is disturbing, but its difficult to translate this into workable principles. This article features a number of scholars that provide views on what privacy means.
Posted by rshah at 04:02 PM | Comments (0)
October 05, 2007
Boiling the Frog
From the Economist.com:
A nice analogy for how people have been accustomed to wide spread surveillance:
Ross Anderson, a professor at Cambridge University in Britain, has compared the present situation to a “boiled frog”—which fails to jump out of the saucepan as the water gradually heats. If liberty is eroded slowly, people will get used to it. He added a caveat: it was possible the invasion of privacy would reach a critical mass and prompt a revolt.
If there is not much sign of that in Western democracies, this may be because most people rightly or wrongly trust their own authorities to fight the good fight against terrorism, and avoid abusing the data they possess. The prospect is much scarier in countries like Russia and China, which have embraced capitalist technology and the information revolution without entirely exorcising the ethos of an authoritarian state where dissent, however peaceful, is closely monitored.
I am often asked about the passivity of Americans with regard to widespread surveillance. I usually tell journalists that there hasn't been a "love canal" type of disaster with surveillance. Until something like that, Americans will keep trusting government. However, while its not bad that we trust government, there is still a need for policies that set limits and accountability for government surveillance. We shouldn't give government a carte blanche.
Posted by rshah at 09:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 28, 2007
Brief History of US Surveillance
From ACLU
A nice graphic on the history of surveillance
Posted by rshah at 12:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 20, 2007
Effectiveness of London's Cameras for Solving Crimes
From Schneier on Security linking to thisislondon.co.uk:
Some politicians in the UK analyzed the number of cameras in particular areas and compared that with the proportion of the crimes solved. They found that police "are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any."
I agree with the many people who noted flaws in the logic and data with this argument. However, I am glad that there are people asking these kinds of questions. Maybe as cameras spread to the US, there will be more American data on the effectiveness of cameras.
Some interesting statistics from the article:
There are now 10,524 CCTV cameras in 32 London boroughs funded with Home Office grants totalling about £200million.
Wandsworth has 993 cameras, Tower Hamlets, 824, Greenwich, 747 and Lewisham 730, but police in all four boroughs fail to reach the average 21 per cent crime clear-up rate for London.
By contrast, boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, Sutton and Waltham Forest have fewer than 100 cameras each yet they still have clear-up rates of around 20 per cent.
Quotes from comments on Schneier's blog on the flaws with the study:
To show that cameras do not help, you need to compare statistics for the same place before and after cameras were introduced. The article compares the resolution of crimes in areas differing concentrations of cameras to a mythical "average crime solving rate". Since crime is known to vary strongly by area anyway, the conclusions are void.
what is it that makes those areas have more cameras?
what are the crimes in the different areas, are the crimes different between the areas of high and low surveillance?
Do the introduction of cameras change the type of crime. Are there trends of crime changing as more cameras are introduced.
Percentages are one thing but what are the actual figures.
And glaringly missing are the figures over time. ie How do the percentages of solved crimes change as more cameras are introduced. Did they stay the same even when more cameras where introduced.
What are the national averages of solving crimes for all the particular crimes in each area.
Posted by rshah at 10:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 02, 2007
Video Surveillance of Public Places
From Center for Problem-Oriented Policing.
Offering a guide by the U.S. Department of Justice on the use of video surveillance or CCTV as a problem-oriented policing response to a crime problem. It is written by Jerry Ratcliffe.
This guide explores the benefits and problems associated with CCTV and summarizes the findings of numerous CCTV evaluations (see appendices A and B).
. . .
Although some see CCTV as a panacea to crime and disorder in public places, others view the growth of CCTV as an intrusion, with visions of an Orwellian 'Big Brother' invading personal privacy. This guide will help you better understand the effectiveness of CCTV and address some constitutional and privacy concerns. The guide's two appendices (A and B) summarize much of the available research about the effectiveness of CCTV as a crime control measure. After you read this guide, you should not only be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of CCTV in a public setting, but also be able to answer many of the public's concerns.
Posted by rshah at 05:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 21, 2007
Under the Watchful Eye: The Proliferation of Video Surveillance Systems in California
From ACLU of Northern California:
A press release on a new report on video surveillance by the ACLU. The first two parts of the report provide the traditional arguments on the threat to civil liberties and the effectiveness of cameras. The third part is the most interesting and contains findings from a public records survey.
