Cameras added to Chicago Transit Authority stops were funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security, but some fear they'll invade privacy more than they'll increase security.
New cameras on the Chicago Transit Authority are so powerful that they can tell what you’re reading while standing on the platform. The new biometrics surveillance the FBI contracted out might be able to recognize faces, scars, tattoos or perform iris scans. Pattern recognition on surveillance cameras may soon recognize if a fight is occurring or a suspicious suitcase is left at an intersection without the need of human operators reviewing the feed.
So do these methods keep us safe? Or invade our privacy?
From 2006 through 2010, the CTA received grants from the Department of Homeland Security totaling $22.6 million to install cameras at rail stations and rail yards. Lockheed Martin, a global security company, won a $1 billion contract to create biometrics surveillance and databases.
As we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, are we safer because of these advancements? Or do we more readily give up some civil liberties in the process? Have we kept our balance between the two?
Ed Yohnka, director of communication and public policy at ACLU Illinois said he’s still waiting for the balance.
“I have been hearing for almost 10 years now that we needed to balance liberty and security,” Yohnka said. “But I have to say, I’m still waiting for the balance. Every single thing – warrantless wiretapping, facial recognition, the plethora of security cameras and Big Brother – would not have been accepted before.”
The debate between surveillance and crime prevention has existed for decades.
Steve Chapman’s recent column about this issue in the Chicago Tribune questioned the effectiveness of cameras. Chapman wrote:
Nancy La Vigne, director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute in Washington, has directed a study of the impact of cameras in Chicago, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Her preliminary findings, due to be finalized and published this year, are that they can indeed curb crime — and at a bargain price.
But with funding from the Department of Homeland Security for such projects, Yohnka said more research needs to be done on the effectiveness of public surveillance.
“The Department of Homeland Security has kind of been the Daddy Warbucks of these types of surveillance projects throughout the last few years,” Yohnka said.
And while there might be some benefits, he said the public should be aware at how invasive the new technology is.
“I think the most important thing to know is just how invasive and intrusive they are,” Yohnka said of new high-powered cameras. “They are more powerful than any other surveillance system we have seen in other places. The ability to magnify many times over what the human eye can see is a very powerful tool.”
Brad Hunter, 30, of Northbrook, takes the El a couple times a month into the city from the suburbs.
“I feel these cameras are beneficial because they create a better sense of safety and security,” Hunter said. “But while higher resolution cameras aid in detective work, I am not sure I would want the FBI investigating me based on what I was reading on the train either.”
The number of cameras might also allow for the government to locate people as they travel to places they might like to keep private, Yohnka said. This could include political rallies, psychiatrist appointments or a business deal, he said.
Yohnka also worries that Americans are becoming more accepting of surveillance in a post-9/11 world.
“Technology makes it easier to keep these huge databases. As more and more information is gathered, Americans become desensitized to these types of measures.”
BETTER SAFETY OR MORE PRIVACY, not less