NPR: Use of British-Style Security Cameras Debated in U.S.

Use of British-Style Security Cameras Debated in U.S.

The average Londoner is caught on camera 300 times a day. That's because Britain has an estimated 5 million closed-circuit security cameras in operation nationwide -- one camera for every 12 people as of October 2006, according to The New Statesman.

The cameras were thrust back into the news this week after the thwarted terrorist attacks in the country. Closed-circuit TVs captured the attempted Glasgow bombing. Officials have extensive video of the area of London where two car bombs were left. And a camera system that allows police to track license plates helped them find and stop two suspects on a major highway.

Now, All Things Considered reports that calls are increasing for a similar style of camera network in the U.S.

Miami police chief John Timoney, who opposed a similar system when he was police chief in Philadelphia because it was too intrusive, says he's now a believer.

"In the olden days -- the olden days meaning six, eight, 10 years ago -- even John Timoney had concerns about privacy -- the storage of these things, how the videos would be used," he said. "I think most of those concerns have been dealt with."

Other police chiefs and some presidential candidates agree with Timoney. But civil liberty advocates, such as the ACLU's Barry Steinhardt, say it's just too great an invasion of privacy.

"But the cost of pervasive video surveillance includes the potential for tracking innocent people, it includes voyeurism -- police officers and others using these cameras looking for attractive women, for example, and other abuses. And it could really have a tremendously chilling effect on our public life."

This is a rather "sticky wicket," as they say in Britain. On the one hand, CCTV would help police in criminal and terrorist investigations. But the "Big Brother" aspect of being constantly watched can't be easily dismissed. Your thoughts?

11:44 AM ET | 07- 5-2007 | permalink

Comments

My comments are that if your not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a problem. If your young and attractive you can say NO Thank You. I would rather be safe .

Sent by Phyllis Galloway | 1:40 PM ET | 07-05-2007

If the government is protecting you, who's protecting you from the goverment. I say we put CCTV cameras in the whitehouse and Congress, their the real enemies

Sent by Woodel | 2:03 PM ET | 07-05-2007

Perhaps there is a place for them in high risk areas: airports, subways, fresh water reservoirs, etc. The problem is that once established in these limited "special needs areas", it would be easy to expand the limited area to broader areas, and in time, there is a camera on every block, byway, and bike path. The question is how do you prevent abuse? In the past abuse has been ever lurking, waiting to spring as different patriots feel that their particular means justifies their particular ends.

Sent by steve myers | 2:21 PM ET | 07-05-2007

I don't believe Phyllis understood the article. How can a young attractive woman, so no, when somebody has pulled her information from a CCTV unit that has a picture of her and her license plate number, it doesn't look like the woman can tell the person "No" when she didn't even give that person that information. I am not a criminal, but I do not want to be video taped, either.

Sent by Brains | 2:37 PM ET | 07-05-2007

Those that are so naive as to think that more government surveillance is great, when it's obvious that the Bush Administration has attacked our democracy in the many ways it has, need to start paying attention.

Sent by Peter Reed | 2:45 PM ET | 07-05-2007

It should be noted that CCTV did not prevent the car bombs from exploding in central London. The bombs simply failed to detonate. Human eyes noticed something fishy -- in this case a smoking Mercedes -- and as a result the authorities were notified. It is a delusion to think that cameras will prevent crime. The benefits of ubiquitous CCTV are dubious at best yet the cost to our freedom is high.

Woodel has a point, too. Who's watching the watchers? Those who got through high school without reading Orwell's 1984 (and I am one of those people) would benefit from reading it now.

Sent by P Hennessey | 5:18 PM ET | 07-05-2007

Get real guys, the CCTV's are not there to watch you going to the store to buy your cheese doodles but to record the guys who held up the store clerk...you may be right that they do not prevent crime but I think that the police would disagree with you if you thought that they do not help with solving crime.Remember that young girl who was taken from the parking lot of a Target store and murdered.
Everybody wants to live in a safe society however safety comes at a price. I can assure you that very few people in the UK feel that their civil rights are being violated and I have yet to see any examples of "Big Brother" type activity from the government. The CCTV's in the UK are used principally by business to protect the property and the local police to levy fines on speeders and illegal parking thus hopefully making the country safer for everybody.I for one have no problem with being recorded as I go about my daily life, nor do I fear any voyeurism.This is real life not a CSI show.

Sent by julie | 3:56 PM ET | 07-06-2007

This argument will all change after the next attack. And you and I know it will come. I am surprised it has not come by now. Either they are stupid or we have been lucky. But our luck will only last so long.

Sent by Hubert Schmitter | 2:04 AM ET | 07-07-2007

For those who do not believe that this technology can be abused, just look at the decision this week that civil liberties organizations cannot sue over inappropriate wire taps.

Also, I live in the Washington DC area, where the cameras are mighty dense already. As dense as London, I don't know, but there are a lot of them.

So many of these questions come down to what scares you more: criminals and terrorists, or the government.

Myself, I have always been more afraid of the monolithic bureaucratic power of the government. (Maybe I read Kafka when I was too young.)

However, I do understand the other point of view.

The sticky wicket of our time, indeed.

Sent by Jason Osder | 7:07 AM ET | 07-07-2007

On what grounds would anyone trust the people with the video? What have they done lately to show that the interest of the public is even a secondary motivation, much less, primary? Who is going to be taken care of, the public or the company that makes the cameras? This strangle-hold that we continue to allow ourselves to be put into shows the level of fear that we live in and make decisions from. I for one would rather die free than ride this slippery slope into self-imposed imprisonment.

I have nothing to hide and I would like to be treated as though I am actually innocent instead of monitored like a lab rat, or worse, a criminal. There are serious long-term effects to how we allow ourselves to be treated, both as individuals and as a community.

Sent by Realistic | 2:56 PM ET | 07-07-2007

After 9_11, The president should have declared Marshall Law and require that every man, woman and child to report to their local law enforcement agency and identify themselves. Get a picture taken, finger printed, And DNA sample taken. Regardless of status. My first thoughts after the attack was,"Who was in this country/". That was then, I still feel the same way. Cameras? Go for it.
Bob

Sent by bob | 4:30 PM ET | 07-07-2007

Dont let them scare you. Just be aware and vigilant that the CCTVs are there and that they can watch you all they want. but dont change. just look into the camera and say, "Im watching you."

Sent by Matthew Pink | 3:59 AM ET | 07-09-2007

Bob wrote that we should be under marshall law and we all should be subject to the tracking and numbering system formerly championed by the Nazis and the Soviet Union. People - don't be hoodwinked by the false flag terror threats and the cockamamie excuses to destroy the very freedoms upon which this country was founded. Do some research on the REAL events surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. You will see that it is only our government that we should fear.

Sent by Kate Mucci | 3:25 PM ET | 07-09-2007

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
Please send me updates from NPR.	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.