[iwar] [fc:D.C..Forms.Network.of.Surveillance]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-02-16 23:10:36


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4495-1013929829-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 30239 invoked by uid 510); 17 Feb 2002 07:10:40 -0000
Received: from n14.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.64) by all.net with SMTP; 17 Feb 2002 07:10:40 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4495-1013929829-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [216.115.97.191] by n14.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Feb 2002 07:12:25 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 17 Feb 2002 07:10:29 -0000
Received: (qmail 64020 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2002 07:10:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Feb 2002 07:10:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Feb 2002 07:10:28 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1H7AaE03426 for iwar@onelist.com; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:10:36 -0800
Message-Id: <200202170710.g1H7AaE03426@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:D.C..Forms.Network.of.Surveillance]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

D.C. Forms Network of Surveillance
Police System of Hundreds of Video Links Raises Issues of Rights, Privacy

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 17, 2002; Page C01

District police first experienced the power of live video as a law
enforcement tool during NATO's 50th anniversary summit in April 1999, when
officers in a command post captured a panoramic view of a secured capital
from a helicopter circling overhead.

They used the technology again during protests against the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund in 2000 and again during last year's
presidential inauguration and became so keen on it that they incorporated it
into a high-tech center. That center was ready for service on the kind of
day it was conceived for: Sept. 11.

Now, with the war on terrorism shifting the frontiers of law enforcement,
the D.C. police command and control facility is expanding into one of the
country's most extensive computerized surveillance networks, linking
hundreds of government video cameras that already monitor streets, subway
stations, schools and federal facilities.

Police acknowledge that the system is in "an embryonic state" that will
develop for months and years, depending on public debate over its proper
limits. They have no plans to plug in private camera systems, for instance,
except that of a Georgetown business association that has asked to take
part. But police are also reacting to the country's post-September mood,
eager to protect Washington's unique environment using technology that has
moved from a concept to a reality, nurtured by millions of dollars' worth of
development by the federal government.

"The video technology is state-of-the-art, fully computerized switching
equipment that is very similar to what you would find in a NASA or defense
command center," said Stephen J. Gaffigan, a former Justice Department
director of community policing and head of the D.C. police project.

"I don't think there's really a limit on the feeds it can take," Gaffigan
said. "We're trying to build . . . the capability to tap into not only video
but databases and systems across the region."

Police departments across the country have been using surveillance video for
years to deter crime and guard property in specific districts. The D.C.
police project, however, makes Washington the first U.S. city to be able to
peer across wide stretches of the city and to create a digital record of
images, according to security industry and police chiefs associations.

American security experts are working with satellite-based optics that
enable camera operators to see in the dark, zoom in to see the type on a
printed page from hundreds of feet away and peer inside buildings.

The potential of such technology, pioneered for the military, presents a
host of issues. Is the system designed to catch terrorists or street
criminals? Should it be used all the time or only for defined incidents?
Once in place, will authorities expand it by building a repository of images
or directing it to controversial uses such as computer facial-recognition
software? And who controls the cameras, the recordings and the
decision-making?

As Norm Siegel, former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union, once put
it, "Who's watching, why are they watching, and, perhaps most importantly,
what are they doing with the videotape?"

The D.C. Council and the House Government Reform subcommittee on the
District plan to hold hearings, and police and watchdog groups say they
welcome a public debate to set the rules.

"The technology [used by the District] can be a very powerful tool," said
Richard Chace, spokesman for the Security Industry Association, a trade
group of equipment manufacturers that advises governments to have policy
drive their use of technology, not vice versa. "But it has to be controlled;
you have to be careful who's in charge of it and have proper procedures and
protocols."

The security industry and the 15,000-member International Association of
Chiefs of Police plan to hold a "summit" to discuss intelligence sharing,
following a statement the association released on self-regulation of video
monitoring in March.

Sheldon Krantz, chairman of an American Bar Association task force on
technology and law enforcement, said the bar in 1999 released its first
guidelines for police surveillance in two decades to fill a void in
constitutional or legislative regulation of the fast-changing field and to
call for public input.

"When George Orwell wrote '1984,' probably even he just did not anticipate
what kind of eavesdropping and electronic technology we now have," said
Krantz, a white-collar defense lawyer and former Boston University Law
School research director, who added that there are very good reasons for
public surveillance. Still, he said, "technology has evolved to a point
where it can literally take away virtually all notions of privacy."

The rapid expansion of video surveillance -- and occasional abuses -- is
neither hypothetical nor new. The Supreme Court has defined Americans' right
to privacy based partly on the distinction between public and personal
spheres, but camera proliferation can blur that distinction.