Among the key findings of 131 jurisdictions:
- 37 cities have some type of video surveillance program
- 18 cities have significant video surveillance programs of public streets and plazas; an additional 10 jurisdictions are actively considering such expansive programs
- 18 cities have systems in which police actively monitor the cameras
- Only 11 police departments have policies that even purport to regulate the use of video surveillance cameras
- No jurisdiction has conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the cameras’ effectiveness
The real shame is the lack of policies to ensure cameras are used properly. Here is what the ACLU found:
Only eleven of the 37 departments provided any written policies specifically addressing video surveillance. . . .
In San Francisco, the surveillance program grew from two to 33 cameras without any binding regulations: Members of the mayor’s staff and city organizations, such as the emergency Services department, promulgated policies, but these policies did not vest community members with any rights to seek redress for violations and were also easily changed. for example, camera footage originally was to be erased after 72 hours (three days), but the city changed that time span to seven days. It was not until June 2006, almost a full year after the first cameras were installed, that the board of supervisors passed an ordinance providing for some legally enforceable regulations on public processes and the use of the cameras.
Every police department using cameras (including Chicago) should have a publicly available and enforceable policy on video surveillance. As history shows, eventually our blind trust will lead to misuse.
Posted by rshah at 08:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 15, 2007
DHS funding millions of dollars of cameras
From The Boston Globe:
A nice reporting job on the role of the Department of Homeland Security in funding surveillance systems.
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.
Posted by rshah at 09:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 18, 2007
Surveillance State Function Creep - London Congestion Charge
From Spy Blog:
Spy Blog has a post on the growing uses of the surveillance data in London. This data concerns the cameras (about 1,500) and the ANPR data that comes from the congestion charge system:
Police are to be given live access to London's congestion charge cameras - allowing them to track all vehicles entering and leaving the zone. Anti-terror officers will be exempted from parts of the Data Protection Act to allow them to see the date, time and location of vehicles in real time. They previously had to apply for access on a case-by-case basis.
"The Met requires bulk ANPR data from TfL's camera network in London specifically for terrorism intelligence purposes and to prevent and investigate such offences. "The infrastructure will allow the real-time flow of data between TfL and the Met." Mr McNulty said the home secretary had signed a certificate exempting the two organisations from some provisions of the 1998 Data Protection Act.
The Met will produce an annual report for the Information Commissioner, the government's data protection watchdog who oversees how material from CCTV cameras is used.
Spy Blog goes on the criticize this function creep.
What is being proposed is real time data on everyone simply being slurped into who knows what sort of Metropolitan Police and passed on to who knows which other agencies anti-terrorism databases, both in the UK and overseas.
What safeguards are there for the millions of innocent people's vehicle movements which will be stored and analysed ?
Posted by rshah at 07:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 09, 2007
Do We Really Want Big Brother Watching Us?
From The Rutherford Institute - Commentary:
A commentary that ran in papers last week. It argues against government video surveillance. It doesn't have any new arguments or data, but its a nice short piece on the issues around government video surveillance.
Posted by rshah at 09:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 14, 2007
What Affects Crime in Big Cities
From Economist.com :
A great article on crime in big cities, including Chicago. Its a must read, especially for those following crime trends in the cities and the impact of surveillance technology on crime. The article is based on the research of Wesley Skogan, a criminologist at Northwestern University. Here are some quotes from the article on the methods that help to reduce crime:
The big cities' methods may sound obvious, yet they are surprisingly rare. Many police forces are not divided into neighbourhood units. Oakland's struggling force, for example, is organised into three daily shifts, or “watches”, which makes it hard to hold anybody accountable for steadily rising crime in a district. Even when smaller police forces track emerging hot spots, they often fail to move quickly enough to cool them down.
. . .
However shrewdly the cops are deployed, they might not have cut crime so dramatically if social trends had not also been moving in the right direction.
The most obvious change is that, thanks in part to high property prices, all three cities are shedding young people. Together they lost more than 200,000 15-to 24-year-olds between 2000 and 2005. That bodes ill for their creativity and future competitiveness, but it is good news for the police. Young people are not just more likely to commit crimes. Thanks to their habit of walking around at night and their taste for portable electronic gizmos, they are also more likely to become its targets.
Another change is that poor Americans have been displaced by poor immigrants—who, as studies have repeatedly shown, are much better behaved than natives of similar means. This trend is symbolised by the disappearance of blacks. Roughly half of America's murder victims and about the same proportion of suspected murderers are black. In five years America's three biggest cities lost almost a tenth of their black residents, while elsewhere in America their numbers held steady.
