TMCnet News

EDITORIAL: Surveillance cameras require better focus [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]
[October 30, 2014]

EDITORIAL: Surveillance cameras require better focus [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]


(St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO) Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) Oct. 30--The increasing use of video surveillance cameras in St. Louis carries both benefits and risks. But a delicate balance between liberty and security must be maintained. That will require the city to develop a comprehensive plan for their use, a plan that includes public accountability.



The recent release of an ACLU of Missouri report on surveillance camera use in St. Louis raises valuable questions about the continued unchecked expansion of this tool.

The investigation discovered a "hodgepodge of surveillance cameras governed by a variety of internal policies or, in many cases, no policies at all." The report raised questions about who has access to camera images, data retention times, the networking of cameras and dramatic differences in capabilities of the cameras themselves, depending on what entity operates the equipment.


The three types of camera systems being used in St. Louis are public, private and a combination of the two.

The most prevalent are privately owned cameras, such as those at a house, a business, a bank or a shopping center. These are operated free of public scrutiny and, for the most part, free of regulation.

It gets murky when the private citizen or business owner links his cameras to the city's surveillance network, providing police and law enforcement with live feeds and recorded data collected by private cameras.

The city of St. Louis has access to surveillance camera equipment in two wards and on some city streets, specifically downtown and along the riverfront. The city operates some of the cameras, but other groups are in charge of them in the wards and downtown.

Authority for operating the city's 120 alley cameras, intended to catch illegal trash dumping, is unclear, according to the ACLU report. It may be the street department, but it may be the police department.

The public-private cameras are operated by special business districts and community investment districts in the Washington Avenue and Central West End neighborhoods. The districts are sanctioned by the state and city and operated mainly by business interests. They are publicly funded through sales and property taxes.

That's a lot of cameras generating lots of surveillance data with little to no regulation. It's intrusive and susceptible to abuse, mischief and malfeasance.

While cameras are proliferating, St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson is seeking funding for a Real-Time Intelligence Center. As proposed, the RTIC would take up half a floor in the new police headquarters and be the monitoring hub for the growing camera network.

That plan is a good one as long as it is undertaken after a thorough study of the impact on civil liberties, a comprehensive review of the existing camera surveillance and a cost-benefit analysis.

The ACLU is correct. If camera surveillance is determined to be worth the cost, consistent policies must be put into place to govern their operation and ensure the protection of civil rights.

Cameras must not be used to spy on innocent people. Privacy laws have been on the books for decades that are intended to protect innocent people from just such intrusions.

Law enforcement authorities should be required to have a warrant to get access to data, and then only when there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is going to be committed.

Limits on data retention, privacy safeguards and data access must be established. Private cameras that are linked into larger government networks need to follow the same rules.

As a nation we are becoming increasingly comfortable with the incremental loss of privacy. Part of that comfort is driven by complexity. It's difficult to determine who has what information and whether possessing it is a threat.

Between targeted Internet marketing -- Google and Facebook mysteriously know who's in the market for a new car, life insurance and Warby Parker glasses -- and NSA metadata perusal to red light cameras and license plate scanners, we have become desensitized to intrusions and lowered our reasonable expectations of privacy.

At the same time that we are discomfited by Big Brother, we are comforted by the idea that if we need it, help is an alarm button away. Camera surveillance is being used as a way to make tourists feel safe, to thwart terrorist attacks, to stop petty theft and to prevent gang violence.

These are the right goals for this type of surveillance. But the capability to watch people 24/7 carries the responsibility to safeguard against intrusive and abusive misuse of the technology.

___ (c)2014 the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Visit the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at www.stltoday.com Distributed by MCT Information Services

[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]