Cameras in the District Can Protect Safety, Civil Liberties

By David A. Keene and Roger Wilkins

The Examiner (Washington, DC)

September 8, 2006

Responding to a spike in violent crime, the District is moving quickly to put video surveillance cameras in residential neighborhoods. As it does so, it is critical that the city institute safeguards so that we can protect both public safety and our civil liberties.

We believe it is possible to accomplish both—to be both safe and free.

Meeting in emergency session, the D.C. Council in late July approved a package of crime-control measures proposed by Mayor Anthony Williams: a youth curfew, more police overtime, enhanced police access to some juvenile records and installation of video surveillance cameras in residential neighborhoods.

Public video surveillance cameras were first introduced in the District four years ago, but the council’s recent action allows them in residential neighborhoods for the first time. According to news reports, many of the District’s Advisory Neighborhood Commissions—acting in the belief that cameras are a key way to reduce crime—are already pressing for cameras in their neighborhoods. Proponents of video surveillance assert that other cities that have used such cameras find them to be effective. Many civil libertarians, however, dispute the success rate, saying improved street lighting and more officers on the street are more effective.

Throughout this process, we need to consider whether we really want a system of cameras to be able to record our every move, and even our most private moments. Is it OK for the government to film individuals each time they visit a psychiatrist’s office? A fertility clinic? An Alcoholics Anonymous meeting? A controversial religious or political group? To take a look inside our windows? And once these recordings are made, how are they to be used?

We believe that it is possible to implement video surveillance systems that simultaneously promote both security and civil liberties. The Constitution Project, a bipartisan D.C.-based national organization that seeks consensus solutions to difficult legal and constitutional issues, launched its Liberty and Security Initiative in the aftermath of Sept. 11 to look into questions like this. As members of that initiative, we have already joined together with experts across the political spectrum to issue “Guidelines for Public Video Surveillance: A Guide to Protecting Communities and Preserving Civil Liberties” (www.constitutionproject.org). The guidelines present specific recommendations on how communities can establish surveillance systems that minimize intrusions on individual rights.

Important precautions include using an open and publicly accountable review process—with an opportunity for input from the public—on adopting a video surveillance system, including provisions to minimize the negative impact on the privacy rights and civil liberties of residents; establishing detailed rules, including privacy safeguards, to govern the use and retention of collected data; and creating legal remedies if the system is misused or abused.

Once a system has been designed to minimize the potential negative impact on individual rights, its use should be governed by additional rules. For example, a camera that is installed to enable police to observe a street in a high-crime area should not be able to pan, tilt or zoom to permit monitors to view inside the windows of residences on the street. Further, there should be strict rules governing access to and use of the surveillance data, as well as regular audits to review how the system is being used.

Our recommendations also include a procedure for authorizing temporary video surveillance systems to address law enforcement or other emergencies requiring rapid deployment or secrecy. This would involve a streamlined judicial approval process that requires justification for the emergency surveillance, and a showing that the scope of the surveillance is not greater than necessary. In enacting the emergency legislation in July, measures that expire in ninety days, the District failed to conduct such a review of the surveillance system’s impact on civil liberties. While we are disappointed in that omission, we are encouraged by the council’s past actions.

When it passed the District’s first video surveillance legislation in 2002, which included consideration of Constitution Project testimony on the balance between protecting both civil liberties and public safety, the council adopted measures that made its video surveillance system one of the best in the nation in terms of protecting privacy rights.

The Council’s Judiciary Committee plans an Oct. 4 hearing on the District’s use of video surveillance. We hope that deliberation will continue to adhere to the delicate balance of civil liberties and public safety. As the council continues its work to address the recent crime wave, we urge council members to not allow that crime wave—or upcoming elections—to push them into adopting a system that makes for good headlines but puts at risk the civil liberties of D.C. residents, commuters and visitors.

Mr. Keene is the chairman of the American Conservative Union and a managing associate with the Carmen Group, a Washington, D.C.-based governmental-affairs firm. Roger Wilkins, the Clarence J. Robinson professor of history and American culture at George Mason University, served in the Justice Department during the Johnson administration.