The balance of police surveillance, data management and public trust in the USA
Police surveillance in the United States has evolved into a multi-faceted landscape that encompasses an array of high-tech tools: facial recognition systems, social media monitoring, and an extensive network of sophisticated surveillance cameras.
With the average city hosting around 6 cameras per 1,000 people, and some like Atlanta with nearly 50 cameras per 1,000 people, police surveillance technology is ubiquitous.
A responsible and balanced approach to surveillance is imperative as law enforcement agencies harness these powerful tools for crime prevention and public safety.
Implementation challenges of AI for CCTV, body-worn, dash and doorbell cameras
CCTV cameras are a vital tool for law enforcement: they help monitor traffic and detect potential criminal activity such as theft, vandalism, or public disturbances. Furthermore, body-worn cameras (BWCs) and dash cameras provide objective, accurate evidence and enhance transparency and accountability within law enforcement agencies.
CCTV's capacity to deter criminal behaviour and aid in crime investigations is undeniable. However, there are concerns surrounding constant surveillance which invariably captures individuals unrelated to a crime, raising privacy considerations when their images are publicly disclosed.
One of the biggest issues is that protocols for storing and retrieving CCTV data vary across states.
This raises questions about who can grant access, how footage is used and can also hinder investigations and coordination between law enforcement agencies. Issues have already arisen surrounding the enforcement and penalties for non-compliance.
Additionally, advanced technologies like live facial recognition (LFR) potentially enable real-time tracking and identification of individuals. The study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) underscores FRT's potential for racial and gender disparities, which could accentuate profiling and discriminatory practices.
Some cities and states have implemented legal bans or moratoriums on the use of LFR by law enforcement, while others have taken steps to regulate it.
For instance, Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requires informed consent for collecting biometric data and other states including Washington and California have introduced legislation related to biometric data and FR.
BWCs and dashcams capture real-time footage of public interactions, traffic stops and accidents which provide reliable evidence for law enforcement.
In 2021, seven states - Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Carolina - mandated the use of BWCs by law enforcement officers.
More have passed requirements for BWCs and, in some states, officers must provide a legitimate reason for not wearing these cameras. However, these requirements have posed challenges where officers have not complied with activating them. Between 2020 and 2021, 15%- 40% of San Diego officers did not turn their cameras on during interactions. This was for numerous reasons, including no requirements to activate cameras if officers felt it would be unsafe, as well as discretion regarding camera use among investigators and higher-ranking officers.
Doorbell cameras have gained popularity among homeowners and provide a useful lens to aid community-based policing efforts. However, in 2019, Ring revealed they provided doorbell footage to law enforcement without user consent, sparking concerns about unwarranted data sharing.
A balanced future of police camera usage, data privacy and transparency
Camera technologies are crucial to law enforcement’s efforts but the sheer volume of visual data collected raises concerns about privacy infringement and mass collection of personal information. This is a considerable administrative burden for law enforcement agencies. Handling, storing, and securing this data requires significant resources, and agencies face increasing challenges to protect data.
Underpinning these challenges is the US Fourth Amendment, which requires law enforcement to have a justifiable reason for conducting surveillance. The Stored Communications Act and the Electronic Communications Act further define the parameters governing electronic surveillance.
Even within this legal framework, grey areas such as covert surveillance techniques remain. In 2023, for example, it was reported that some US law enforcement agencies employed the "Fog Reveal" phone tracking tool, without search warrants.
As technology advances, innovative solutions and tools that safeguard individual rights while ensuring effective, transparent policing in the US are needed to balance public safety with personal privacy.
The growing need for public safety to parallel personal privacy requires a multi-faceted approach that embraces both technological innovation and ethical responsibility. This requires cutting-edge tools that prioritise individual rights and deliver policing that coexists with personal privacy.