*** UPDATED x1 *** Question of the day
Tuesday, Feb 8, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The ACLU blasted Chicago’s network of cameras…
A leading civil rights group wants Chicago to stop expanding its network of thousands of cameras covering the city because of privacy issues, First Amendment concerns and a lack of regulation, according to a report released Tuesday.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois called for a full review of the cameras — which number at least 10,000 and are at locations from skyscrapers to utility poles — saying city officials won’t release basic information like the exact number, cost and any incidents of misuse. […]
“Chicago’s camera network invades the freedom to be anonymous in public places, a key aspect of the fundamental American right to be left alone,” the report states. “Each of us then will wonder whether the government is watching and recording us when we walk into a psychiatrist’s office, a reproductive health care center, a political meeting, a theater performance, or a book store.”
* And the Sun-Times editorialized…
On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union in a new report on Chicago’s cameras called for a moratorium on additional cameras. We are not so sure a moratorium is necessary, but we absolutely agree with the ACLU that new guidelines should be put into place to protect citizens against abuse from these powerful tools. […]
Mayor Daley long has championed the cameras as crime-fighting tools and has said he’d like to see one on every corner. The ACLU report casts doubt on their effectiveness and says the $60 million price tag would be better spent on hiring more police.
* What the ACLU wants…
The ACLU is calling for restricting zooming, facial recognition and tracking to instances when crime is suspected; banning surveillance of homes or businesses; prohibiting the retention of images unless criminal activity is suspected; banning the unwarranted distribution of images; annually auditing the system and releasing the results of those audits; investigating all rules violations; disciplining transgressors and banning traffic photos if no violation is occurring.
* The Question: Are these reasonable demands by the ACLU? Do they want too much, or would you go even further? Explain.
*** UPDATE *** Unsurprisingly, Mayor Daley has rejected the ACLU’s demands…
If wealthier Chicagoans can enjoy the protection of private security cameras around their buildings, then other citizens should have that same type of protection on the streets in their neighborhoods, he said.
It isn’t practical to require probable cause before zooming in, following somebody’s movements with a camera or using facial recognition technology, Daley said, because that would require an OK from a judge.
“Ask a judge who’s sleeping tonight, at 2 o’clock in the morning, and say ‘Judge, we have probable cause, the person is walking down 22nd Street.’ By the time we get there the person’s already at Halsted Street,” Daley said.
- Excessively Rabid - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 7:13 am:
This is a complex issue where anything you do will probably involve unintended consequences. I agree that some oversight is needed, but don’t feel qualified to say what. But the Burge conviction is a reminder that sometimes the authorities don’t play fair. Also, Chicago is already way out in front of other cities on using cameras. They don’t need to get in front any further.
- Newsclown - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 7:23 am:
Based on Chicago’s less than stellar history of abuse of intelligence resources, unfettered camera proliferation is a very bad idea. There needs to be some kind of oversight from outside the organization.
“Who watches the Watchmen?”
- waitress practicing politics. . - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 7:36 am:
Interesting challenge by the ACLU. Never trust your government. Both sides of this issue would be helped with data on how these cameras were used in the past-were crimes prevented? was a case solved? or was someone just watching some good looking women walk around?
- JustaJoe - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 8:00 am:
I usually don’t agree with the battles the ACLU chooses to fight, but this one is in the right direction. However, rather that assume that government has free reign to install the cameras everywhere, and then create exceptions, it is probably more protective of liberty to establish ONLY those circumstances which would justify a camera, and impose restrictions on their use like the ones suggested.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 8:06 am:
Let the debate continue.
Before cameras we had open windows and neighbors who knew an awful lot about you. Before 24 hour surveillance we had neighbors seeing what you do. Before issues of privacy we had neighbors who knew your private matters. And it was expected that they knew so even rumors were listened to with some limited credibility.
So you can either trust the Neighborhood watch and depend upon them to care enough about you to turn their eyes away when you do iffy things that others may note for later conversations with the Authorities, or depend upon technologies and governments who control them.
There are good points on both sides of these arguments.
- rebw - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 8:29 am:
This is interesting. I agree with most of what they are angling for. The only one I don’t totally agree with is their first listed demand, and even that seems to be open to some amount of interpretation and implementation.
- Palatine - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 9:02 am:
These reasonable demands by the ACLU. Thank your higher power we have them to look out for our best interest.
- amalia - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 9:06 am:
How does the ACLU feel about security cameras inside businesses?
