Beyond the Big Brother Syndrome
Early one morning, as The New York Times tells it, a Hoboken, N.J., man and woman awaited a train. Thinking they were alone, the man lit up a cigarette. Suddenly, a voice boomed out over the loudspeaker. “Put out the cigarette!” the voice demanded. Startled, the man complied. “And get your feet off the bench!” the voice ordered.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, according to The Times, has installed more than 1,000 cameras throughout its facilities to monitor just such transgressions. Most of the actions observed, even the questionable ones, are benign and unimportant. And most people would concede that the Port Authority is within its rights in unobtrusively observing their behavior. Some, however, get nervous.
CCTV use in public safety has exploded over the past decade. New technologies have made it easier and less expensive for local governments to keep an eye on their parks, police stations, courthouses and public spaces. Use of those technologies has made some people feel safer and some feel violated. By and large, however, local law enforcement agencies have embraced the idea as one more tool in their crime prevention arsenal.
Despite the popularity of the “stupid criminal” story (in which, for example, a man wearing a purple Panama hat robs a 7-11 and is arrested moments later wearing the same hat and carrying a wad of convenience store cash), most observers agree that criminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Without witnesses, surveillance proponents argue, overworked police investigators often have no choice but to drop charges when confronted with a “he said, she said” scenario.
According to that line of thinking, the camera is merely an objective witness. “The camera doesn’t lie,” says Washington, D.C., neighborhood activist and CCTV proponent Deborah Bandzerewicz. “Police officers can’t be on the same corner 24 hours a day.” CCTV cameras, thus, become what the military refers to as a “force multiplier,” inexpensive tools that allow for greater coverage than a police department alone can provide.
Success stories abound. In Fairfax, Va., for instance, a surveillance system is credited with causing a drop in red light violations, which nationwide cause an estimated 260,000 crashes and 850 fatalities a year. (See page S20.) Data in Baltimore shows a drop in crime in the Harbor District after installation of CCTV cameras, and, according to The New York Times, New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir credits cameras with a 44 percent drop in crime in one city housing project.
Outside the United States, cameras have caused significant decreases in crime. For example, in England, the government has spent more than $30 million, installing thousands of street corner surveillance cameras, and those cameras are credited with a 13.4 percent drop in regional crime.
Cynics argue that surveillance programs get undue credit for crime reductions, suggesting the data may indicate merely that crime has been displaced rather than prevented. “There isn’t any information to indicate the extent to which that is so,” notes George Trubow, a law professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago and director of the school’s Center for Information Technology and Privacy Law. “You figure there is an intuitive probability that [crime is being displaced] if you’re dealing with career criminals as opposed to on-the-spot offenses like graffiti and vandalism. Those kinds of offenses can be reduced.”
However, Trubow is not opposed to use of CCTV to counter crime in public places. “From the standpoint of public safety, it helps to have a lot of eyes in a lot of different places,” he says.
Critics and the Constitution Partly because of the public’s perception of the effect of surveillance programs on crime, public opposition to CCTV has declined in the last few decades. In fact, a 1978 Gallup poll indicated that just 10 percent of the population was comfortable with the idea of surveillance programs; by 1997, the number had jumped to 52 percent. However, the Big Brother specter persists.
The term “Big Brother,” of course, refers to the government of Oceania, the setting of George Orwell’s classic “1984.” In Oceania, ubiquitous posters announced that “Big Brother is watching,” and police in helicopters snooped into residents’ windows to ensure that no illegal or immoral activities were taking place. Orwell’s bleak picture of life in the future (“1984” was published in 1949) and a growing antipathy toward what is perceived as government intrusion into citizens’ private lives have galvanized the anti-CCTV movement.
Critics of surveillance programs most often base their opposition on the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…” That amendment also is most often cited by judges ruling against government use of CCTV. Even in cases in which judges rule for the government agencies using CCTV, those rulings often contain cautions about and criticisms of the surveillance programs.
In a legal commentary entitled “Cameras in Teddy Bears: Electronic Visual Surveillance (EVS) and the Fourth Amendment,” Kent Greenfield points out that, in 1984, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that “television surveillance is exceedingly intrusive … and inherently indiscriminate, and … c ould be grossly abused to eliminate personal privacy as understood in modern Western nations.” (Still, the court held in that case, United States v. Torres, that the FBI’s use of EVS to investigate urban terrorism was lawful.)
How judges view evidence captured on camera is critical to the continued use of CCTV by local governments. Liability issues make local police departments wary of surveillance programs, and the potential for abuse of the systems – and the resulting litigation – encourages caution.
(In Cincinnati, the city council met those concerns head on when it sought an opinion from the city attorney’s office on the city’s potential liability because of a CCTV proposal. The attorney determined that the city would be exposed to no more liability than it would encounter with any other police services.)
Proposing Standards The Washington, D.C.-based American Bar Association addresses CCTV/privacy issues in its “Standards for Criminal Justice on Electronic Surveillance.” The product of the ABA’s Task Force on Technology and Law Enforcement, the standards were adopted by the association’s House of Delegates in August.