The key issue for this blog is what is not mentioned in the article, surveillance cameras. In fact, in a draft article on Wesley Skogan's web site, he specifically notes that there is no evidence of the effectiveness of smarter police techniques, such as cameras. (I have known about this article for a while, but decided to hold this back until Skogan was ready to go public - I will leave to the reader to find the actual article).
This is a clear slap to the face of Chicago's PR machine for cameras. Once again cameras are found not to reduce crime. Nevertheless, Chicago will undoubtedly tout the efficacy of the camera network on questionable and publicly unavailable data.
Posted by rshah at 11:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 11, 2007
License Plate Cloning
More than 40,000 sets of number plates were stolen in 2006, a rise of almost 25%, according to police estimates.
Acpo wants a central issuing body for the registration numbers, and all cars to have tamper-proof plates fitted.
Posted by rshah at 10:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 10, 2007
CameraWatch
CameraWatch is a new organization that "will support organisations impacted by CCTV and their understanding and compliance with current policy and legislation."
My hope is they will produce useful data. So far, in a June PR, they asserted that 90% of UK based CCTV systems do not comply with legal requirements
Posted by rshah at 09:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 06, 2007
Government Surveillance Data Used in Civil Cases
From Discourse.net:
Froomkin comments on an article in Inside Bay Area on how civil and divorce lawyers are using commuter records from the electronic toll collection system called FasTrak. The article notes:
Subpoenas that MediaNews obtained under the state Public Records Act turned up several cases over the last two years in which the Metropolitan Transportation Commission released FasTrak subscriber records in civil disputes. The records include logs of the date, exact time and bridge where a car using FasTrak rolls through a toll plaza at any of the eight Bay Area spans.
"Part of the reason Fred has not had success . . . is that he takes too much time off," claimed a woman who sought her husband's toll activity in one divorce case. "His transponder records . . . will show how little he works."
. . .
Another divorce lawyer jokingly pleaded with a Times reporter not to write this story, saying it could "ruin a great gig I've got going. "With the FasTrak data and maybe credit card receipts, you can put together anybody's life every day," said Oakland attorney Matthew Graham. "It's pretty damaging stuff you can come up with." He said FasTrak data recently helped him refute claims by a client's wife that she worked often from home - an issue in a dispute over visitation rights. Graham said he has considered giving up his own FasTrak account.
Since the start, transportation officials have sought to ease privacy concerns, highlighting a policy that bars release of customer data "except as required by law or ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction." McMillan said the policy is among the tightest of any e-toll system. Neither the privacy policy nor the customer license agreement explains that court orders may include subpoenas in civil cases, which do not require a judge's approval unless they are contested.
Currently, video surveillance footage is not as useful for these purposes because its not personally identifiable. However, with the emergence of video recognition systems or the combination of video surveillance and sensors (e.g., RFID subway card and a camera), it will only be a matter of time before government camera footage is used in the civil lawsuits. Nevertheless, there are plenty of civil cases where government footage could be useful, I wonder if cities like Chicago have ever turned over camera footage.
Posted by rshah at 03:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 31, 2007
Leaking Surveillance Video
The Star-Ledger ran a story on a new policy limiting the number of employees allowed to make copies of videos captured by highway surveillance cameras. A video of a fatal car crash was posted on youtube.com last week. As the article notes:
"These kinds of tapes are for operational and law enforcement purposes, not for entertainment purposes," said state Transportation Commissioner Kris Kolluri, who also heads the Turnpike Authority board. "I'm not happy with the fact that these were released. We're going to take every action we can to figure out who is responsible and make sure it doesn't happen again."
. . .
Between 12 and 15 employees had access to the video, he said. Officials from the Turnpike Authority have been trying to determine which one of them copied the footage and shared it with someone outside. The New Jersey State Police is helping with the investigation, Orlando said.
There is a long history of government surveillance being leaked. Hopefully, this will be a wake-up call to governments for all surveillance whether its for crime or traffic. There needs to be a system in place that employs both technology and procedural safeguards to prevent abuse.
New Jersey also filed a lawsuit preventing the airing of the video, the IP issues are discussed over at madisonian.net.
Posted by rshah at 03:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 15, 2007
Surveillance Footage is Not Enough
From Chicago Tribune:
This article is one of those obvious points that everyone acknowledges, but rarely is found in news coverage. Just because you have footage of a bad guy, doesn't mean they will be caught and convicted. The article has a number of examples, but here are some good points:
"The bottom line is that videos are most helpful in cases where there is a relationship between the victim and the perpetrator," said Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and prosecutor who teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "When you get the stranger crimes where there is no discernible relationship, they are just by definition harder to solve."
