Camera rules: Where are they?

August 4th, 2009 3:16 pm · 13 comments

Been following the discussion on the cameras in earnest, it really seems as if this issue is heating up - and on the verge, perhaps, of becoming a national story, or an even bigger national story. CBS News is sniffing around; maybe another network as well. As posted elsewhere, an indy documentary filmmaker-type is tackling the issue.

We should perhaps replace those welcome signs at the city border with a new one - Welcome to Lancaster. You are being watched.

I’m on record supporting the cameras and - in theory - I still think they are a good idea, or could be a good idea, properly regulated.

The problem is that virtually every day brings more and more evidence that they aren’t properly regulated - that they aren’t really regulated at all.

And that is a major problem, and one that should delay the installation of additional cameras until it is addressed.

What you have here with the city and Lancaster Community Safety Coalition is your classic ”public-private partnership.” Where have we heard that before. But what are the terms of this partnership? Is the footage being shot by the cameras public info? Can anyone walk in and demand to see any and all archival footage? Why not? And just how much is archived, anyway?

As Joe Morales said in the LA Times piece, “We are not directly responsible to law enforcement or government at this point” - but shouldn’t the CSC be beholden to some sort of public agency?

Where is the rule book? That is the most important question. Where are the city ordinances governing how this extraordinary tool is used? Where is the state law setting down the guidelines for what is and isn’t permitted, what the relationship between the camera operators and the city is, what’s public and what isn’t? None of this exists.

It needs to exist; it should have existed before the program proceeded.

But - as I just noted on the phone to a TalkBacker - the whole concept of “freedom” cuts both ways, doesn’t it? You’re free to say what you like, to assemble, etc. Barring ordinances specifically prohibiting it, isn’t the CSC or its backers free to roll out a system like this, so long as laws aren’t being violated?

Well, the system is here, and I continue to think it a useful tool for combating public disorder. But until we have a rule book, until we have specific legislation at the local and state levels - the program should progress no further.

Citizens cannot and must not just take for granted that organizations like the CSC have everyone’s best interests in mind. It must be set in stone. And camera opponents should begin pounding this drum at city council meetings - where’s the rule book? Are you telling me there is no rule book, and you’re not willing to write one?

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

13 comments Tags: Surveillance Cameras · Lancaster

There are currently 13 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog

newsjunkie
8/4/09
10:12 PM

As I've said before...we are allowing the creation of the infrastructure of totalitarianism...right before our very eyes...under one set of rules these "appurtanances" seem helpful or innocuous...but under a different set of rules they can become oppressive...and under NO rules???? this quote from your article is, I think, somewhat misleading

QUOTE

Because...this is not a representation of "Freedom"...the rest of us are not allowed to set up an "infrastructure" in the public right of way...these "right of way" infringements are usually ceded to utilities only and utilities have ALWAYS been under significant regulation for this very reason...WHO allowed these right of way infringements? and under what terms? Who is paying the electric bill? What is the source of income for these payments? I repeat, this is not freedom,,,this is infringement of the commons...

avgwhiteguy
8/5/09
12:02 AM

1) LCSC assumes upon itself a law enforcement role. It acts in a way that law enforcement agencies act. It acts as an agency of government, but is not. If I were to do so, I would be called a vigilante. Consider the case of the Columbia man who took a law enforcement matter into his own hands just a few nights ago. He apprehended a criminal using a technique that is both available and readily employed by police officers but was charged as a criminal himself for having done so.

2) LCSC is not bound by any of the regulations, procedures or laws that governs legitimate law enforcement agencies. If the Lancaster Bureau of Police wanted to use these cameras, they would face legal challenges based on previous case law that forces the police to obtain warrants to use enhanced surveillance methods.

3) There is a marked difference between the type of camera surveillance being used in Lancaster and that being used in say Philly. The Philly cameras are "red light" cameras, some of which are passive and only record when a sensor indicates that a certain parameter (say motion through an intersection after a red light actuation) is met. Passive red light camera systems are based on the already established regulations and restrictions regarding driving. When we choose to drive, we give up certain freedoms to receive the privilege. Active (constantly taping) systems are fixed and typically are not easily re-targeted to another area. They fall under the same principals as passive cameras.