According to the document, the premises that underlie the proposed standards include: * a need to use new technologies in investigating crime and protecting public safety; * little guidance and accountability for the use of those new technologies; and * a lack of rules or regulations governing that use.
As far as video surveillance goes, the ABA believes public input – and the likelihood that CCTV will actually accomplish what it is intended to accomplish – are paramount. “Overt video surveillance for a protracted period is permissible when a politically accountable law enforcement official concludes that it will 1) not view a private activity and 2) be reasonably likely to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective,” the association says. In cases involving deterrence rather than investigation, the ABA says the public must be notified of the location and general capability of the camera and be provided the opportunity to express its views about the surveillance.
The ABA’s standards make one point abundantly clear: Most privacy lawyers do not see a constitutional problem with what the association calls “technologically assisted physical surveillance.” “The Constitution isn’t going to say very much about whether you can put TV sets in public places,” says George Washington University Law Professor Stephen Saltzburg, who served on the association’s task force. “Presumably, if you can put police officers somewhere, you can put cameras there.”
The permanent record that CCTV tape affords troubles some critics. “The problem is that a police officer may see something, but it doesn’t become a permanent memory,” Saltzburg says.
He cautions that it is critical to create a community consensus about CCTV. “People need to know what it is and why it is necessary,” he says.
For example, while catching vandals and drug dealers may be perceived as a worthy goal, the two activities may be regarded differently in terms of privacy. “Trying to catch vandals as opposed to drug dealers may be perceived as more intrusive,” Saltzburg says. “It’s important to avoid misunderstandings.”
What happens to the videotape once it has served its purpose is also important, Saltzburg says. “If you watch it one day and tape over it the next, it raises fewer privacy issues than if it gets placed in a vault,” he says. “The more information that gets gathered and put on file, the more people worry.” (In Atlanta, videotape not used in a criminal investigation is recorded over after 96 hours.)
Despite his concerns, Saltzburg is absolutely convinced of the legality of CCTV surveillance in public places. “It is very hard for people to argue that you can put a policeman with binoculars on a playground but not [put a camera in the same place],” he says. “Fourth Amendment arguments are never going to go far when you’re talking about public places.”
John Marshall Professor Trubow agrees. “There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public as long as you aren’t being personally surveilled,” he says.
The problem with CCTV now is that surveillance technology is getting more sophisticated, Trubow says. Cameras that used to be able to capture license plates now can provide clear images of car occupants. Interestingly, people in cars have an expectation of privacy that is not justified, Trubow says. “My feeling is if you’re riding around in a car where anyone can observe you, there is no privacy issue.”
Surveillance as Spying? Not everyone agrees. The Washington, D.C.-based American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for example, considers many surveillance programs to be a form of domestic spying.
The organization acknowledges the usefulness of CCTV surveillance in some applications, such as in Fairfax’s red light running program, but it has concerns about the lack of standards and operating and training protocols. In Oakland, Calif., for example, the ACLU objected to a police department-operated surveillance program because no one involved could explain why the department chose the specific technology it chose or exactly what it intended to do.
Speaking on a public radio program about the privacy vs. public safety issue, John Crew of the ACLU argued that “there’s a tendency to assume that every high-tech device is some kind of Big Brotherism. That’s certainly not the position of the ACLU.”
Frank Rizzo, who worked on Baltimore’s public surveillance project and joined Crew on the radio program, notes that the system included signage so that “everyone would know a surveillance system was in place. There was no attempt to conceal the system.”
Still, Crew draws a distinction between cameras used to catch speeders and video surveillance technology. “Those are two very different systems,” he noted on the program. “One, the photoradar system, captures the image only if the technology captures an individual committing the offense. So there’s probably cause to believe that individual has sped or run a red light. That’s a very different sort of system from a public video surveillance system that captures all people in public areas going about their business. Obviously, 99.9 percent of what is captured on that very comprehensive video surveillance system is totally innocuous activity.”
Don Haines, the ACLU’s former legislative counsel for privacy and cyberspace issues, goes one step further. “Constant surveillance or the possibility of constant surveillance radically changes the nature of America,” he says. “It moves us from being a free society to being literally a potential police state.”
Haines disagrees that the Fourth Amendment, which he says the Supreme Court has “gutted,” does not preclude surveillance in public places. “I analogize the situation to the legal situation before Brown v. Board of Education (the landmark school desegregation case),” he says. “Back before Brown, if we were going to give advice to cities and counties, we would say, ‘Of course, you can make blacks sit at the back of the bus.’ It’s legally sound, but it’s morally wrong. Can the government videotape you when you’re in a public place? The Supreme Court says it’s legal. But is it right?”
Interestingly, Haines cites the Third Amendment, which prevents the quartering of troops in private homes, as more dispositive in the CCTV/privacy argument. “Before the revolution, the British government would place its soldiers in private homes,” he says. “The colonists felt like they were constantly under surveillance. So the Third Amendment was adopted to prevent that kind of thing.”