In a number of cases where the suspect picks his target at random, the images are little more than a way to identify him after he has been caught, O'Donnell said.
Bond said that most often it's not police who identify the suspect from a photo, but witnesses or friends.
Posted by rshah at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 02, 2007
Respectful Cameras
From Technology Review:
A camera system developed at Berkeley is capable of obscuring faces. The project is called Respectful Cameras. This project is similar to other work at CMU and IBM that attempts to strip out faces in surveillance footage. However, this technology appears to work in real time. The only drawback is this technology currently requires people to wear a marker (such as a hat or vest) to block their faces. Nevertheless, it is interesting research and hopefully just a precursor to other privacy enhancing technologies. Here is a image of the technology at work from the article:
Posted by rshah at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 01, 2007
Cameras on Street Sweepers
The Washington Times reported on an initiative by new DC Mayor Fenty. The idea is putting cameras on street sweepers to photo enforce vehicles parked illegally in street-sweeping lanes. Last year there was more than 58,000 tickets for these violations. The plan is to outfit street-sweeping vehicles with two types of cameras: a license-plate recognition camera and another that provides a wider view of the vehicle.
Naturally, as with most photo enforcement, it is not popular with everyone. A nice post on why people are uncomfortable with the initiative can be found at the DCist. It also rebuts a lot of the concerns:
The people caught on traffic cameras are running red lights and speeding. Why is it a problem to photo-enforce parking laws as well? If you want to dispute the laws themselves, that's something else. However, unless you are prepared to pony up more in city taxes, it seems fine to let the District generate revenue from those who just can't resist the urge to break the law.
The interesting point for me is that this is another example of wholesale surveillance. What are the limits to photo enforcement in our society?
Posted by rshah at 03:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 31, 2007
Limiting Surveillance
From Wired News:
A short opinion piece on the long term implications/threats of surveillance. The last paragraph was very interesting to me:
We can choose to use highly invasive technologies only for the more serious security and law enforcement purposes. But we must build those restrictions into the machines themselves. Law alone will not be enough to control the natural human desire to use technology for all it is capable of doing, regardless of our values or goals. The inevitable alternative is mission creep.
I know vendors have sold smart camera systems that are capable of respecting various restrictions, e.g., such as the IBM system that allows images of individuals not under suspicion to be stripped out (link). But how many governments or corporations have asked/mandated these features when they purchase smart camera systems?
Posted by rshah at 10:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 19, 2006
Critique of the NYCLU's Report
The Surveillance Camera Players have a critique of the recent report released by the NYCLU, which was discussed here a few days ago. I hope to go into the substance of the report at a later point, but at my first reading I don't think their critique is very strong (accurate on some points, but more nitpicking than substantive). I hope to at a future point carefully go through their allegations.
I think there are some useful issues and points for those people who are carefully following the issues around government surveillance. At the very least, its nice that there are multiple groups focused on this issue with differing viewpoints. (Also, can someone tell the Surveillance Camera Players to update their web site to support RSS and newreaders. I don't have the time to check web sites for updates manually).
Posted by rshah at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 15, 2006
NYCLU Report on Surveillance in New York City
From NYCLU:
The New York Civil Liberties has just published a report, "Who's Watching? Video Camera Surveillance in New York City and the Need for Public Oversight," on the threats to civil liberties posed by the unchecked proliferation of surveillance cameras in New York City. Its a short report that succinctly states the risks of public video surveillance and provides some policies to ensure that cameras are not abused. Its a great read and I hope to expound on the report in the future.
Posted by rshah at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 20, 2006
Alcohol Sensors in Cars
From Seattle PI:
This story seems a bit removed from smart cameras, but I think there are some interesting parallels between alcohol sensors and video surveillance.
First, there is a move towards using technology to detect a crime/hazardous situation rather than relying on the threat of arrest and punishment. MADD is pushing for legislation requiring first-time offenders to have these alcohol sensors / ignition-interlock devices installed in their vehicles. In part, because the technology appears to be effective at reducing alcohol related deaths.
Second, concerns how invasive the sensors should be. The current technology requires drivers to blow into a device. However, there is active work on developing passive sensors. One sensor works by detecting too much alcohol in the car. A second sensor actually shines a light on the driver and can detect alcohol content of the driver. (You can see the continuum here on the degree of invasiveness).
