i still think the quality of the pics in the boston bombing are much better than a standard surveilance photo. look at the next pic you see of an average bank robber and compare the detail.
By TAMI ABDOLLAH, Associated Press
LOS ANGELES — Police and politicians across the U.S. are pointing to the example
of surveillance video that was used to help identify the Boston Marathon bombing
suspects as a reason to get more electronic eyes on their streets.
From Los Angeles to Philadelphia, efforts include trying to gain police access
to cameras used to monitor traffic, expanding surveillance networks in some
major cities and enabling officers to get regular access to security footage at
businesses.
Some in law enforcement, however, acknowledge that their plans may face an
age-old obstacle: Americans' traditional reluctance to give the government more
law enforcement powers out of fear that they will live in a society where there
is little privacy.
"Look, we don't want an occupied state. We want to be able to walk the good
balance between freedom and security," Los Angeles police Deputy Chief Michael
Downing, who heads the department's counter-terrorism and special operations
bureau.
"If this helps prevent, deter, but also detect and create clues to who did (a
crime), I guess the question is can the American public tolerate that type of
security," he said.
The proliferation of cameras — both on street corners and on millions of
smartphones — have helped catch lawbreakers, but plans to expand surveillance
networks could run up against the millions of dollars it can cost to install and
run the networks, expert say.
Whatever Americans' attitudes or the costs, experts say, the use of cameras is
likely to increase in the coming years, whether they are part of an always-on,
government-run network or a disparate, disorganized web of citizens' smartphones
and business security systems.
"One of the lessons coming out of Boston is it's not just going to be cameras
operated by the city, but it's going to be cameras that are in businesses,
cameras that citizens use," said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the
Police Executive Research Forum. "You'll see the use of cameras will skyrocket."
Part of the push among law enforcement agencies is for greater integration of
surveillance systems. For decades, law enforcement has contacted businesses for
video after a crime. An integrated network would make that easier, advocates
say.
Since the Boston bombings, police officials have been making the case for such a
network.
In Philadelphia, the police commissioner appealed last week to business owners
with cameras in public spaces to register them with the department. In Chicago,
the mayor wants to expand the city's already robust network of roughly 22,000
surveillance video.
And in Houston, officials want to add to their 450 cameras through more public
and private partnerships. The city already has access to hundreds of additional
cameras that monitor the water system, the rail system, freeways and public
spaces such as Reliant Stadium, officials said.
"If they have a camera that films an area we're interested in, then why put up a
separate camera?" said Dennis Storemski, director of the mayor's office of
public safety and homeland security. "And we allow them to use ours too."
In Los Angeles, police have been working on building up a regional video camera
system funded by about $10 million in federal grant dollars over the last
several years that would allow their network to be shared with nearby cities at
the flip of a switch, Downing said.
That effort is in addition to a recent request by an LA councilman who wants the
city to examine allowing police access to cameras used to monitor traffic flow.
If that happens, the LAPD's network of about 700 cameras would grow to more than
1,000.
"First, it's a deterrent and, second, it's evidence," Downing said, adding, "it
helps us in the hunt and pursuit."
Law enforcement experts say police need these augmented systems because the
bystander with a smartphone in hand is no substitute for a surveillance camera
that is deliberately placed in a heavy crime area.
"The general public is not thinking about the kinds of critical factors in
preventing and responding to crimes," said Brenda Bond, a professor who
researches organizational effectiveness of police agencies at Suffolk University
in Boston. "My being in a location is happenstance, and what's the likelihood of
me capturing something on video?"
The U.S. lags behind other countries in building up surveillance. One reason is
the more than 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies that each
determines its own policy. Another reason is cost: A single high-definition
camera can cost about $2,500 — not including the installation, maintenance or
monitoring costs.
Law enforcement budgets consist of up to 98 percent personnel costs, "so they
don't necessarily have the funding for new technologies," Bond said.
There are also questions about their effectiveness. A 2011 Urban Institute study
examined surveillance systems in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington, and found
that crime decreased in some areas with cameras while it remained unchanged in
others. The success or failure often depended on how the system was set up and
monitored in each city.
While its deterrent effect remains debated, however, there's general agreement
that the cameras can be useful after a crime to help identify suspects.
Cameras, for instance, allowed police in Britain to quickly identify the
attackers behind the deadly 2005 suicide bombings in London. The country has
more than 4.3 million surveillance cameras, primarily put in place after the IRA
terror attacks.
Dozens are said to sit today around the house of George Orwell, the author of
"1984," a story that foretold of a "Big Brother" society. Privacy advocates in
the U.S. are concerned that the networks proposed by officials today could grow
to realize Orwell's dystopic vision.
In recent years, traffic cameras used to catch scofflaw drivers running a red
light or speeding have received widespread backlash across the country: An Ohio
judge ordered a halt to speed camera citations, Arizona's Department of Public
Safety ceased its program, and there have been efforts to ban such cameras in
Iowa.
Amie Stepanovich, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center's
Domestic Surveillance Project, said the most concerning was an integrated
network of cameras that could allow authorities to track people's movements.
Such a network could be upgraded later with more "invasive" features like facial
recognition, Stepanovich said, noting that the Boston surveillance footage was
from a private security system at a department store that was not linked to law
enforcement.
In many cases, the public may not be aware of the capabilities of the technology
or what is being adopted by their local police department and its implications,
said Peter Bibring, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union
of Southern California.
Unlike private security systems monitored by businesses or citizens'
smartphones, Bibring said, a government-run network is a very different entity
because those watching have "the power to investigate, prosecute and jail
people."