This applies to the outside and to government. The ACLU would restrict zooming and facial recognition, two things that are mentioned as quite useful to fight against terrorists. Prohibiting the retention of images…for how long? this sounds very much like the protests against keeping gun information on purchases and background checks.
Certainly images should not be distributed in an unwarranted fashion and some audit of the system would be good. But I’m generally in favor of this low level of surveillance which is useful to prevent crime and apprehend offenders.
Sounds like the ACLU never travels to London, because that city provides the model for much of this camera work.
- MrJM - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 9:10 am:
If the authorities want to broadly monitor the actions of citizens, then granting citizens the right to monitor the actions of those authorities is surely not too much to ask.
– MrJM
- How Ironic - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 9:14 am:
@ Amalia - 2 points
1. I don’t think the ACLU much cares about cameras inside businesses because they (as a private entity) are entitled to run as they see fit. A customer has no expectation of privacy (as long as it’s marked) and not in areas where privacy WOULD be expected (bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms etc). If as a consumer you choose NOT to frequent businesses that use cameras, that would be your choice.
2. This isn’t London, it’s the USA. And in the USA we (citizens) have a much higher degree of autonomy, and a higher level of expected privacy. London might provide a ‘model’ for much of the camera work, but it’s certainly not a model that most of us want to live under.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 9:19 am:
I have a feeling if the ACLU or anyone else actually saw what Chicagos camera system was capable of they would be apalled. Apalled at the expense and uselessness of the cameras. What would be a better issue is if ACLU would FOIA the contracts for providing the cameras and installing and maintaining them. I wonder what connected approved bidder is getting rich of third rate cameras that don’t solve or prevent crime.
- Living in Oklahoma - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 9:26 am:
Only in Illinois. Just yesterday on this blog we discussed the over the top laws against the filming of police in public. Yet as the government films the citizens actions as they go about their daily lives, there seems to be no over sight or ability for the public to know how the cameras are being used.
- amalia - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 9:35 am:
@How Ironic
!.what do they do with the tapes? where’s that audit? you don’t always know if they tape.
2. it may be the USA, but other cities have more experience with terrorism and we learn from them.
- How Ironic - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 9:53 am:
@ amalia
1. You would best get that answer from what ever private, commerical business you are visiting. I can’t answer that for you.
2. I hear that North Korea is excellent in quashing terrorism. Perhaps we should model our handling of domestic terrorism on their most excellent example?
London and Chicago operate under totally different rules of privacy. It is unwise to model a US policy on the basis of a different system of governence. Privacy concerns are naught in England because the populace has essentially given them up. We haven’t.
- Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 10:08 am:
- Sounds like the ACLU never travels to London, because that city provides the model for much of this camera work. -
Gosh, I could have sworn that we didn’t have to do what England did these days. Something about a Declaration and a Revolution? I guess you’d be for our police not carrying guns then, right? I’m sure Chicago’s finest wouldn’t mind busting in a drug dealer’s door armed with nightsticks.
- Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 10:13 am:
As to the question, I’m pretty much siding with the ACLU on this one. At the very least we should be provided evidence that the money is better spent on the cameras than on more officers.
- Worse than Unreal - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 10:17 am:
Spend the money on cops. Was in London with my eighty year old mother and fifteen yr old soccer nut nephew..in early evening on spur of moment we decide to visit the fabled football grounds of Arsenal..we fish out of water in so-so area…a large man is seemingly following us…I’m hoping we’ll make it to the tube station ok but also realize that if something happens at least they’ll have it on video…very reassuring, NOT.
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 10:36 am:
I guess it is futile to ask for a review of the privacy laws in this state.
Not sure what is motivating the ACLU in this case, but based on what we know about the operation of Chicago, it is really easy to question how they are using the gigs of data they are collecting.
If the system really worked, the open air drug markets in the city would be gone.
- Robert - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 10:39 am:
“crime is suspected” seems like a tough thing to define, but kudos to aclu for raising the basic question of what is the better investment - more cameras or more police, since the city has been increasing the budget for cameras the last few years.
- GoldCoastConservative - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 10:45 am:
@ Amalia - Regarding your praise of London’s system of cameras - while they may have been helpful in apprehending the perpetrators after the act, they have not been shown to have prevented a single act of terrorism. It’s also interesting to note that the case closure rate in the areas of London with the highest concentration of cameras is lower than in areas with less. More often than not, such cameras provide a false sense of security.