Third, these surveillance technologies (thats what they are, right?) are likely to be encouraged/forced onto consumers. The article notes that the passive sensors will first be used in corporate fleets and eventually insurance companies will give discounts. If this really happens, I believe at some point these devices will become either de jure or de facto standards for all cars. (This is probably a good thing).
Posted by rshah at 09:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 05, 2006
Cameras as an Investigative Tool
From cbs2chicago.com:
I often get asked about the usefulness of cameras. I first point out that the research shows they aren't a very useful deterrent to crime (from the viewpoint of the city as a whole). However, they are useful as an investigative tool (and often generate considerable publicity) in statistically rare criminal cases. The most riveting of these are kidnappings by children and terrorist activity.
The Jamie Bulger kidnapping in the UK with its footage of a child being taken away was crucial in building support for widespread video surveillance. We now have our own similar story in the US for blue light cameras. It does differ (thankfully) in that Shakina Scott was found quickly and safely. But it also shows (and will be over-hyped) another potential use of the blue light cameras.
UPDATE: According to Parenting magazine, there are 115 kids who are actually kidnapped by strangers every year. This is why I called this type of case statistically rare. However, a poll by the magazine found that 40% of moms (what no dads!) think that 5,000 kids are kidnapped by strangers each year. (This also shows I do read magazines other than Wired.) I found this in the October 2006 issue on page 37.
Posted by rshah at 08:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 21, 2006
Guidelines from the Constitution Project
From the Constitution Project : Liberty and Security Initiative:
I have spent a few posts detailing concerns with government abuse of surveillance cameras. The Constitution Project has put together practical guidelines for communities (this was done back in May 2006). They just released model legislation for governments. This should be invaluable to government bodies seeking to developing their own rules and guidelines for video surveillance.
Posted by rshah at 07:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 19, 2006
ACLU on NY Proposal for Mandating Cameras in Bars
From ACLU press release regarding NYCLU testimony:
The New York City Council took testimony from the New York Civil Liberties Union on the proposed legislation requiring cabarets and dance clubs to install video surveillance at entrances and exits.
The NYCLU argued the critical questions were:
- Does the use of video surveillance cameras deter crime?
- Do video surveillance cameras provide greater public safety protection than the deployment of police or private security professionals?
- What are the relative costs and benefits of deploying trained security professionals as compared with video technology?
- Will legislation mandating the installation of video technology have the effect of shifting resources from the employment of security personnel to the installation of video surveillance technology?
- Would this shifting of resources provide the optimum value for each security dollar spent?
The first answer by the NYCLU was that the research does not show that cameras reduce crimes. The second answer focused on the potential for abuse and the chilling effect of cameras. They provided three examples.
- The NYPD archived hundreds if not thousands of hours of surveillance images captured during the 2004 Republican National Convention. Some of these images, involving protected First Amendment activity, were published by the New York Times as an "unofficial archive of police videotapes" four months after the RNC.
- A police department videotape of a suicide that occurred/took place in the Morris Houses, in the Bronx, found its way onto an Internet site devoted to pornography and violence.
- A WABC-TV Eyewitness News investigation of the police department's VIPER unit featured City Council Member Hiram Monserrate, a retired police officer, who described observing police officers engaging in video voyeurism – peering into the apartments of public housing residents and focusing cameras on women.
The rest of the testimony focused on how legislation can ensure that cameras are not abused.
Posted by rshah at 07:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Baltimore - Cameras Not Useful for Prosecutors
From ABC2News:
Just a snippet from the article:
Police say crime is down about 15 percent in neighborhoods with cameras. But enthusiasm for the surveillance system has dimmed at the city prosecutor's office because many cases involving cameras have had to be dropped. Baltimore State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy said the quality of the images hasn't been what she hoped. She also said many of the arrests resulting from cameras are for minor crimes and small drug busts. For the most part, the cameras haven't been helpful in violent crime cases, she said.
Between December and July, about 40 percent of 600 charges resulting from cameras had to be dismissed, the state's attorney's office said, many because of insufficient evidence stemming from poor image quality and a lack of physical evidence. Problems arise when cameras are running automatically without a person to focus in on a crime, and the video only captures a fragment of what happened. . . . Even with good video, Jessamy said police still need physical evidence. "They're perceiving the cameras as the be-all and the see-all, and it's not," Jessamy said.
