D.C. police want real-time access to private security cameras
In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, after which surveillance video was used to identify two suspects, lawmakers and law enforcement officials across the country have called for broader use of cameras. In the district, Councilmember Tommy Wells, Ward 6 Democrat, is among those who supports expanding the Metropolitan Police Department’s access to the devices.
Lawmakers put into place restrictions when the cameras were first introduced that prevent police from regularly live-monitoring video feeds — unlike other cities such as Baltimore and Chicago — meaning the district’s cameras have not been as useful in reducing crime, according to a 2011 Urban Institute study. The four-year study concluded that “cameras alone did not appear to have an effect on crime in the district.”
The department’s study showed that crimes no longer were occurring near two of the 10 cameras. Whether crime was displaced to other areas of the neighborhood or was reduced altogether remains uncertain, Solberg said. But based on the results, he said, the cameras should be checked against crime statistics more often and moved as needed.
A camera more recently was moved from North Capitol and Seaton Place Northeast to Fourth and Bryant streets Northeast in the Edgewood neighborhood, which is a focus of the police department’s summer crime initiative.
In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, after which surveillance video was used to identify two suspects, lawmakers and law enforcement officials across the country have called for broader use of cameras. In the district, Councilmember Tommy Wells, Ward 6 Democrat, is among those who supports expanding the Metropolitan Police Department’s access to the devices.
“We have, really, too many restrictions that do not allow the police to fully use cameras to detect crime in real time,” Wells said.
Wells also would like to see police use “hot spot” crime cameras that, like mobile speed cameras, could be deployed quickly to problem areas such as a street that has experienced a rash of break-ins or car thefts.
But expanding access and use of the cameras amounts to “mission creep,” diverting from the program’s original intentions, said Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital.
“Mission creep is what happens,” he said. “As cameras become more and more ubiquitous, the government will be able to use this data flow to sort of keep tabs on where everybody is all the time.”
Given the privacy concerns raised by residents and advocacy groups when cameras were first deployed, expansion of camera use may face opposition, and Wells said he is seeking input from groups such as the ACLU on any forthcoming legislation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-surveillance-cameras-become-top-crime-fighting-tools-for-police/2013/07/06/c65029e2-e63f-11e2-bffd-37a36ddab820_story_1.html
Proposal to give D.C. police real-time access to private security cameras:
http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/first-read-dmv/Proposal-to-Give-DC-Police-Real-Time-Access-to-Private-Security-Cameras-191755951.html
Police, politicians nationwide push surveillance post-Boston:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/police-politicians-nationwide-push-surveillance-post-boston/
Evaluating the use of public surveillance cameras for crime control and prevention:
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e071112381_EvalPublicSurveillance.pdf
Guideline for public video surveillance:
http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/54.pdf
Who's watching? Video camera surveillance in New York city and the need for public oversight:
http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/surveillance_cams_report_121306.pdf