Cameras at automated teller machines capture 250,000 customer transactions
daily for Citibank, for instance, and the security industry estimates that
more than 2 million surveillance cameras are in use across the country. In
Manhattan, volunteers in 1998 counted 2,400 electronic eyes in public places
used to catch everything from red-light runners at traffic intersections,
shoplifters outside grocery and department stores, and drug sellers
loitering near lampposts. Former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) credited
surveillance with slashing crime in public housing by 20 to 40 percent, and
cameras have been added to Washington Square and Times Square in the city.

A 2001 survey by the International Association of Chiefs of Police concluded
that 80 percent of 19,000 U.S. police departments have deployed
closed-circuit television in their jurisdictions, and 10 percent more plan
to do so soon. Police in Tacoma, Wash., cut service calls in half with seven
cameras in a neighborhood plagued by drugs and gangs.

Advances in facial-recognition software present new opportunities and new
concerns. The technology, controversial when first attempted on a wide scale
at last year's Super Bowl in Tampa, has been tested since Sept. 11 by a
handful of airports in cities including Boston; Oakland, Calif; St.
Petersburg, Fla.; and Dallas, and it has been studied by airports and law
enforcement agencies in many other jurisdictions, including Virginia Beach.

Abroad, England has experienced the greatest benefits and costs of what
sociologists dub a "culture of surveillance." More than three-fourths of
British localities patrol public spaces with the help of video. The London
Underground has 14,000 cameras, and the central government installed 1,300
cameras as part of its anti-terrorism "Ring of Steel" defenses around its
financial district. Street crime dropped 19 percent from 1993 to 1996 there.

On the other hand, the country reeled in 1996 when more than 80,000 copies
of a $15 video, "Caught in the Act," were sold. The 45-minute voyeur video
depicted couples engaged in sex in office closets, violent break-ins, women
in their bedrooms and even a shot up the skirt of Princess Diana.

Groups such as the ACLU support cameras to catch red-light runners and to
patrol parking garages, but the pace of public surveillance technology is
overrunning traditional legal notions of average citizens' rights to
anonymity and free association, said ACLU associate director Barry
Steinhardt.

Libertarians invoke Orwell's haunting line from "1984": "There was of course
no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment."

D.C. police officials, acknowledging the sensitive nature of the debate, say
they intend to move carefully. Their project has won support from several
established law enforcement and technology figures. In addition to the
Secret Service and FBI, the U.S. Capitol Police and U.S. Park Police are
expected to reach agreement soon to permit links from their video assets to
the D.C. center when events warrant, Gaffigan said.

As described by police officials, the District links computer video servers
to 13 digital police cameras programmed to automatically scan public places
such as the Capitol, the White House, the Washington Monument, Union Station
and major bridges. D.C. public schools, Metro and the D.C. Department of
Transportation have agreed to link 500 cameras overlooking train stations,
roads and school hallways in an emergency. As a crime is reported, the
cooperating agency can feed views of the scene, surrounding alleys or
streets to police commanders and to computer screens installed in nearly
1,000 squad cars.

"In the event a biochemical or any other event happens in a subway,"
Gaffigan said, "a central command officer can actually look in and see
what's going on." Police could also see inside a school in case of a
shooting or hostage incident, manage an evacuation, track a getaway car --
or perhaps stop a saboteur before one struck.

Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer said police will not
tolerate misuse by camera operators and say that although daily operations
will increasingly be run from the command center, its video displays will be
activated only during incidents or special alerts, such as that issued by
the Justice Department last week.

Police are drafting policies on recording and storage of images, among other
issues.

"There are lines that will be drawn which no one should cross," Gainer said.
"When we are in a public space, what we do and how we behave is visible to
anybody, including the police. But now with technology and the way you can
get a picture from a satellite or a remote camera, people probably just need
to be aware of that more."

The power of surveillance images was clear after the 1995 Oklahoma City
bombing, when agents combed through neighboring buildings' videotapes in an
effort to identify their "John Doe" suspects.

More sophisticated technology is on the way. The General Services
Administration has dedicated $1 billion since 1995 on building security,
screening and surveillance devices and personnel and is proposing spending
$75 million this year on projects such as X-ray machines, reinforced glass
and facial-recognition software. Engineers are hard at work to create
software to join such databases as surveillance image libraries with lists
of suspected individuals.

D.C. police say that facial-recognition technology is unreliable for now and
that they have no intention of including video from private sources -- other
than a pilot test requested by the Georgetown business district.

But industry leaders say technology is continuing to expand.

"The digital video collection, as it becomes cheaper and more accessible
technology, will become the method of video surveillance," Chace said. "It's
just a no-brainer."

The trick, said John R. Firman, director of research for the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, is to do it right.

"We have to maximize our ability to blend, share and combine information,"
he said. "The real bottom line is there should never even be a Big Brother
issue. There should be consensus among law enforcement, justice community
and citizens to say, how do we keep ourselves and our country safe?"

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company - FREE
Guide from industry leader VeriSign gives you all the facts.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lWSNbC/WdiDAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-12-31 02:15:03 PST