The potential for abuse is another problem, according to Haines. “There is still a percentage of crime, and it may be relatively small, that is committed by police officers,” he says. “Allowing them surveillance capability allows them much greater rein. And there’s a large disparity in how persons of color and other minorities are treated by law enforcement and the judicial system. Cameras can be used to exacerbate that.”
Every observer may not agree with Haines’ bleak assessment of the matter, but many urge caution in the CCTV implementation process. Even proponents of surveillance programs acknowledge the potential risks but believe they can be minimized.
The Alexandria, Va.-based Security Industry Association (SIA), for instance, urges local governments interested in installing CCTV for public safety purposes to: * perform a needs assessment; * form a coalition or partnership that includes the city council or county commission, law enforcement, citizens and the private sector; * outline specific program and technology objectives; and * designate a primary program oversight body.
The SIA also is pushing for the establishment of operational protocols for CCTV and is organizing a summit in 1999 to do just that.
Careful planning that includes all citizens likely to be affected by any public surveillance program, plus the establishment of protocols for the industry itself, will not allay everyone’s fears. It is, however, a step in the right direction. “Privacy is as American as apple pie,” said Frank Rizzo on the public radio program about public safety surveillance. “But at the same time, people have a right to be safe and to feel safe. If cameras make them feel safer, so be it.”
Public housing authorities nationwide are using surveillance to make the neighborhoods they serve safer. But sometimes the surveillance cameras themselves have to be protected.
Westfield Acres in Camden, N.J., is one of several projects the city established for low-income housing. The area is notorious for crime; recent statistics from the Uniform Crime Reports indicate high incident rates for robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, forcible rape, motor vehicle theft and arson.
In 1994, the Housing Authority hired Teaneck, N.J.-based Avtech Systems to install a camera surveillance system to keep watch on the crime-plagued community.
After the surveillance system was installed, gang members fought back by blowing the cameras out with a shotgun. Within a day, Camden’s state-of-the-art system was rendered useless by the same criminals it was trying to catch.
Following the incident, the city and the company approached Videolarm, a Decatur, Ga., manufacturer of surveillance equipment, for a bullet-resistant dome camera housing that could stand up to gunshots. A DeputyDome bullet-resistant dome made of spun aluminum alloy and thermo-formed plastic was installed. Additionally, the cameras are enclosed in a second dome made of bullet-resistant plastic and heavy-gauge steel that protect the camera and lens from direct hits. The heavy-duty housing is able to withstand the assault from most handguns.
Inside the armored housings, Vicon high-resolution color cameras with 12mm to 120mm zoom lenses transmit images and data via fiber optics to a police station two miles away. Camera movements are controlled by a Burle pan/tilt and a random scan board to make the camera move in an unpredictable pattern.
The cameras can view most of the public areas of the expansive 18-building complex but are designed specifically so they cannot see into homes or private areas.
The first day the system was in place, police made a half-dozen arrests. Additionally, Housing Authority officials said the initial 90-day report indicated a significant decrease in domestic and violent crime in the monitored area.
Cities and counties interested in installing closed-circuit television cameras for public safety purposes face a number of hurdles, including their own lack of knowledge and public opposition. Money, however, need not be one of the problems. Grants, loans and other sources of financing are available to local governments willing to do some investigating.
The best place to start is the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a division of the Office of Justice Programs within the U.S. Department of Justice. The BJA provides criminal justice support through the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program.
Under the Byrne Program, the BJA awards formula grants to states and territories, as well as discretionary grants to public and private institutions. States then make subgrants to local governments within 26 legislatively authorized areas.
In 1998, $505 million was appropriated for BJA’s Formula Grant Program, with each approved state receiving a base amount of 0.25 percent of the total. A state’s relative share of U.S. population determined how much more was allocated. (States contribute a 25 percent cash match toward their funding.)
States may then award Formula Grant Program money to local governments for one of three purposes: * enforcing state and local laws that establish offenses similar to offenses established in the Controlled Substances Act; * emphasizing prevention and control of violent crime and serious offenders; and * improving the functioning of the criminal justice system.
CCTV installation, obviously, could fall under any one of the three purposes. In fact, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1996, which established the Byrne Program, authorizes states to define and implement a broad range of initiatives, including those involving personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance and technological systems. The program allows for “more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention and rehabilitation of persons who violate criminal laws.”
The BJA’s Discretionary Grant Program Division provides federal financial assistance to grantees for activities directly related to crime and violence prevention and control. Such activities include “educational and training programs for criminal justice personnel; technical assistance to state and local units of government, projects that are national or multijurisdictional in scope; and financial assistance for demonstration programs that, in view of previous research or experience, are likely to be successful in more than one jurisdiction.”
For fiscal year 1998, $46.5 million was appropriated for the Discretionary Grant Program. Program priorities focused on developing and implementing comprehensive approaches to crime; neighborhood-based programs with active citizen involvement; and violence prevention and control initiatives. Emphases were on youth violence and on improving the ability of the criminal justice system to remove serious and violent offenders from communities.