4) LCSC IS NOT a public-private partnership. It is exclusively a private company, whose only connections to the public sector are the grant monies it requests (which can be denied at any time) and its ethically challenged executive director/publicly elected representative. LCSC was started by the Lancaster Alliance, a collection of private sector corporate leaders. There is no public oversight. Therefor it is not in any way public.

charlie_crystle
8/5/09
12:31 AM

Yes, well, yes. That's mostly what we've been saying all along. For years. And speaking at City Council meetings doesn't seem to have much effect. "Trust me, Charlie, we're the good guys".

(I wish you would be as vigilant about this as you were about Bush and Cheney)

I know they are good guys. I think they are anyway. Trust me? How about the institution, which will persist after you're gone?

This goes back to an earlier response to one of your earlier posts before you traveled the road to Damascus and fell down on your proverbial knees...

What's an abuse?
Who defines what an abuse is?
What happens when there's an abuse?
What types of abuses have occurred to date?
How would we know when an abuse has occurred?
How many employees have been fired?
How many volunteers have been asked to leave?
For what reasons?
Why was Dale Witmer demoted?
Have you ever focused cameras on a known opponent of the cameras, and for what reason?

Let's call it what it is: the constant, private, general surveillance of the general public, with no public accountability oversight, or transparency--as would be expected with any public agency.

The fact that it's gone this long before adjustments and changes made is just willful negligence--it's sloppy and it's embarrassing.

Where we're not in agreement is on your point that cameras are ok, as long as they are well regulated. They are just a tool, but an incredibly powerful tool. We've seen that powerful tools can be abused without public knowledge regardless of a system of accountability, because, sadly, some humans behave badly to the detriment of the rest of us.

Waterboarding is a tool. So are handguns. So are cars, so are tasers, so is warrantless wiretapping, so is warrantless general surveillance of the general population.

Human-scale tools require greater effort to abuse to the point where it's terribly harmful for the general public. These cameras are not human scale--it's an incredibly powerful network of high-powered surveillance cameras.

As an official geeky technologist I'm in awe of some of the tricks they can do. But as a resident I'm disturbed by their presence, regardless of the sloppy implementation and management of the program.

Thoughtful post--hoping you'll follow up with a few conversations on both sides.

(what does it matter to you? When you got a job to do |
You got to do it well | You got to give the other fellow hell)

Artie See
8/5/09
7:11 AM

QUOTE (charlie_crystle @ Aug 5 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thoughtful post--hoping you'll follow up with a few conversations on both sides.

avgwhiteguy makes some very good points. So do you.

I personally have no problem with the surveillance cameras. I have no expectation of privacy in public, so as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the issue. I shouldn't be doing anything in public that I wouldn't do while a police officer is watching me.

What I do have a serious problem with is the total and complete lack of public oversight AND checks-and-balances over the operation and use of the surveillance cameras. I don't have a problem with a police officer watching me while I walk down the street, since they are trained in the law and are being paid to maintain public safety. I don't have a problem with anyone watching me as I walk past them, since I have nothing to hide. I don't even have a problem with a building's surveillance cameras, since the owner has a right to protect their own property. But a PRIVATE individual with little training in the law, working for a PRIVATE corporation, who reports directly to the Lancaster City Police yet HAS NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE POLICE OR TO THE PUBLIC, could misinterpret my actions in an infinite number of ways.

What if I had stopped to carefully look at the modifications being made to the historic buildings at Queen and Vine (I do this all the time)? Is that loitering? Could I be accused of looking for a way to break in, or to vandalize the property? If damage would occur, could the video recording be used to accuse me of doing it, when all I did was look? A police officer would know how to interpret my actions, and would leave me alone (I've not yet been stopped, other than for a few quite pleasant conversations). But a barely-trained private individual could easily misinterpret what I was doing, dispatch a police car, and I would be forced to justify my actions - and possibly be detained - based on a bogus report.

