ShareThis Page

Privacy rights a concern with surveillance cameras

| Thursday, June 2, 2011

Police and prosecutors love surveillance cameras but civil libertarians call them a good thing that can be misused.

Having the cameras in public places is clearly allowed, said University of Pittsburgh law professor John Burkoff. The nation's highest courts have repeatedly approved their use.

But citizens still have privacy rights, and the courts say there are "reasonable" exceptions, he said.

"The question is: what is reasonable?"

The possibility of misuse should trouble citizens, said Sara Rose, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union in Pittsburgh.

"Municipalities need to take into consideration that cameras can be used improperly," Rose said. "Some have the ability to zoom in through windows, for example, and focus on women. Is that right?"

Another concern, Rose said, deals with who has access to the camera footage and who gets to see it.

And, Burkoff asks, "How does someone know if a surveillance camera is being used improperly?"

Often, he said, that remains a secret until unearthed in another investigation.

Rose questions the cameras' effectiveness.

"There's not a lot of evidence of any reduction in crime," Rose said. Instead, she said the cameras simply push crime somewhere else.

There are more surveillance cameras per mile in England than anywhere else, according to Burkett.

"The good thing is, if there is a problem, there is some record of it for law enforcement," Burkett said.

"But the question is this: Do we want to live in a society like that• I don't think so."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.