|
The New Haven Board of Aldermen recently invited the ACLU-CT to testify at a public hearing on government's use of video camera surveillance in public places. At the hearing and in a letter, ACLU-CT Legal Director Jon Matthews explained why the ACLU-CT believes that electronic surveillance of public places is a mistake. The proposed large-scale surveillance could be used to violate individuals' First Amendment rights such as the freedom to peaceably assemble, the freedom to associate freely with other people, and the freedom to publicly protest government's actions.
Many people do not object to government video cameras' filming public places because they believe they have nothing to worry about since they are doing nothing wrong. However, subjecting law-abiding people to government video surveillance is troubling because such surveillance has the potential to violate individuals' privacy rights. There are many public activities that individuals want - and have a right - to keep private. For example, people going into an AA meeting or a fertility clinic usually prefer to have the right to determine who should know this information.
Studies of the British government's proliferate placement of video cameras in public places indicate that the surveillance technology has been intentionally abused in a variety of ways. (Studies of such public surveillance in the United States are almost non-existent.) Voyeuristic abuse and racial profiling by the people monitoring the videotapes is especially problematic. Expensive surveillance equipment sometimes becomes little more than high-tech peeping tom devices. Also, videotapes of public places can be used as tools for racial profiling, where individuals are systematically targeted solely because they belong to a particular ethnic or racial group.
Courts have upheld that individuals who are exercising their right to protest or circulate a petition have the right to do so anonymously. Government surveillance by means of video cameras would take away that right. Other people could then obtain surveillance video tapes from the government through the Freedom of Information Act. This would create a chilling effect on individuals' exercise of their First Amendment rights. For example, an employer could obtain video surveillance of a political protest or a union picket line and use this information to retaliate against employees.
We are pleased that the City of New Haven is considering the negative impact these cameras have on privacy rights.
|
