California Government Surveillance Cameras Thrive Without Safeguards

Surveillance camera programs do not significantly reduce crime in city centers, the report argues. Mark Schlosberg, Police Practices Policy Director of the ACLU of Northern California and co-author of the report said, “The use of surveillance cameras, unfortunately, comes at the expense of proven crime reduction measures such as better lighting, foot patrols, and community policing. In this sense, throwing money at video surveillance actually detracts from law enforcement’s efforts to reduce crime.”

The report cites a survey commissioned by the British Home Office, which found that improved lighting led to “a 20 percent average decrease in crime, with reductions in every area of criminal activity including violent crime,” while cameras led only to reductions “no more significant” than in control areas with no cameras. Britain has more than four million cameras operating in more than 500 towns and cities.

In a July 13 editorial, the Los Angeles Times raised similar concerns about the New York police commissioner’s $90-million initiative to install 3,000 cameras in lower Manhattan: “The troubling thing about New York’s move, though, is that the only thing it’s guaranteed to diminish is privacy. There’s little proof that the money spent to equip and operate the system will do more for public safety than, say, hiring more cops.”

Along with New York City, Baltimore and Chicago are also receiving federal money to build massive surveillance systems that may link to thousands of privately owned security cameras.

In the last few years, reports of abuses involving surveillance cameras have surfaced. From camera surveillance of protesters in NYC to a San Francisco police officer who was disciplined for using surveillance cameras at the airport to ogle women.

Nicole Ozer, Technology and Civil Liberties Policy Director and report co-author, raises another serious concern. “The threat of widespread government surveillance only multiplies when cameras are combined with other new technologies.” She cited automated identification software among such technologies. “In this light, video surveillance cameras provide a critical pillar for an emerging government surveillance infrastructure,” Ozer added.

Summary of Recommendations

• Cease deploying surveillance cameras. Given surveillance cameras’ limited usefulness and the potential threat they pose to civil liberties, local governments should stop deploying them in public spaces.

For cities considering cameras:

• Evaluate other alternatives. Local governments should fully evaluate other crime reduction measures before spending limited public safety dollars on video surveillance systems.

• Fully assess any proposed system’s effectiveness and impact and establish a process for open public debate. No city or town should deploy a technology without fully debating and considering its impact on members of the community. The city should conduct a full assessment of the system’s effectiveness and impact on privacy and free speech before proceeding with the installation of cameras.

For cities with cameras already in place:

• (Re)evaluate the system’s effectiveness and its impact on privacy and hold public hearings. Any city with a video surveillance system already in place should conduct a comprehensive (re)evaluation of its effectiveness and impact on privacy. The city should make public the results of the evaluation and hold public hearings on the future of surveillance programs and possible alternative crime reduction measures.

Stella Richardson is the American Civil Liberties Northern California (ACLU-NC) Media Relations Director.

To read the report and supporting documents including news coverage of and studies on the issue, visit the ACLU site.