The surveillance cameras controversy continues
By Dalia Diaz
Imagine that a female city resident is evading herself from public view because she is hiding from a domestic abuser. Picture a private meeting, taking place in a location in the city, maybe a political meeting or a cultural committee meeting. Visualize children going and coming from school in the streets of Lawrence. Envision an armored car picking up cash from banks, businesses, or collection agencies such as the Tax Collector’s Office.
The above situations occur in Lawrence every single day. You’d probably ask yourself what on earth is wrong with those innocent examples of everyday living. Well, this article is about providing you (and your city councilors) the opportunity to understand how by just implementing surveillance cameras, without proper policy and detailed process or legislation, can be detrimental to its citizens. You ask, “How can that occur? How can cameras be detrimental?”
We all know that anything that our local government agency does is subject to the public records act. That’s including any video surveillance recordings. Let’s say that you got to know of something that happened outside your home or office about a few weeks ago and curiosity is getting the better of you? You can douse it by simply requesting a copy, through public records request of security records from the city. Remember that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could be requesting them also.
Cameras record and document everything they see, i.e. the date and the time of the event are on the video recordings. However, there have been a few instances in the past where security cameras have stirred up debates, especially in professional setups. There have been instances where employees have objected to being under constant surveillance without their permission and citing the ‘invasion of privacy’.
In Lawrence, as elsewhere, there is the threat for abuse with public surveillance systems. Law enforcement could eavesdrop on seemingly innocent conversations. City officials may use footage as blackmail. Women may be spied on by voyeuristic individuals. Unfortunately, there is no viable way to control or limit what people see in footage, making abuse possibly the biggest problem with city surveillance.
Let’s say that a seemingly innocent person requested, though public records, a copy of videos recording of the surveillance cameras in his area. The city police provides such recording not knowing that the person is intending to use the recording to track an ex-spouse or girlfriend, or to track his/her spouse which he believes is having an affair. Things can get pretty ugly, very quickly. It could also be that someone will ask for video records only to find exact timing of armored vehicles trip to and from a business only to time a perfect theft of money from the armored vehicle.
Maybe someone will ask for the recordings, which will show our children walking back and forth from school, with the intention of timing sexually assaulting, abusing or hurting children in any way possible. Let’s say that Jane Doe is running for mayor and has requested a video recording of certain locations throughout the city with the intent of embarrassing people for showing up to a campaign fundraiser or taking revenge on someone after elections are completed.
It could be that a person asks for a recording of instances that could show ethnic cultural events with a perfect timing and intent of hurting people or worse committing some sick shooting. One could even make a case that recordings will allow an individual to see the number of times law enforcement passes by a certain location and capitalize of crime at just the moment when no law enforcement person is present.
One could state that the cameras might catch such a person committing such acts. However, the idea that it could just easily happen is our concern. When users of security cameras try to keep updated on the latest in surveillance systems, they should not forget that intruders and criminals are doing the same, too. A clever trespasser will probably know all about them and may have figured out a way to go undetected, either by looking for blind spots or infiltrating into the system as a hacker.
On April 1st I wrote about an investigation by the Detroit Free Press showing that a database available to Michigan law enforcement was used by officers to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists after traffic altercations, and track estranged spouses.
Video camera systems are operated by humans who bring to the job all their existing prejudices and biases. Camera operators have been found to focus disproportionately on people of color.
Also from that edition, experts studying how the camera systems in Britain are operated have also found that the mostly male (and probably bored) operators frequently use the cameras to voyeuristically spy on women. Fully one in 10 women were targeted for entirely voyeuristic reasons.
So again, Rumbo reiterates that a carefully crafted policy, ordinances and detail process of the surveillance system should be reviewed by professionals (both in law enforcement and civil liberties group), approved and reviewed by City Council, and enforced by the City Attorney. The simple lack of control or limits on the camera use is one of the biggest problems that can get out of hand really quickly.
The council must be smart in demanding a policy and detail process from Mayor Rivera on this issue because the lack of legislation for public video surveillance will lead to surveillance systems abuse. I am sure that someone like Mayor Rivera will be the first to abuse such surveillance. One could say that soon afterwards, face recognition will be in place and again Mayor Rivera will place the undocumented in danger. See a previous article on license plates by law enforcement in Rumbo. ICE is in Lawrence – Although You Would Not Know of February 1, 2018.
It is also known that cameras do not deter much crime. After all, we remember when Mayor Lantigua’s vehicle was stuffed with bananas and trash by a political hot head, in broad daylight while City Hall surveillance systems recorded. We also remember how City Hall was broken into, while surveillance cameras were rolling.
