April 12, 2005

Surveillance Camera Story

Yesterday, Christian Bottorff from the Tennessean contacted me regarding Metro's Plans to install surveillance cameras. In today's Tennessean, the public outcry regarding the cameras is discussed as well as crediting that outcry for the Police Department's plans to drop audio surveillance on those cameras...which was first reported here.

Public pressure over a proposed Metro police surveillance network has led police to scrap plans for an audio monitoring system that would have allowed officers to randomly eavesdrop on conversations in public places.

A video network, without audio recording devices, remains on track, however.

Reports of the city's request for bids on the camera system generated questions and criticism from a variety of sectors, including some Metro Council members and Internet discussion forums.

''As we thought more about audio, and as we listened to public discussion about this entire subject, we didn't want the benefit of overt surveillance cameras being overshadowed by the audio issue,'' Metro police spokesman Don Aaron said.

While I do think it's good that the police department listened to public discussion, the plans to move ahead with the cameras is still very unsettling. Yes, it's a small victory that they will not be installing the audio, but just because they dropped the plan now, doesn't mean it won't reappear later once we get used to being watched by the cameras.

Initially, police will place six cameras in the Cleveland Park area of east Nashville and also downtown in the tourist-heavy Second Avenue and Broadway district.

If the system works out, the department plans to buy more cameras and build a more expansive network throughout the city.

As you can see, this is only the start of a bigger plan. In Chicago (the city Serpas is modeling our system after), what started out as cameras in a few neighborhoods has grown to the police installing cameras around the city. Now they have started installing audio surveillance devices in unmarked police cars that can listen in on people's conversations.

The article continues:

Blake Wylie, who operates an Internet blog called the Nashville Files, has seen readers of his Web site band together to oppose the Police Department's surveillance plan.

After an article in The Tennessean last month about the police plan, the blog's readers were generally unanimous in their contempt for the proposed system and posted their thoughts in his corner of cyberspace.

Like many of his readers, Wylie has called for police to abandon the surveillance network altogether, viewing it as a small step toward a larger erosion of freedom by government.

''It may seem like a small issue now — but where do we go next?'' Wylie asked.

I was actually quite surprised that the Tennessean contacted me, a blogger, in the first place to discuss the issue. As Bill Hobbs noted earlier this morning, the Tennessean "appears to be starting to wake up to the blogosphere."

More:

Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee, yesterday praised Serpas' decision as a ''first step.'' The group continues to oppose plans to move forward with random video monitoring.

''I think that one's right to privacy is not a liberal or conservative, or a left or right value,'' she said. ''All of us assume there is an expectation of privacy, and we don't believe that our private conversations or images should be captured by government cameras.''

Weinberg brings the point home here. This is an issue that both conservatives and liberals can rally around. In fact, I think it says a lot that this blog is in agreement with the ACLU.

I used the frog boiling in water example with Bottorff. Government entities can take a little liberty here and a little liberty there. These little things unto themselves may not seem like much to most of the population, but all combined together, it adds up. Those that support governmental use of surveillance cameras need to realize that they'll soon be sitting in a boiling pot of water and won't even know it until it's too late.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

Nice post, and I agree wholeheartedly: While I'm close to Knoxville in terms of how this would effect me, the more common this is the further they push and the more liberties they take from us.

Keep up the awesome bloggin :)

Posted by: Evan Erwin at April 12, 2005 02:19 PM

One of the first rules of haggling is to ask for more than you want. He will smile and concede on the audio part because the likelihood of getting good audio on a public street, quite frankly sucks. So he's "compromising" by getting his cameras and no audio? Even though they openly talk about putting cameras everywhere the budget will allow?

Chicago's cameras even have sophisticated mindreading software that can tell when someone is acting suspiciously:
http://privacyspot.com/?q=node/view/296

I'm starting to long for the days when Don Aaron was just covering up for his old bosses' DUIs.

Posted by: smantix at April 13, 2005 06:39 PM

I really don't see the problem with video surveillance in public areas. There is no right to privacy in public areas so there is no Constitutional issue. And the benefits to law enforcement are significant (improved crime prevention, more efficient use of resources and personnel, possible video evidence in criminal investigations, etc.)

Now, the use of audio is different as that could possibly intrude on privacy.

Posted by: The Wandering Mind at April 14, 2005 07:38 AM

Good work. Now, about the unPatriot Acts that are up for renewal...

Posted by: ChristianLibrul at April 17, 2005 08:27 PM