Home
Bibliography
Calendar
Columns
Dorothy Brizill
Bonnie Cain
Jim Dougherty
Gary Imhoff
Phil Mendelson
Mark David Richards
Sandra Seegars
DCPSWatch
DCWatch
Archives
Council Period 12
Council Period 13
Council Period 14
Election 1998
Election 2000
Election 2002
Elections
Election
2004
Election 2006
Government and People
ANC's
Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
Auditor
Boards and Com
BusRegRefCom
Campaign Finance
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Management Officer
City Council
Congress
Control Board
Corporation Counsel
Courts
DC2000
DC Agenda
Elections and Ethics
Fire Department
FOI Officers
Inspector General
Health
Housing and Community Dev.
Human Services
Legislation
Mayor's Office
Mental Health
Motor Vehicles
Neighborhood Action
National
Capital Revitalization Corp.
Planning and Econ. Dev.
Planning, Office of
Police Department
Property Management
Public Advocate
Public Libraries
Public Schools
Public Service Commission
Public Works
Regional Mobility Panel
Sports and Entertainment Com.
Taxi Commission
Telephone Directory
University of DC
Water and Sewer Administration
Youth Rehabilitation Services
Zoning Commission
Issues in DC Politics
Budget issues
DC Flag
DC General, PBC
Gun issues
Health issues
Housing initiatives
Mayor’s mansion
Public Benefit Corporation
Regional Mobility
Reservation 13
Tax Rev Comm
Term limits repeal
Voting rights, statehood
Williams’s Fundraising Scandals
Links
Organizations
Appleseed Center
Cardozo Shaw Neigh.Assoc.
Committee of 100
Fed of Citizens Assocs
League of Women Voters
Parents United
Shaw Coalition
Photos
Search
What Is DCWatch?
themail
archives
|
Cleveland Park Citizens Association
P.O. Box 11444
Washington, DC 20008
THE USE OF VIDEO TECHNOLOGY IN POLICE SURVEILLANCE AND
TRAFFIC CONTROL
June 13, 2002
The Cleveland Park Citizens Association (CPCA) was founded in 1911 to
advance all public interests of its members in the District of Columbia,
including public safety of its citizens. Like other citizens in the
District, CPCA is concerned that the District's police force have all
legitimate tools it needs, consistent with the Constitution, to protect
the public safety.
The Association first became aware of the Metropolitan Police
Department's (MPD) implementation of an extensive general population
electronic video surveillance network with the publication of the Wall
Street Journal article, "Washington Police to Play `I Spy'"
in Feb. 2002. Subsequently we have learned that the National Park Service,
among other Federal agencies intends to install a general population
electronic video surveillance network on Park Service property.
Chief Ramsey, and the NOPR before you today, has said that he
contemplates that the Metropolitan Police Department's (MPD) network may
be linked with the Park Service's network as well as those of other public
and private entities, including the D.C. Public School System, the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the D.C. Department of
Public Works' Transportation Division, and could ultimately include more
than a thousand cameras, both building or ground mounted and mounted on
helicopters. Presently the MPD's helicopters are already equipped with
Forward looking infrared and video camera system that can record or
broadcast on a microwave downlink system.
City and Federal officials have variously described these systems'
purpose as protecting sites at a high risk of terrorist activity (NPS), as
"event specific to be activated only during threats or terror or
large public events" (MPD), and as enhancing day-to-day policing, and
modeled on the system in London (Mayor Williams). Each of these purposes
is very different and not necessarily mutually compatible. None of them,
including the proposed NOPR, have clearly indicated what is the purpose of
the MPD's system. Without clearly defining the purpose, the effectiveness
of these general population surveillance camera systems cannot be
determined.
It is incumbent upon the Council to make sure that the purpose of the
system is clearing defined and delimited before we embark further on an
expensive and possibly constitutionally questionable system of
surveillance. New developments in surveillance technology, including
thermal imaging, biometric facial recognition systems, and infrared or
night time imaging, are outstripping criminal and privacy protection laws
and, depending upon how such technology as used, may allow law enforcement
agencies to engage in intrusive searches without a warrant and without
probable cause or individualized suspicion that a crime is or may be
committed, may encourage racial or ethnic profiling, and may cast a pall
on free exercise of First Amendment rights.
The existence of such a network raises many other legal and operational
questions, including (1) who gave permission to implement this network and
whether there is public support for its creation; (2) how the cameras will
be used; (3) who will control and have access to them; (4) the cameras'
effectiveness in deterring or solving crimes; (5) the effect on our
privacy rights and whether there is a less intrusive way to accomplish the
same goals; (6) whether the images will be recorded and, if so, how long
they will be retained, for what purposes will they be used, how they will
secured and whether such images will be subject to the District and
Federal Freedom of Information Acts and subpoena by private litigants; (7)
whether there are any civil or criminal penalties for misusing the camera
systems or recorded images; and, finally, (8) whether such a surveillance
system really is a cost-effective use of limited public resources, once
the maintenance and personnel needs to operate the system, including
analyzing the images, are calculated.
The Council of the District of Columbia, on March 5, 2002, recognized
that "[m]aintaining a balance between the need for effective law
enforcement and the need to protect the privacy of the citizens of and
visitors to the District of Columbia is an important public policy
issue" and directed the MPD to "draft regulations pertaining to
the use of video surveillance camera and technology in the operation of
its Joint Operations Command Center/Synchronized Operations Command
Center".
The Cleveland Park Citizens Association (CPCA) is concerned, like
Congresswoman Constance Morella, Chair of the House District of Columbia
Subcommittee, that we do not turn the District into "'Fort
Washington' - ... whether "that fortress is built with an
impenetrable ring of concrete barriers or with an unregulated network of
digital cameras". The CPCA recognizes the possible chilling effect
general population surveillance camera systems may have on privacy, free
speech and assembly and is concerned about any scheme of indiscriminate
general population surveillance.
The CPCA urges the Council, before any further implementation of the
MPD's video surveillance program is authorized:
- To thoroughly and publicly consider whether any wide-scale system of
surveillance cameras is necessary or appropriate in the District of
Columbia;
- To thoroughly and clearly define the purpose for use of such
technology;
- For guidance, to consult standards developed by organizations which
have examined the competing policy and constitutional issues, such as
the American Bar Association, the International Association of Chiefs
of Police and the American Civil Liberties Union;
- To approve appropriate legislation and regulations that have the
force and effect of law governing the use of video surveillance
systems and ensure that such legislation and regulations are sensitive
to constitutional and privacy concerns and only authorize the least
intrusive efective system;
- To ensure that any legislation and regulations approved adequately
address the issues raised above and:
- clearly define what are legal and illegal uses of video
surveillance technology and the circumstances under which
surveillance cameras may be used;
- adequately protect the privacy and security of surveillance
recordings and provide for the swift destruction of those without
value as evidence;
- provide civil and criminal penalties for those who abuse the
surveillance system; and
The CPCA urges the Council to work with our Delegate, Eleanor Holmes
Norton and Congress to ensure that federal video surveillance programs in
the District are similarly reviewed and subject to appropriate legislative
controls, that are especially sensitive to constitutional and privacy
concerns, before they are implemented. |