Under the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS), another of BJA’s discretionary grant programs, money is available for state and federal law enforcement efforts to combat criminal activity spanning jurisdictional boundaries. Each of the six RISS centers has from 350 to more than 1,000 member agencies, most of them city and county law enforcement agencies. (More than 250 state agencies and 600 federal agencies also are members.)
Six regional projects currently are operational and provide a range of intelligence exchange and related investigative support services to member law enforcement agencies nationwide. Typical targets of RISS activities are drug trafficking, violent crime, gang activity and organized crime. Each of the centers selects its own target crimes and the range of services provided to member agencies.
For more information, contact Program Manager Scott Kelberg at (202) 305-2142 or visit www.iir.com/ riss/riss.htm.
Also under the BJA, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program (LLEBG) supports technical initiatives that provide an opportunity for state and local criminal justice agencies to participate in programs aimed at strengthening and improving elements of their public safety systems. This year, program administrators have identified nine technical areas for which grants may be provided. They include investigative and surveillance technology training and the law enforcement equipment procurement program.
According to the BJA, grants for the former are provided by the Institute for Investigative Technology to provide “training in the use of specialized equipment, particularly for surveillance operations and [providing] technical support regarding equipment through a national hotline.” For information, contact Richard Revzan at (202) 305-2923.
Grants for the equipment procurement program are administered by Community Research Associates and are designed “to give state and local law enforcement agencies the opportunity to purchase equipment at competitive prices through the Department of Defense and General Services Administration ordering systems.” For information, contact Paul Belkin at (202) 305-2102 or Michael Guerriere at (202) 616-3176.
To deal with the large number of grant applicants, the BJA allows jurisdictions to submit their one-page applications via modem or on diskette. All applications, even those submitted on paper, are scanned and stored electronically, significantly reducing paperwork during the review and award process. The improvements are expected to make it easier for BJA to monitor the grants and track grant activities while jurisdictions use the funds.
In 1996, the first time the LLEBG grants were awarded, more than 2,600 local jurisdictions, every state and several eligible territories were awarded grants totaling about $405 million. The grants were based on a formula using violent crime data the FBI collected from the states and localities. BJA made direct awards to units of local government that qualified for $10,000 or more. The largest of those went to New York City ($33,015,183) and Chicago ($18,351,721).
State Administrative Agencies (SAAs) must be organized and designated to administrate the Formula Grant Program. (If a state chooses not to participate in the program or cannot qualify for funds, grants may be made directly to local governments.)
Information on the BJA and its grants program, as well as application forms and assistance in filling them out, is available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/html.
In addition to providing grants under the BJA, the Justice Department funds public safety programs, including CCTV applications, under a number of other grants programs.
Those include: * the Violence Against Women Grants Office, (202) 307-6026, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawgo; * the Drug Courts Program Office, (202) 616-5001, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo; * the Corrections Program Office, (202) 307-3914, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cpo; * Operation Weed and Seed, (202) 616-1152, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/eows; and * the Church Arson Prevention Program, (800) 421-6770, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/html.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Highway Research and Development Fund also provides grants ($8 million in 1998) for traffic monitoring technology and enhanced physical security, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development funds Drug Elimination Grants ($243.8 million this year) to fight drug crime in public housing projects. For cities and counties with nuclear power plants, the Department of Energy made $18.7 million in grants available in 1998 to improve security and deter smuggling in those plants.
Federal and state grants, however, are not the only sources for CCTV funds. A number of cities and counties have tapped the private sector to share in the expense of purchasing and installing cameras. The business community in Baltimore, for instance, provided moral and financial support to the city when it installed cameras in a downtown area perceived as unsafe. (See page S22.)
Money, consequently, should not be a stumbling block in efforts to install CCTV cameras for public safety purposes. It is available, if one knows where to look.
This article was written by Janet Ward, editor of American City & County. Information for the article was taken largely from the Bureau of Justice Assistance web site, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA.html.
Tricky issues surround the use of closed-circuit television in public places, and cities and counties considering CCTV should be aware of possible pitfalls. Following a standard operating approach or protocol can help to ensure that the user benefits from the experience of those who have used CCTV systems successfully.The Security Industry Association (SIA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police are formulating an operations protocol for CCTV systems for public places. The protocol document is still in the working stages, and all interested parties – manufacturers, municipal personnel, legal interests, citizen groups and others – have the opportunity to be a part of formulating a final document. To that end, a two-day summit will be held April 8-9, 1999, in Washington, D.C.
