Pubdate: Sun, 08 Jul 2001
Source: Tribune Chronicle, The (OH)
Copyright: 2001 Tribune Chronicle
Contact:  http://www.tribune-chronicle.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1436

NEW POLICE TECHNOLOGY MUST BE CAREFULLY USED

The U.S. Supreme Court recently put the brakes on police departments 
seeking to use heat sensing cameras to detect marijuana plants growing 
inside someone's house. The court said police must have a search warrant 
before they can use technology that lets them see what is going on inside a 
person's home.

But new technology is spurring all sorts of government initiatives to keep 
track of people.

- -- About 60 communities now use cameras to catch people running red lights. 
As more equipment becomes available, more want to sign on, including some 
in Trumbull County.

- -- The National Park Service is testing a program that uses a combination 
of radar and cameras to catch speeders on park roads.

- -- Tampa recently became the first city to use cameras linked to 
face-recognition software to scan city streets in an effort to find criminals.

In theory, this sounds good. Advocates of these programs say the tougher 
enforcement improves public safety. Constant surveillance from a camera 
cuts down on people running red lights and forces speeders to slow down.

But the price in terms of lost privacy is very, very steep. The prospect of 
government constantly watching law-abiding citizens has turned the liberal 
American Civil Liberties Union and conservative House Majority Leader Dick 
Armey, R-Texas, into allies on this issue.

There are many problems with this use of cameras.

First and foremost is the assault on privacy. Armey said it clearly: 
"Placing police officers in a remote control booth to watch the every move 
of honest citizens isn't going to make us safer." Innocent people should 
not be subject to such constant monitoring by the government. Before 
citizens are subjected to such surveillance, police should have probable 
cause and a warrant.

Second is the great potential for abuse. Visionics Corp., which makes the 
camera system used in Tampa, says there is a code of conduct for police 
using their equipment. The computer database should not store images of 
innocent people, and only the faces of known criminals should be entered 
into the face-recognition software.

But who is going to enforce that code?

Before other cities adopt this technology, there must be strict guidelines 
on its use that are enforced by outside agencies. For example, in Ohio the 
Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information monitors how local police 
departments use software for using license plates to find the owner of a 
vehicle. Otherwise, corrupt police or government officials could use this 
software to harass people or track their every move. Don't think it can't 
happen. Trumbull County has seen several instances of police officers 
misusing the license plate program.

There is another potential form of abuse. According to Armey, cities with 
red-light cameras shortened yellow lights to increase the number of 
red-light violations. That results in more tickets and more revenue for the 
city and the company providing the camera, which gets a share of each fine.

Third, these cameras presume a person is guilty. In the case of traffic 
radar, a camera does not always clearly show who is driving, so the 
registered owner always gets the ticket. If the owner was not in the car at 
the time, he or she must then submit an affidavit claiming his or her 
innocence. That is backward. Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore said, "The use 
of cameras operating without human judgment reduces our system of justice 
to trial by machinery without the presumption of innocence."

Finally there is the potential for mistakes. For instance, in San Diego, 
attorneys found that sensors in the pavement had been moved, resulting in 
false readings. How many people can afford the attorney fees needed to 
fight a ticket and make such a discovery?

And if the use of cameras and radar are not bad enough, technology tracking 
gets worse. A car rental company in Connecticut has been using satellites 
to track its customers to see if they were speeding. When a customer went 
too fast, the company automatically imposed an extra charge on his or her 
credit card. That scheme ran afoul of consumer protection laws, but the 
company is amending its notification so it can resume the practice.

If Americans are not careful, this new technology could open the door for 
Big Brother. People have less a right to privacy when they are in public, 
but that should not mean police are allowed to watch or track everyone all 
of the time.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom