Los Angeles Expands Citywide Surveillance

Military surveillance techniques that were perfected in
Fallujah, are now being deployed in Southern California. Despite
recent drops in violent crime, Los Angeles is experimenting with
license plate reading technology and citywide surveillance cameras.
Authorities will have the ability to track the exact locations of
L.A. drivers at any date – whether they’ve committed a crime or
not.

According to
LAWeekly:

“Smart video” programs can use facial recognition to ID people
by comparing live CCTV footage to mugshot databases built from
facial scans collected by police using mobile devices or during
bookings. Computer programs also can learn “acceptable behavior” by
humans — such as pedestrian or vehicular traffic patterns — and
alert cops when something “abnormal”‘ occurs.

LAPD already is using a sophisticated intelligence-analysis
program from Silicon Valley firm Palantir, which is partially
funded by In-Q-Tel, the Central Intelligence Agency’s venture
capital firm. Palantir sells data-mining and analysis software to
the NSA and other intelligence agencies.

Ana Muniz, an activist and researcher who works with the
Inglewood-based Youth Justice Coalition, says, “Any time that a
society’s military and domestic police force become more and more
similar, where the lines have become blurred, it’s not a good
story.”

Last June, Reason TV investigated Baltimore’s controversial
decision to install audio recorders in its fleet of city buses.
Maryland’s politicians were bitterly divided over the issue, while
privacy activists debated law enforcement over the policy.

For the most part, Baltimore’s bus riders have accepted
surveillance as a fact of life. In a city that ranks among
America’s most violent, most citizens say they’re more concerned
with fighting crime than protecting privacy in public spaces.

The original text follows:

Do you know that your local city bus might be listening to your
conversations?

Depending on where you live, the sidewalks could be recording
your every step. And your lampposts and subway cars may be watching
you, too.

Once a paranoid notion of science fiction, perpetual state
surveillance is fast becoming the new normal. In some cases, the
technology is being activated without the consent of the
public.

When the Maryland legislature considered a bill to turn on audio
recording devices inside its statewide fleet of 758 buses, it set
off a fierce debate in the Senate. Delegate Melvin Stukes argued
that audio surveillance is a powerful tool to help fight crime, and
individuals cannot expect privacy on public transportation.
Opposing him was senator James Brochin, who warned of an assault on
civil liberties and the frightening potential for government
abuse.

But make no mistake, this was more than a clash of two powerful
state politicians. This was a struggle between two cherished
American values: privacy versus security. It’s a conflict that’s
playing out in communities all across the United States.

So far, surveillance is winning. After the Maryland legislature
rejected three bills that sought to activate audio surveillance in
buses across the state, the transit authority turned them on
anyway, on the advice of the state attorney general.

Do citizens get any say in the matter? In a 1967 ruling, Katz v.
United States, the Supreme Court affirmed that the individual right
to privacy depends largely on a set of norms that are determined by
society. In other words, if you have a reasonable expectation of
privacy – even if you’re in a public place – then you are entitled
to it.

Surveys show strong and growing public support for some kinds of
surveillance. An April 2013 New York Times poll shows that 78% of
respondents approved the use of video cameras in public places.
Terrorist incidents like Boston Marathon bombings have made the
public ever more receptive to cameras in the name of fighting
crime. (The poll didn’t ask about audio recording.)

A recent study by the Urban Institute concludes that
surveillance has a significant effect on reducing crime. Baltimore,
a city with the fourth highest murder rate in the nation, has
benefitted from video cameras, as have Chicago, and Washington,
D.C.

Yet downsides remain. Even in the young history of audio-visual
surveillance, the ACLU notes that the technology has already been
abused. Members of law enforcement have used information gleaned
from cameras to blackmail, spy, and harrass citizens. And if these
crimes seem relatively minor now, imagine how a future J. Edgar
Hoover would make use of the all-seeing eye, with its powers of
voice-matching and face-recognition.

It’s a worrisome prospect. Senator Brochin, who accepts video
cameras while condemning audio surveillance, is quick to remind us
how eavesdropping poses a threat to an open, democratic society.
Citing the widespread use of covert listening devices in
authoritarian countries, he remains concerned about what the future
is going to look – and sound – like.

Surveillance technology has certainly become powerful, and
promises to become more so. But when and whether that technonology
is used – that power still remains with us.

Runs about 8:12 minutes.