[...] Welcome to the brave new world, where the clock on the mantel or your neighbor's tie could easily hide a camera. In 1999, 125,000 "spy" cameras were sold in New York alone, more than triple the year before. Public use of surveillance cameras, almost unheard of a few years ago, has skyrocketed. Chicago is about to join other major cities, like Miami, Atlamta and New York, that are giving police an extra set of eyes. Run that red light, and thanks to a hidden camera, you may get a ticket in the mail a month from now.
"People should know they are being watched, and there's no getting away with anything anymore," says Arielle Jamil, of the Counter Spy Shop in New York, one of the world's largest sellers of surveillance equipment. "Big brother [sic] is definitely watching more than people think."
Advocates note that cameras are inexpensive and effective crime-prevention tools. In Britain, with 1.5 million closed-circuit TVs that track people from Mayfair to Trafalgar Square, is an undisputed world leader in surveillance. Studies there show the all-seeing eyes do cut crime. In 1998, after cameras were installed in one neighborhood, pickpocketing dropped 44 percent, and street crime by 20 percent.
But experts contend that the trouble just moves around the corner. And as the camera craze picks up momentum in America, with 1 million cameras nationwide, critics contend that "video voyeurism" raises new questions about privacy. When you walk down the street, do you have a right to know if the police or the local deli owners are watching you?
The rule of thumb has always been that, if you can see it from the street, it's fair game. But what about your office? In the restaurant where you're eating? Or in your car as you're driving? "The explosion of video surveillance cameras around America has taken place without any public discussion about the pros and cons," says Norman Siegel of the New York Civil Liberties Union.
While there are strict rules defining whether a person may audiotape a conversation, that's not the case with video taping. Currently, the courts use the "expectation of privacy" standard. In other words, it's illegal to videotape where a person believes he or she has a right to privacy, such as a bathroom or locker room. But what about in a fitting room or a hotel room?
"I don't think the general public has any idea about the pervasiveness [of video surveillance], and that certainly plays into the calculation of what is an expectation of privacy," says Leslie Reis, interim director of the Center for Information Technology and Privacy Law at thye John Marshal Law School in Chicago. "The courts have been struggling to figure out whether technology has been changing those expectations."
BNoth Mr. Siegel and Ms. Reis agree that once people step outside their doors, they do forfeit their right to privacy. But the issue becomes less clear as technology becomes more intrusive.
Siegel also contends that, even in a public place, there should be a right to be "anonymous" -- to associate with whomever, without worrying about who's keeping an archive of your actions. Privacy activists agree, and want legal protections to be sure the police and others do not misuse the tapes they're collecting.
"The courts have been very good in protecting people's constitutional rights when it involves audio surveillance and wiretaps, but cowards when it comes to video surveillance," says Bill Brown, a privacy activist. At a recent demonstration in Times Square, where 129 surveillance cameras capture the daily commotion, Mr. Brown stood at the corner of 47th [sic] and Broadway, where a camera operated by "Earthcam.com" allows anyone in the world with a computer and a modem to eavesdrop [sic]. "This camera isn't protecting anyone, it's used voyeurism, plain and simple," says Brown.
[Written by Alexandra Marks and published in the 22 December 2000 issue of the Christian Science Monitor.]
Contact the NY Surveillance Camera Players
By e-mail SCP@notbored.org
By snail mail: SCP c/o NOT BORED! POB 1115, Stuyvesant Station, New York City 10009-9998