A preliminary document suggests the following standards and protocols: * The purpose of CCTV in public areas is to deter crime and assist law enforcement agencies. Any other use would undermine the technology’s acceptability. * Information obtained through video monitoring will be handled according to law enforcement evidentiary handling procedures. * Video monitoring will be conducted in a professional, ethical and legal manner. Personnel will be appropriately trained and continuously supervised. * Unusable or non-case-specific image data will be purged from storage within 30 days. * Written materials will be disseminated to describe the purpose and location of CCTV monitoring and guidelines for its use. The locations of CCTV cameras should be published twice a year in local newspapers. * The law enforcement body responsible for implementing the video monitoring program will be designated to oversee and coordinate the use of video monitoring. * A CCTV monitoring committee will be established to ensure that the law enforcement agency adheres to established policy and procedure. * The monitoring committee will review complaints regarding camera locations and determine whether the video monitoring policy is being followed. * The local law enforcement body will limit camera positions and views of residential housing. The view of any residential or commercial housing must not violate the standard of “reasonable expectation of privacy.” * Videotapes and other digital images will be stored in a secure location. * Camera control operators will not monitor individuals based solely on characteristics of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or other classifications protected by state and federal law. Camera operators should monitor based on suspicious behavior, not individual characteristics. * Camera control operators are prohibited from seeking and continuously viewing people being intimate in public places. * Camera control operators are prohibited from viewing private rooms or areas through windows. * In formulating and executing a video-monitoring program, it is necessary to include members of the law enforcement community, elected governing authority, business district and citizen representatives.
Attendees at the summit will discuss and debate the proposed protocol, after which a preliminary document will be released for review. For information, contact SIA at (703) 683-2075.
As the closed-circuit television industry has matured, its products have become commonplace and familiar to most people. From the camera surveying the lobby of a bank to the one keeping watch over the ATMs where most banking business now is transacted, CCTV technology is everywhere.
Closed-circuit technology was developed by the federal government in the late 1930s and early 1940s, says Charlie Pierce, president of Davenport, Iowa-based LRC Electronics, a CCTV service company. Early applications were limited to military and government because only they could afford it.
Industrial applications began in the 1960s, with surveillance applications in parking lots becoming common in the 1970s, and retail applications coming on strong in the 1980s. The mid-1980s also brought the emergence of covert applications.
The use of CCTV in public areas first became common in the United Kingdom, which today uses CCTV in more public areas per capita than any other country in the world. In the U.S. in the 1990s, CCTV use for highways and other public applications became common, and now, CCTV is everywhere.
For example, after the Oklahoma City bombing, no one was surprised that the truck carrying the bomb was captured on videotape. This year, a video camera provided the most dependable information about exactly what happened when a gunman entered the U.S. Capitol building and shot two police officers.
More for the money CCTV equipment shoppers, much like their counterparts in the consumer electronics market, will find that their dollars buy more these days – more features per dollar, quicker pan-and-tilts, more preset options, variable speeds and a wide range of zooms. A CCTV camera may cost the same as it did five or 10 years ago, but it is much more likely to be loaded with features.
Not only have the system components come down in price, according to Ray Pagano, president of Videolarm, a Decatur, Ga., CCTV supplier, but more robust designs mean savings in ongoing service costs.
“The pricing is going down on technology that has been around for a while,” agrees Sandy Calabrese, director of North American commercial/industrial marketing for Sensormatic Electronics, a Boca Raton, Fla., supplier of a range of security products. Calabrese recommends that CCTV end users consider carefully their needs today and three years down the road.
CCTV technology also is squarely in the computer age. Transition from analog to digital technology is ongoing, with digital offering advantages in terms of thoughtful handling of information, ability to store more information on smaller media and the ability to access the information in a matter of seconds.
Digital technology also allows simultaneous recording, archiving and playback. Also, digital systems allow the capability of compressing images before they are transmitted, which improves transmission speed but compromises image quality. However, digital technology still is expensive, and there is no uniform format for digital storage and retrieval, according to Pierce.
“If you’re planning to install a system two years from now, plan digital,” suggests Pierce. If you choose digital for anything sooner, pay close attention to compatibility issues, he adds.
The application rules Experts in CCTV suggest that users should start, not with technology, but with the application. Careful analysis of application needs by an expert in security technology will lead logically to a choice of appropriate technologies to do the job. Going the reverse path – shopping for technology and then deciding how to apply it – can create problems.
“Whatever you want to do, first define the requirements of the system,” suggests Jeff Blum, vice president of strategic development for Lewisville, Texas-based Ultrak, a major CCTV supplier. “After you identify the performance you want, then call an expert.”
Selecting technology that is too powerful for an application is a pitfall. Technology overkill can be wasteful and can aggravate concerns about privacy issues. The capabilities of today’s most powerful CCTV systems can be used against cities and counties to justify the “Big Brother” concerns of citizens. Better to go with the lowest cost system that meets the minimum requirements of the application. “Most of the public safety applications use systems that have been around for decades,” Blum says.
“All CCTV boils down to applications,” agrees Cliff Cooper, technical marketing manager for Pelco, a Clovis, Calif.-based CCTV supplier. “Application drives how big/small/fast/quick, etc., the equipment is.”
Advances and Developments Technical developments in CCTV are enhancing operation of intelligent traffic control systems, according to Cooper. Improvements include development of standards and better ways of controlling traffic through rerouting, messaging and emergency response. “CCTV gives a visual image of an intersection or stretch of highway,” says Cooper. “Video images offer more information to assess a situation.”
Cooper sees a trend toward greater systems integration – CCTV becoming increasingly a part of a larger traffic control system, often using several to hundreds of cameras. Developments in the area of how the images are used after they are captured have hastened the trend. Progress is being made in how video images are switched, transmitted, assessed, distributed and processed.
CCTV technology continues to evolve. Some developments include: * A nitrogen-pressurized outdoor dome camera that needs less servicing than earlier generation cameras. Locking out dust, moisture and insects, the camera inside the dome is surrounded by dry inert gas and is “intelligent” – it can move quickly to preset positions and zoom in on a scene; * A camera with a zoom that can read a license plate from across a parking lot; * Fiber optic cables that are making possible the transmission of video signals over longer distances without the use of amplifiers (necessary with copper wire) and with improved clarity of the video image. Fiber optics also offer wider band width and multiple video signals on one strand of fiber; and * A pan/tilt/zoom camera that can be configured to operate when it is viewing public areas, such as a school, shopping center or park, but not to operate (go black) when it rotates to view an area of private homes.
Technology is available to achieve whatever goals a city or county has in the arena of video surveillance. The technology is also better, smaller, faster and cheaper than it ever has been.
Larry Anderson is the editor of Access Control & Security Systems Integration.
Tri-Met, the nearly 30-year-old public transit system for Portland, Ore., is beefing up its closed-circuit television capabilities for one simple reason: CCTV works. At least, that is the assessment of Lt. Rosie Sizer of the Portland Police Bureau, which provides police services to Tri-Met.
“We have had several cases in which recorded images have really helped us in apprehending and prosecuting the bad guys,” Sizer says. She recounted a recent incident in which a bus passenger assaulted the driver. Thanks to witnesses’ descriptions backed up by video footage, the suspect was quickly apprehended.
Tri-Met decided in 1987 to try out the technology and began by equipping three of its buses with three CCTV cameras apiece. In the mid-1990s, finding the results satisfactory, the agency equipped 40 buses – those running routes with a higher incidence of criminal activity – with three cameras each. “We try to put them on the more troubled (routes),” Sizer says.
The 40 buses, like the first three, were equipped with analog cameras. In recent years, however, Tri-Met has been equipping buses, rail cars and facilities with digital cameras. In fact, 65 of the system’s 660 buses feature three digital cameras each. The cost, now about $15,000 per bus, will come down to between $9,000 and $11,000 per bus for the next 118 buses, says Tri-Met spokesman Steve Johnson.
Additionally, Tri-Met has budgeted $1.2 million for a CCTV system and cameras for its 72 light rail cars. The digital cameras are made by Panasonic Video Imaging Systems, Secaucus, N.J.; the digital recording system is by Loronix, Durango, Colo. The long-term goal is to have CCTV installed on every bus and rail car as well as at every major pickup and dropoff point including light rail platforms and park-and-ride garages.
The digital system provides sharp, focused images, good color and the ability to manipulate data, Johnson says. For example, an operator can simply type in the date and approximate time of a recorded incident and retrieve a digital image in a few minutes. Digital images, if needed as evidence, also are more secure than VHS tapes, Johnson says, because the tapes could be lost, stolen or damaged.
The cameras mounted at light rail platforms provide a live feed into the rail control center, while cameras in buses and train cars record footage but are not monitored live, according to Sizer.
(Analog cameras record onto videotape; digital cameras record onto a compact disk or hard drive.) The VHS videotapes run in a continuous loop and are replaced every 30 days or whenever Tri-Met determines it needs to pull a tape to check up on an incident. Sizer notes that the cameras are easily visible, and signage alerts riders of the camera’s presence.
However, she acknowledges, “It’s pretty hard to measure the deterrent value of the equipment.”
In addition to serving as a deterrent and providing potential evidence in the event of criminal proceedings, CCTV cameras also can prevent civil litigation or help a transit agency win a claim in short order. Also with regard to litigation, Sizer cautions public transit agencies to use careful wording in signage. Wording that implies the cameras are there “for your safety and security,” for example, may open an agency up to liability. “You’re promising something that the cameras cannot deliver,” she says. Rather, it is better for signs to simply inform the public of the presence of the cameras and leave it at that, she notes.
The difficulty in maintaining a vigilant watch over CCTV monitors is a drawback to a live feed, Sizer says. However, she notes that emerging software products will be able to alert security personnel when a live camera spots something suspicious. For example, an alarm could be triggered in the control center in the event of the camera filming a “car prowler” who moves from vehicle to vehicle in a parking lot.
Although technological improvements help advance the cause of security, they are not a panacea, Sizer says, simply because the necessary personnel behind the technology often is lacking. “You have personnel resources and you have technology, but there is practically a schism between them,” she says, adding that grant money typically is easier to obtain for technology purposes than for human resources.
Closed-circuit television, CCTV, is a private video system used to monitor a location visually for security or industrial purposes. A CCTV system can record and the tape can be viewed on-site or viewed remotely through the use of telephone lines.