Antonio Gioia, a prosecutor for the city's narcotics division who has handled cases involving cameras, said they are a helpful tool, but he believes significant crime cuts will only come with more focus on job training and drug treatment. "They are tools in law enforcement, but the public should understand there are limits to what prosecution can achieve by itself," Gioia said. Gioia also has heard that criminals are just moving their business to parts of the city where there aren't any cameras, although it's not clear where they're going.
Posted by rshah at 03:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 12, 2006
Arguments Against Video Surveillance
Its rare to see criticisms of video surveillance that don't seem knee-jerk. Most of the analysis appears lacking. This has led me on a quest for finding eloquent criticisms of video surveillance (and one that is far from finished). I recently ran across two editorials/letters against video surveillance and here is what they believe are the key issues. They can be found at the Washington Times and the Tucson Citizen.
1. There was a right to privacy in public in the past, simply because it was unfathomable that every word, movement, and gesture could be captured.
2. Surveillance starts with terrorism and ends with cameras targeting a broad range of misbehavior and even political behavior.
3. Cameras are just another technical fix to solve an enduring social problem - crime. (The subtext is that cameras are not going to solve this problem in the long run).
Posted by rshah at 04:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 28, 2006
Criminals simply avoid cameras
Inspired by the Cincinnati Post:
Its something sociologists have long recognized, but its talked about very little. When cameras go up in one area, some crime may just move to another area. The term for this is displacement.
"We've never really gotten anything useful from them," said Cincinnati Police Capt. Kimberly Frey. With hopes that they would be a boon for crime-fighting, the city first installed video cameras in 1998. By 2000, their utility was already in doubt. A review by the University of Cincinnati that year found the devices accomplished little beyond shifting criminals out of areas under the lens into unwatched spots, where they resumed their illegal activities.
While the police captain is shaking his head, the academic review provides some key insights. Some of results of the study were published in Security Journal by Mazerolle, Hurley, and Chamlin (I believe the Cincinnati study was done for David Hurley's dissertation):
Our study of CCTV in Cincinnati found that surveillance cameras create somewhat of an initial deterrent effect in the month, perhaps two months, following implementation. We conclude that erecting signs to notify people about the cameras could possibly increase the level of deterrence of CCTV. Signs about CCTV cameras in operation would also address some of the fairness issues raised by civil libertarians. We also suggest that shifting CCTV cameras around on a frequent basis could solve two dilemmas: first, it would increase the number of hotspots under surveillance, and hence remove some of the inequities observed in CCTV deployment; second, short and periodic, as opposed to permanent, deployment of CCTV cameras would capitalize upon some of the initial deterrent effects of the cameras that are observed in our data.
The recommendations seem solid to me and should be considered by those deploying cameras. (And this shows the value of allowing academics to study the deployment of crime fighting technology).
Posted by rshah at 10:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 17, 2006
Cameras Extremely Popular
From Philadelphia Inquirer:
While it should be no surprise, through a nonbinding ballot question in Philadelphia voters have overwhelmingly supported the use of cameras to deter crime. (The unofficial returns suggest a margin of 4 to 1) I don't know the exact wording of the ballot question, but it really doesn't matter. Cameras are extremely popular.
Posted by rshah at 08:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 25, 2006
Little Brother
From the Village Voice:
A nice piece on the role of cameras in the hands of everyone. While we often worry about the big brother issues related to surveillance, this article discusses problems related to the "little brother". An example is the Holla Beck web site that fights street harassment by showing pictures of the catcallers. Another example is the woman in South Korea that was photographed because she did not clean up after her dog on the subway. That photo resulted in her public humiliation and the title "Dog Poop Girl". The article provides good background on this issue and has extended quotes from experts, such as Marc Rotenberg and Daniel Solove.
Posted by rshah at 08:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 28, 2006
Uses for Police Camera Footage?
From InformationWeek:
A federal court in NY will hear an important case related regarding video surveillance. Can police "take and keep video footage of people participating in political demonstrations." This issue happened during the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. The outcome of this case will be important for government use of surveillance cameras. Unlike in Europe, there are no laws in the US limiting the use of surveillance camera footage. Stay tuned . .
Posted by rshah at 12:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 07, 2006
Policy for Using Cameras
Story on masslive.com about guidelines for camera usage. The rules were modeled on rules adopted in Chicago.
I couldn't find the Chicago rules online, but I found two others. Middletown, NY and State College, PA
Update:
John Hopkins policy statement
Update 2:
San Luis Obispo policy and news story about it
Posted by rshah at 02:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack