NCJ Number
194410
Date Published
March 2002
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This testimony before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform (March 22, 2002) examines the legal issues involved in balancing privacy and security concerns in conducting electronic surveillance in the District of Columbia.
Abstract
Over a million video surveillance cameras are used in the United States, with many government entities deploying forms of electronic surveillance to monitor public places. Reasons for promoting such surveillance include preventing and detecting crime, reducing citizens' fear of crime, aiding criminal investigations through post-event analysis of surveillance tapes, better use of public safety resources, and countering terrorism. Critics of such surveillance argue that it is not in keeping with the values of an open society and may lead to abusive invasions of privacy and racially selective law enforcement. The proposed use of electronic surveillance technology in Washington, DC, however, does not violate the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has held that government action must comply with the constitutional requirements for a search when it invades a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, the Court has found that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to physical characteristics that are constantly exposed to the public, such as one's facial features, voice, and handwriting. Similarly, the Court has determined that "a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another." If law enforcement officials limited their actions to comparing images of people in public places with databases of terrorists and known criminals, then information privacy concerns would be unlikely to arise. Still, the U.S. Congress is free to provide greater privacy protections than those found in the U.S. Constitution. With respect to electronic surveillance in public places, Congress has three broad policy choices: to prohibit its use; to regulate its use; or to take no immediate action pending further study. It would seem appropriate for Congress to be attentive to any solid evidence of actual harm caused by the technology or its inappropriate use. Some form of active oversight, either government-only or a cooperative effort between government officials and private citizens, would be useful to quell fears about the technology's use and to ensure that it will not be abused. Future use of the technologies is also discussed.