Most CCTV systems consist of: * A charged coupled device (CCD) camera. Available in both monochrome (black and white) and color versions, the cameras can be set in fixed positions or placed on pan-and-tilt devices that allow them to be moved up, down, left and right. They also include zoom lenses. * A monitor. Similar to a standard television set, CCTV monitors nonetheless lack the electronics to pick up regular television programming. Monitors are available in both monochrome and color versions. * A time-lapse recorder. Video recorders commonly used for security have the ability to record up to one week of video on one tape. The 24-hour mode is the most commonly used timing. * Coaxial cable, the same type used by cable companies; and * A control unit. If a CCTV system includes more than one camera, a control unit is necessary to control each video signal going to the VCR and the monitor. Three basic types are: 1) switchers, which provide full screen images for a single camera typically for three to five seconds at a time (when one camera is on the screen, others are not recording); 2) quads, which can send up to four cameras to the screen and to the recorder at the same time, with each getting a quarter of the screen. All information is recorded in small quarter-screen clarity; and 3) multiplexers, high-speed switchers that provide full screen images from up to 16 cameras and can play back everything from one camera without interference from the others on the system.
Resolution is a measure of how clear and crisp an image appears on the monitor. Each piece of CCTV equipment in a system contributes to the overall image quality, and the final image will be only as clear as the piece of equipment with the lowest resolution.
Remote transmission and alarm verification are CCTV technologies that allow a system to be monitored and alarm conditions to be verified by a professional central monitoring station. The central monitoring station responds to alarm situations not only by recording and viewing the site, but also by turning on lights, opening or closing gates and doors, and even interceding with live audio.
Source: Security Industry Association, Alexandria, Va.
At highway intersections in Fairfax, Va., red light running by motorists has caused significant personal injury and vehicular damage. In 1996 alone, the Fairfax Police Department registered 70 reportable accidents (defined by personal injury or vehicular damage in excess of $1,000) directly caused by vehicles running red light signals.
With those numbers in hand, Fairfax petitioned the Virginia General Assembly to allow it to become the first district in the state to use a photo-based, red light surveillance system. (Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, which stipulates that local municipalities may exercise only that authority granted to them by the state General Assembly.) The General Assembly approved Fairfax’s request to use a photo-capture program, with the stipulation that the penalty for red light violations be a $50 fine with no points deducted from motorists’ records.
Beginning in mid-1997, between six and eight Fairfax intersections were fitted with housings necessary to hold the surveillance equipment; only two intersections at a time are actually monitored. Mounted cameras detect when a vehicle enters the intersection during the red phase of the traffic signal cycle and shoot two photographs of the passing motorist. A summons, along with printed copies of the photographs, is mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle.
The system involves a regular, single-shot, wet film photo system; the film has to be retrieved from the camera and developed. (A special camera was developed for the application at a cost of about $50,000.)
A parallel computer system keeps a record of each violation, including date, time, vehicle speed, sequence of violations, etc. The violation data including the date, time, amount of red time, yellow time and the vehicle is superimposed on the printed photo.
How has the program affected motorist behavior? “From our viewpoint, it’s working very well,” says Fairfax Mayor John Mason. “The object of the program all along was to reduce red light running and, clearly, that is occurring, at least in the intersections that have camera boxes. The decline has been as dramatic as 50 percent at those monitored locations.”
No warnings are posted to alert motorists that the locations are being monitored. However, Mason says signs on all roads leading into the city tell drivers that the city employs mounted cameras to monitor intersections for signal running.
“People might be able to discern where the boxes are that house a camera, but only the police department knows which intersections are being monitored at a given time,” Mason explains.
In addition to reducing red light violations, CCTV technology can redirect law enforcement resources to more serious criminal offenses, Mason says. “To have police officers sitting in cruisers watching lights turn red is a horrible misuse of manpower when we have more important criminal offenses that require human interaction,” he notes.
Fairfax has budgeted $320,000 to run the Photo Red Light Program for more than 13 months. The system’s $65,000 set-up cost and subsequent maintenance costs are being offset by the fines collected. Further, increasing the number of actively photographed intersections may not be necessary due to the program’s positive results. “We are most likely going to hold steady at the six or eight sites we have, because it’s already having a dramatic effect on a problem that had become increasingly troublesome,” Mason says.
“We will probably want to go back to the General Assembly and ask for legislation [to make the program permanent],” he says. “I asked my staff to be very sure we had good data that reflect pre-camera and during-camera [program results]. We would then, in a year or so, be able to go back to the General Assembly with a thorough and analytical proposal that reflected the true results of the program.”
In the meantime, the city is considering upgrading its technology. A digital camera is currently in development that could download captured images via hardwire to a remote processing location. A CCTV system that would produce a video feed from numerous angles is another possibility.
The Lancaster Municipal Court in Fairfield County, Ohio, houses the majority of felony arraignments. Typical arraignments required a security officer to travel to the jail to pick up as many as three defendants. Then the officer would drive to the courthouse, escort the defendants throughout the building and wait to return them to the jail.
