There has been a flurry of discussion the last two days about Richmond’s pending investment in security cameras in public places. The article below from today’s Contra Costa Times discusses objections in general to security cameras from the ACLU, including quotes from Mayor Gayle McLaughlin.

Click here and here for specifics about Richmond’s security camera program, including safeguards on civil rights. Most of the cameras have been paid for by Homeland Security and will, unfortunately in my opinion, be located at the Port of Richmond where, presumably, they will deter pilfering of new Hyundais and Kias. Unfortunately, fewer of the cameras will be available to catch graffiti artists and dumpers – not to mention drive-by shooters.

Although I am generally a fan of the ACLU, I cannot get excited about their concern over security cameras. Here in Richmond, midnight dumpers impose their detritus on streets all over Richmond, forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for cleanup. If a video camera can identify the license number of a dumper and lead to his arrest and a $1,000 fine, I just can’t see the downside.

My neighbors and I invested in a camera that can identify vehicles and license numbers on our street. We’ve had a fair number of car break-ins over the last few years, and a couple of cars stolen. Last week, someone tried to break into my garage. If these criminals can be identified and brought to justice with the help from a security camera, I can’t imagine a better outcome.

No, security cameras can’t necessarily prevent crime, but every criminal caught with the help of a camera makes for a safer community.

The prospect that a security camera “…can make immediate suspects out of people engaged in innocent acts such as sitting on a stoop chatting with friends on a hot summer night, driving around the block in business districts looking for a parking space, picking up a spouse from work or taking a photo of a tall building as a tourism memento,” is just so much unfounded speculation.

What difference does it make whether the streets are watched by cops, by neighbors or by video cameras? It’s what’s done with the information and how accurately it is handled that can turn into a civil rights violation. At least, a video camera cannot lie.

The ACLU needs to focus on more immediate problems, like government transparency and fighting the Patriot Act, and less time protecting criminals.

The Richmond video camera

Surveillance violates privacy, ACLU says

·  Agency says counties, cities misleading residents into believing cameras provide them security

By Tom Lochner

STAFF WRITER
Contra Costa Times

Article Launched:10/08/2007 03:02:49 AM PDT

Americans are trading in their Bill of Rights for a bill of goods, the American Civil Liberties Union warned Sunday.

Cities and counties, taking a cue -- and billions of dollars -- from the federal government, are buying into the idea that more surveillance translates into safer communities and a more secure nation, the group said.

And it's happening under the noses of a largely acquiescent public, said Barbara Zerbe Macnab, chairwoman of the ACLU's Berkeley-Albany-Richmond-Kensington chapter.

"There is no public outrage," she said. "That's what frightens me most."

Macnab was on a panel with Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin and ACLU attorney Nicole Ozer, reflecting on the theme "Government Surveillance 2007 -- 'Where Has Your Privacy Gone?' " as part of the local chapter's annual meeting at the Double Tree Hotel at the Berkeley Marina.

McLaughlin -- whose City Council recently allocated, despite her objections, $4 million to install 113 surveillance cameras -- attributed the increased use of the devices in America's public spaces to a "knee-jerk quick fix."

She spoke of a culture of fear stoked by a federal government less interested in safe neighborhoods than in collecting massive amounts of data on ordinary residents going about legal activities.

For the money, Richmond could have hired 100 community workers as peace-builders with far greater impact than "these intimidating machines," she argued.

"The presence of cameras is destructive to the open and free society we want in our country," McLaughlin said. "The electronic vigilantes do not help law enforcement solve crimes."

Proponents of the cameras say they provide valuable evidence for prosecuting crimes, and their very presence also prevent crimes.

London and Chicago have thousands of surveillance cameras. Bay Area cities with cameras, albeit in much smaller numbers, include San Francisco, and Berkeley is contemplating installing some, Ozer said. Several other Bay Area cities have cameras or plan to have them as well, she said.

Elsewhere in the East Bay, Pinole is beefing up a surveillance camera network first installed in the 1990s, and the El Cerrito City Council recently passed an ordinance requiring certain types of businesses to install them and make them accessible to police.

British law enforcement officials have credited surveillance cameras with helping their investigation into the July 2005 London subway bombings after cameras picked up the four people suspected of the crimes.

But Ozer said the cameras were not instrumental in the police investigation.

"They didn't use them to identify the people that did it," Ozer said. "They just used the cameras to confirm" who did it.

The panelists also warned that untold numbers of private surveillance cameras, such as those in stores, shopping mall parking lots and office building lobbies, complement the public agency-owned cameras because companies routinely make recordings available to police.

The proliferation of surveillance cameras, Macnab said, is testimony to the relevance today of such cautionary novels as George Orwell's "1984" and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World."

"Adolf Hitler would probably be out of his mind with joy if he had (the cameras) at his disposal," she said.

Ozer said security cameras can make immediate suspects out of people engaged in innocent acts such as sitting on a stoop chatting with friends on a hot summer night, driving around the block in business districts looking for a parking space, picking up a spouse from work or taking a photo of a tall building as a tourism memento.

Proponents of security cameras say law-abiding people who are not contemplating criminal acts should have nothing to fear.

The panelists said people do not give up their privacy rights whenever they enter public areas. They warned that in the digital age, massive amounts of data are being stored to be used in the future for as-yet-unknown purposes.

Macnab said she wants more young people to join the ACLU.

"It'll be their rights that will be curtailed in the future," she said.

An ACLU study on the proliferation of video surveillance systems in California is available at http://www.aclunc.org/watchfuleye.

Reach Tom Lochner at 510-262-2760 or tlochner@bayareanewsgroup.com.