I suppose most of the surveillance camera operators are used to seeing me poking around downtown by now, so this might never become an issue. BUT IT COULD BE.

skeptic2
8/5/09
7:46 AM

QUOTE (Lancaster Online @ Aug 4 2009, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

I really agree that the focus should now be on whether LCSC has their house in order in terms of conduct of the camera operators and accountability.

It should be emphasized that a number of individuals have asked for an explanation of how LCSC operates. The public response to this is to change the discussion (usually to the role of the cameras in fighting crime) while the private response is much more like MYOB. The camera opponents keep saying polite things like "as far as we know" yet it's very likely that LCSC simply doesn't have rules of conduct, and a method to look for and deal with misuse of the cameras as it should.

charlie_crystle
8/5/09
10:35 AM

QUOTE (Artie See @ Aug 5 2009, 08:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

avgwhiteguy makes some very good points. So do you.

I suppose most of the surveillance camera operators are used to seeing me poking around downtown by now, so this might never become an issue. BUT IT COULD BE.

Historically tools like this have been abused for personal and political reasons--and that's when they are run by public entities subject to the safeguards, accountability and oversight you'd expect in public entities. So for me this is not really about privacy, though there are aspects of that we should examine as a community.

The expectation of privacy in public is in fact protected--to some degree. It's nuanced.

http://bit.ly/gtcey

"Few would disagree that public video surveillance systems have the potential to be used in ways that infringe on privacy and anonymity rights. Commentators often erroneously assume that there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in streets or parks or other areas open to view.

However, despite the legal doctrine relied on, this is false as an empirical matter. Most people expect to remain anonymous in many “public” contexts, such as entering an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, a psychiatrist’s office, an infertility clinic, or the headquarters of a fringe religious or cultural group. Similarly, even when they are in a public place, most people expect to keep private the information that might be detectable from such sources as the exposed words on a vial of prescription drugs, the moving lips of a couple engaged in hushed conversation, or diary entries written by a person sitting on a park bench. Ubiquitous, technologically-enhanced video cameras could enable the government to routinely capture footage of all of these activities."

gsmart
8/5/09
10:47 AM

QUOTE (charlie_crystle @ Aug 5 2009, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Few would disagree that public video surveillance systems have the potential to be used in ways that infringe on privacy and anonymity rights. Commentators often erroneously assume that there is "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in streets or parks or other areas open to view.

Nope:

https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy

Public places. It may sound obvious, but you have little to no privacy when you are in public. When you are in a public place — whether walking down the sidewalk, shopping in a store, sitting in a restaurant or in the park — your actions, movements, and conversations are knowingly exposed to the public. That means the police can follow you around in public and observe your activities, see what you are carrying or to whom you are talking, sit next to you or behind you and listen to your conversations — all without a warrant. You cannot necessarily expect Fourth Amendment protection when you’re in a public place, even if you think you are alone. Fourth Amendment challenges have been unsuccessfully brought against police officers using monitoring beepers to track a suspect’s location in a public place, but it is unclear how those cases might apply to more pervasive remote monitoring, like using GPS or other cell phone location information to track a suspect’s physical location.

Emphasis added.

The ideological argument on this simply isn't enough to convince the public at large - especially when that public is dealing with both rising incidence of crime and the perception that crime is increasing (which doesn't always correlate with an actual rise in crime, though here and now it does).

The practical argument for greater (some?) oversight is simply going to be more effective. Choose your weapons wisely.

O311mc
8/5/09
11:38 AM

where are the rules for Cameras ? "Ven ve vant you to know ve vill tell you"

charlie_crystle
8/5/09
1:36 PM

QUOTE (gsmart @ Aug 5 2009, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll leave it to others to argue the narrower practical points (though I listed a number above). The privacy arguments are very nuanced--there are things the police can do that are acceptable under the law (listen to a tape recorded by an informant sitting with a suspect on a park bench) and unacceptable under the law (attach a listening device to the inside of a bag the suspect is carrying, unless they get a warrant first).