The high number of felony defendants required three to four police officers on duty in the court, pulling them away from other duties in the city. That would cost about $25,000- $30,000 per year in officers’ time.
By March 1996, Lancaster had installed cameras and monitors throughout the courtrooms and in the county jail. The system cost $45,000, and, after two years of use, it has paid for itself, Municipal Judge Chris Martin says. The system was paid for with city funds generated by court costs. “It’s a more controlled environment,” Martin says. “It has reduced some concerns we have had and has relieved bailiffs from having to watch [defendants].”
The system is used only for arraignments, some preliminary hearings and change of plea proceedings. It is set up so that defendants participate in the arraignments from jail via CCTV.
Each courtroom houses a 27-inch monitor that faces the public and two 9-inch monitors that sit on the bailiff’s desk and at the judge’s bench. The bailiff controls the cameras, which are mounted on the courtroom walls. At the jail, defendants view the court on a 13- to 15-inch mounted monitor and respond through a microphone securely mounted on a podium. The monitors have split-screen capability.
The equipment was provided and installed by Carroll, Ohio-based Diamond Electronics. The inside wiring was performed by city electricians over two days, and the equipment installation required five days. To avoid disrupting the courts, crews worked after hours, starting at 4 p.m. each day. Officials tested the system for several weeks prior to use.
Although a sheriff’s deputy is required to be in the jail to supervise the defendant, the court dispenses with arraignments much more quickly than it did three years ago. The court is “on air” for about 11/2 hours per day, meaning officers have more time for other duties.
Image matters. At least, that is the conclusion of downtown Baltimore businessmen who supported a project to install closed-circuit television cameras on 16 city blocks. Public perception of safety in the area had dropped, but installation of the cameras has changed that. “The system has been a nice touch to keep people feeling safer,” says Frank Russo, public safety director for The Downtown Partnership of Baltimore.
In 1995, The Downtown Partnership of Baltimore began looking at CCTV as a possible addition to its Clean and Safe supplemental services program. The special district already was coordinating private security personnel with city police officers and mass transit police officers to form a safety network.
However, there still was an air of discomfort downtown. “People just felt uncomfortable about their environment because of the street population: panhandlers and people on the streets who tend to be threatening at times,” Russo says.
After conferring with area merchants and property owners, the partnership researched CCTV and, in 1996, installed a 16-camera video recording system. It also installed a central monitoring station where safety personnel can view what is happening on the streets 24 hours a day.
The cameras were mounted on telephone poles and remain in fixed positions. They do not havepan, tilt or zoom capabilities, and they do not intercept audio.
“It’s a very public system,” Russo says. “If you look at the cameras, there’s no question they’re cameras; and every block has signs indicating that the area has cameras and video patrol. There’s no looking in windows or over fences. What you could see if you [were standing in place of the camera and] looked a block in either direction is exactly what the camera captures.”
Installation began at the corner of Howard and Lexington streets, which is “dead center of the transportation corridor,” Russo says. “Light rail, subway and bus all come together there, and it’s one of the most heavily traveled pedestrian corridors in downtown.” Working north, east, south and west of that initial point, the partnership installed one camera per block until it had exhausted its supply.
Funded by a federal grant (providing 75 percent of the total cost) and the Maryland Mass Transit Authority, the project cost $58,000 to complete. According to Larry Lewis, program coordinator for the partnership’s Public Safety Coalition, the initial system included: * Sixteen black-and-white cameras, pole mounts and housing; * A 16-channel, black-and-white duplex multiplexer; * Four black-and-white quad splitters; * Four 9-inch monitors and one 14-inch monitor, with cabinetry and support equipment; and * A time/date video cassette recorder.
Prior to installation, the partnership had to identify vantage points for camera placement, installation points and conduit runs. Installation costs were estimated at $37,000, but the city public works department ran the cables and installed the equipment for no cost.
The system is basic but cost-efficient, Russo says. “It’s very inexpensive for what it accomplishes,” he notes. “It’s all off-the-shelf stuff.”
Statistically, crime in the Lexington Street area has dropped since 1996, corresponding to the video system’s installation. The number of crimes (primarily crimes against property) dropped 11 percent during the first year of the system’s operation, and it dropped 30 percent in 1997.
Public opinion was split during the project’s conceptual phase; the business community favored CCTV, and residents expressed some concern about privacy. Ultimately, public support made the project happen, and, since the actual installation, reaction to the system has been “almost unanimously” positive, Russo says. “It improves the way people feel about the community because there’s the impression that someone is paying attention to their safety,” he explains.
Now, other neighborhoods in downtown Baltimore are considering adding CCTV to their safety programs. One system will be installed this year, and partial funding is in place for three future installations.
For all its benefits, the video patrol is only one component of a carefully planned safety network, Russo says. “The system is an inexpensive, efficient use of technology, but it is not a panacea,” he points out. “[It is not so effective that the city can] take police officers off the street. It allows them to be more focused and maybe more efficient; one officer has the ability to look at 16 blocks of a downtown, see what’s going on and actually respond to that location.”