I don’t often find myself agreeing with the ACLU, but they are on the right track with this effort.
- Ghost of John Brown - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 10:48 am:
Three issues/comments
1) As the theme song from Baretta said “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”. You can stand out on a street corner and take pictures. You don’t have a right to privacy in an open area.
2) There can be misuse. The ACLU is correct that there needs to be safe guards. There should be firewalls between the computers used for survellance and those that can access the public. We don’t need operators spying on friends/spouses/etc. and taking those images to the public.
3) Slightly off topic, but cameras used for red-light running need to be eliminated. They are just a money grab and do little for safety.
- D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 11:00 am:
NRA gets its panties in a knot of any type of info/background checks in connection w/ gun purchases. Yet this is far more intrusive and a much greater threat for a much less important or specific reason. ACLU is mostly correct, though some refinement needed. More transparency and less free wheeling access.
- Liandro - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 11:16 am:
I just repeat my comments from yesterday concerning the police state vs. empowerment of the citizens. I think the ACLU’s demands are very reasonable. Are the cameras being tied to high crime zones which are marked out? Personally, I have every expectation that this surveillance can and has been abused by the authorities.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 11:22 am:
This is a very hard question to answer mainly because I think most of us really know so little about what goes on behind the scenes with camera, data collection and surveillance operations. There are few things as a citizen I care about more than personal privacy. Yet, so much of honest law enforcement these days seems to be aided by existing surveillance images that can be inspected after the fact– but not because crime was suspected before hand. For example, the movements of the 911 hijackers being tracked and identified in various locations from tape after the horrible event. The Gabby Giffords shooter was caught in the act on parking lot surveillance tape. Street and business cameras which captured the time and location of kidnappings of several children have aided the solution of those crimes.
It would be a shame not to use technology we have at our disposal in a common sense and practical way to improve public safety and catch criminals. It would also be a shame to allow intrusion into our daily lives without clear thought on how the technology we have could be abused by government, and others, who have control of it. The ACLU raises important issues but it has a needle to thread on this one. I hope they do it carefully and responsibly. (They do good work, but out in the world because of some of their past causes they have a bit of a reputation for sometimes coddling criminals.)
- chiatty - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 11:32 am:
The more the merrier, not the scarier!
Surveillance cameras solve crimes every day of the week across Chicago.
- railrat - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 11:38 am:
wonder who was the lobster for the Camera company? snark
- amalia - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 11:40 am:
@GoldCoastConservative, will have to look up stats. thanks. know that the network of cameras is quite useful in ticketing cars with speeding and entering without fees payment. Drove with more care on the M6 knowing that the rental car facility would be receiving ticket info in case of speeding. Cameras useful for several things.
and the Brits seem to do quite nicely with police. most awesome display of crowd management at the Notting Hill Carnival, a combination of strong officers, moving barricades to allow folks to cross the biggest crowd I’ve ever experienced. felt very safe in a crazed environment.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 11:40 am:
I think Responsa’s point that citizens do not have enough information about usage (and neither does the ACLU) to support or object to them. But, as someone who lives in a very high crime neighborhood, I can say that I am glad they are there. There is a marked decrease in open air drug traffic on Morse and Howard from a few years ago.
- MikeMacD - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 11:42 am:
If a cop walking a beat recognizes someone on the street from a wanted poster and takes action, how is that different from from facial recognition though software analysis of the images from cameras?
The ACLU is right to press for transparency and reasonable controls on the use of public cameras though I would quibble with a few of their concerns.
I would add surveillance of the camera operators to their list. This would help in auditing and verifying procedures.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 11:45 am:
This is a tough one because it is so complex and potentially troubling. I don’t know enough about this to say if the ACLU’s demands are on target or over the top. I do know enough to thank the ACLU for raising the subject and starting the debate.
The city has been sucking up as many Homeland Security dollars as possible, bringing in Pentagon consultants and importing technology from Israel. And yet there hasn’t been any public debate about this, and very little information about what the system is capable of, much less about potential abuses. As long as the feds are picking up the tab, nobody seems willing to question it.
And yet, this is an incredibly important public issue. Security v. Freedom is a delicate balance and we have no clear picture (pun intended) of how much of our daily lives is under surveillance.
I hope the ACLU gets the debate started and I hope the City Council and news media get the public engaged in this important issue.
