Since 9/11, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to cities and towns for the purchase of police surveillance cameras to record Americans' activities as we go about our daily business in public places. Even places with tiny populations--such as Liberty, Kansas, with a population of 95--have installed the DHS-funded cameras.
What's wrong with that picture? Modern digital cameras record and store images as data files that are easily shared with other government agencies. They are capable of panning, tilting, and zooming, and in some cases are even able to see details such as what a person sitting on a park bench is reading. As technology improves, the cameras may be fitted with software for facial recognition, or tracking people. These digital camera systems, often linking together communities, provide part of the infrastructure for the operation of a 24-hour surveillance society, a concept that should be foreign to our country.
Some communities have studied and debated the values at stake in allowing the camera systems to operate in their city or town. Here in Massachusetts, the Cambridge City Council voted 9-0 in February 2009 to oppose the installation of DHS-provided police cameras in that city. In June 2009, the Brookline Town Meeting voted by a large margin to call on the Board of Selectmen to remove the cameras there.
Opponents of these efforts have argued that cameras are necessary to ensure public safety. However, studies show that government surveillance cameras in public spaces don't make us safer. They don't prevent terrorism or most crimes, and don't even increase the rate at which police solve crimes. Of course, no one opposes the use of surveillance cameras at sensitive facilities and buildings, but it is fake security to install these systems to watch us in public places.
There is also a big difference between a private business having closed-circuit cameras watching over a store or bank and the government creating the architecture for massive surveillance of the population, with shared databases. Indeed, there is a long and sorry history of government agents photographing and creating files on lawful peaceful protesters and groups engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment. The massive amount of data now being recorded, stored, and shared by government agencies represents a growing threat to our privacy and the essence of a free society.
Media
5.17.10 Surveillance's shadow Boston Globe (letter to editor by Gavi Wolfe, ACLU of Massachusetts legislative counsel)