So there are limitations, and it's very nuanced. But privacy is not the main part of the arguments.

avgwhiteguy
8/5/09
5:04 PM

QUOTE (gsmart @ Aug 5 2009, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Standard case law supports the ability of law enforcement to gather information by using what would traditionally be considered "human intelligence" techniques without first showing probable cause or obtaining a warrant. In other words, by personally gathering information through observation using one's own senses. In the military, these techniques and tradecraft fall under the term "HUMINT," short for HUMan INTelligence.

The collection of information through electronic surveillance methods, including methods that provide similar, but enhanced information that would otherwise be available through HUMINT resources is called SIGINT, or SIGnals INTelligence. There are certain subsets of SIGINT tradecraft, including COMINT (communications intelligence, or the covert collection of person to person communications through things like wiretaps and bugs) ELINT (electronic intelligence, or the interception of email, computer signals and other electronic data) and to an extent IMINT (imagery intelligence, or the collection of information through the use of surveillance cameras, aerial photography or satellite imaging.)

To an extent because IMINT techniques in modern application have become so specialized that they require highly trained technicians and analysts to operate the systems and to interpret the information collected by them.

I say this to point out that there are distinct differences between the techniques that police use.

To recap: HUMINT = People physically observing other people without the aid of technology, overhearing conversations, and finding information or evidence in public places, being told information by witnesses or informants.

SIGINT = covert or clandestine photography, video or audio surveillance of a subject, hacking and interception of electronic information.

See the difference yet? Police are allowed to use HUMINT techniques without warrants. They are not allowed to use SIGINT techniques without first demonstrating probable cause and obtaining a warrant.

The right to privacy in public is irrelevant. Police officers are required to meet certain requirements (mostly demonstration of probable cause) before they can use enhanced investigatory techniques.

Simply being on the street does not equate to probable cause for the police to use their SIGINT resources to collect information about a person.

LCSC is a de facto police organization. Their charter, their past practices and their public statements demonstrate this fact clearly. The fact that the police and only the police have access to the data collected by their system means that they should be bound by the same legal requirements as the police.

If we are to accept the argument that LCSC is not a de facto police organization, we are left with the fact that they are nothing more than ordinary citizens. Ordinary citizens may have the right to videotape in public, but they do not have the right to act in a law enforcement capacity, and nor does LCSC.

Artie See
8/5/09
5:47 PM

QUOTE (avgwhiteguy @ Aug 5 2009, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that the police and only the police have access to the data collected by their system means that they should be bound by the same legal requirements as the police.

That sums up my objections to the way the surveillance cameras are operated.

Thank you very much for spelling out the issues so well.

Patriot4
8/7/09
3:42 AM

QUOTE (Artie See @ Aug 5 2009, 07:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you wouldn't mind a cop, or a citizen following you around every single minute of every single day? From the time you leave your house until the time you return home? You wouldn't mind being followed and watched every minute "just in case you do something wrong?" THAT is what the cameras do.

Patriot4
8/7/09
3:49 AM

QUOTE (Lancaster Online @ Aug 4 2009, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

I can't even imagine the amount of abuses this system creates. It isn't about the rules. They can be broken. It is about the web of cameras that are installed and the fact that they are up and able to be used that scares the *&%$ out of me. Rules or not, abuse happens quite regularly. There is no way to guarantee that someone is stable enough to be running these cameras. You can pass a background check and still be someone who just never got caught. The LCSC may have stringent rules and regulations laid out at some point, but the infrastructure is up. The web of cameras can watch anyone, anywhere. This means that DHS can tap into them. And with the Patriot Act, no warrant is required, and they do not really have to explain themselves to anyone at LCSC. The potential for a slew of abuses will always exist, as long as we have this web of cameras watching the entire city. This is a sad day in Lancaster. And to think this was an "old-fashioned" town that people come to visit for that reason. Shot to heck. Sad.

View Topic | Comment on this blog

Camera rules: Where are they?

August 4th, 2009 3:16 pm · 13 comments

Lancaster blogs

More Smart Remarks