- Wensicia - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 12:02 pm:
I’m more concerned about how camera footage would be edited, to show what the authorities may want to prove. I agree with the ACLU, we need guidelines set up before this becomes common practice.
- Bluejay - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 12:04 pm:
ACLU: “Chicago’s camera network invades the freedom to be anonymous in public places, a key aspect of the fundamental American right to be left alone”
I must have missed the amendment in the Constitution that states that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom to be anonymous in public and abridging the right to be left alone. Where exactly is this again?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 12:13 pm:
The ACLU list seems like a good start. Government is awesomely powerful already, through the consent of the governed. There need to be checks on that power.
London isn’t the best example to use when discussing the rights of Americans. In Great Britain, your rights are what Parliament says they are. Whatever Parliament has granted can be taken away in a majority vote, case closed.
I’m not willing to toss away rights many before me fought and died for because a bunch of losers with box-cutters got lucky one day nearly 10 years ago.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 12:25 pm:
===Where exactly is this again?===
Griswold v. Connecticut, a landmark decision based in part on the 3rd Amendment, affirmed the right to personal privacy. The Ninth Amendment states that the Bill of Rights is not comprehensive and other unstated rights are retained by the people.
Do some homework before you comment Bluejay. We’re not here to teach you basic civics.
- Ghost - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 12:28 pm:
I agree there needs tobe safe guards and rules, but I disagree with a lof of the aclu’s demands.
First, not keeping the images unless you know a crime is committed? horrible idea, you never know when there may have been a crime, and a need to go review the footage. I would be okm with some process where to view old footage you need a subpeona idnetifying what you are looking for, ad limting the reiview, but hold onto the footage! you never know when you may need to go back and look for something.
No zooming without a crime? but what if you need to zoom in to determine if there has been a crime. This is a bad restircition.
I would prohibit employes with access to the cameras or footage from having phone or other recording devices; taking copies of images or recordings for non buisness reasons; or posting the images or vidoes.
I disagree that you have an expectation of provacy when you are out in public. What the ACLU is arguing is we should have more cops to physically see you, but not use cameras? thats silly. there is no right to dodge the police in public by requring they be people. all the stuff they mention can be watched by a person, so they are arguing for imperfect policing.
- Bigtwich - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 12:59 pm:
I have trouble with the concept of “freedom to be anonymous in public places”. I like
Griswold but it involves the “right to marital privacy”. K doubt the current court would find a right to marital privacy in a public place. Yesterday people were holding forth for unlimited recording, the discussion involved audio as well as video, today the discussion seems to be against such. Existing law would seem to prohibit audio recording without significant oversight. This is going to have to percolate for a few years for the discussion to become focused. No quick fix.
- yinn - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 1:10 pm:
There may not reasonably be an expectation of privacy in public, but what about the people who live near cameras? How about if a camera were pointed at your window or private balcony — or at the entrance of your apartment so it recorded all your comings and goings?
I haven’t picked apart each demand, but it is obvious that safeguards must be put into place, including probable cause protections, just as there are with other types of surveillance.
Also, common sense says we should be checking into the vendor(s) benefiting from camera sales.
- MrJM - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 1:40 pm:
If that is true, then you should have no problem providing at least three examples where it is true.
– MrJM
- PADRAIG - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 1:50 pm:
Hizzoner was boasting early last week at the 311 Center that they have over 1,000 cameras protecting the citizens. Where were the guardians watching Lake Shore Drive last Tuesday before hundreds of vehicles were buried.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 1:57 pm:
It is very attractive to threaten people and use that to justify watching everyone, just in case.
My mind goes to “1984.”
- Elmhurst - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 2:26 pm:
What the ACLU wants is pretty reasonable.
We don’t and can’t necessarily expect privacy when we walk down the street, but they’re right that we do expect a certain amount of anonymity.
That freedom of public anonymity is an inherent part of our freedom to go places. I think what the ACLU wants here fits in with that.
- phocion - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 2:48 pm:
I’m gonna miss Mayor Daley!
- jerry 101 - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 2:49 pm:
the security cameras are nothing but security theater. The image that something’s being done to protect you, when nothing’s being done.
How much value would you put in a camera a few yards away if you’re being mugged?
So, the crook covers his face.
Plus, the cameras make streets with them look dangerous. I wouldn’t want to live on a street with a cop camera. And, I’d be really ticked if the city installed on my street.
I’d like to see the stats. Have the cameras actually resulted in anyone being arrested? Probably not, otherwise the Mayor would be parading the stats around town like it was the greatest thing ever.
Instead, it allows the city to give the impression somethings being done while reducing the police force’s manpower and spending valuable resources on Chevy Suburbans.
I’ve never seen an explanation for the proliferation of Suburbans as Police Cars, except for the possibility that they make Jody Weis get all excited.
Anyway, the ACLU, as usual, is on the right side of things here. I hope they can get the cameras to start disappearing. The cameras are pretty much the worst thing about London.
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 3:53 pm:
I wonder if da Mare’s cameras would have caught the trucks approaching Meigs Field when it was destroyed?
- amalia - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 4:02 pm:
da Mare won’t be da Mare when da cameraz are in full strength for da Lollapalooza wit Eminem, Muse and da Foofighters. all da City Employeez are singin’ da Muse song Resistance about dat Rahm now.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 4:21 pm:
–Plus, the cameras make streets with them look dangerous. I wouldn’t want to live on a street with a cop camera. –
You’ve got that right. Your residential real estate values go down the tubes.
Amalia, funny mention about Eminem. Loved the Chrysler Super Bowl spot. River Rouge, Diego Rivera. Awesome.
Detroit Rock City, Arsenal of Democracy, Motown. We Midwesterners built this country, and should stick together rather than poach each others business.
Still hate the Redwings, though. I got hit with a cauliflower (?!) tossed from the mezzanine at the United Center at a Hawks/Wings game. I guess they were out of octopi.
- amalia - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 4:26 pm:
@Wordslinger, yes you are so right about the Chrysler spot, very edgy! Detroit is interesting, Patti Smith who lived (lives?) there, her son now married to…Meg White!!! (sniff sniff, no more White Stripes, a great band from Detroit)
- Cheryl - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 5:18 pm:
If I could grab one of those cameras and use it to beat my would-be assailant over the head with it, I wouldn’t mind them so much.
- Just The Way It Is One - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 7:46 pm:
There are TOO many cameras–everywhere! There can, and should, be more reasonable limits on the City’s authority to pry more into our rights of privacy than they have probable cause to….
- 312 - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 8:27 pm:
I run a condo building with cameras, and my residents are DEMANDING we nearly triple the number, because of a few thefts we’ve had.
I’m one that’s scared the 1984 will become a reality. But when it comes to our day-to-day activities, I think the ACLU needs to seriously consider what its like to be a crime victim. I’m not fond of the ‘blue-light districts’ but the deterrent they provide far outweighs the loss of privacy.
- carbaby - Tuesday, Feb 8, 11 @ 8:41 pm:
I frequently travel in high crime neighborhoods for home visits to clients. Over the last few years years, I have seen no decrease on the west side or the south side in brazenly open selling; drinking liquor/smoking weed/other substances outside as well as fights and other delinquent/violent behavior- and these are things I witness in broad daylight office hours. Also last year I was canvassing a west side neighborhood in the early afternoon with two other staff for a tutoring company, we witnessed open selling; drinking; liquor bottles and garbage completely covering yards; throwing items at cars, young girls being harrassed by men holding 2×4’s walking down the street etc. This all occurred in the few block radius of two CPS elementary schools and the Alderman’s office. And yes there were cameras on every corner. Did I feel reassured? Did any of this activity result in any police in the neighborhood? The answer to both questions is no.
These are not a deterent to crime and anyone in these neighborhoods will tell you that.
I experienced six police cars stopping me in Englewood after leaving a foster home three years ago after a new camera went up right across the street from the home. They waited until I was down the block and then stopped me. I was surrounded with several police with weapons drawn. I was informed that someone had called and stated that I was alleged to have four black males get out of my car with guns and entered a house. Now had that been true, it is doubtful that I would have been allowed to walk out of the home, enter my car and drive 1 1/2 blocks from the residence before getting stopped. When I showed them my work ID and stated that I had been at a home doing a foster home visit, believe me I received no apology. In fact they were angry that I had wasted their time and made that known to me. What I suspect happened is that they saw me on camera walk into the home- as the door was left unlocked for me and they waited 45 minutes for me to come out- assumed I bought drugs and then stopped me down the street out of the view of the residence I had just left.
I would like to see the data on crimes that have been solved or even officers deployed to thwart crimes in progress via use of the cameras. There are still complaints about lagging response times to 911 calls. So have far have we really come?