Video Surveillance
Information on Law Enforcement's Use of Closed-Circuit Television to Monitor Selected Federal Property in Washington, D.C.
Gao ID: GAO-03-748 June 27, 2003
Law enforcement use of closed-circuit television (CCTV) as a tool to fight crime and terrorism has become more prevalent over time. Civil liberties advocates have raised privacy concerns about its use. This report describes (1) the Metropolitan Police Department's and the United States Park Police's implementation of CCTV to monitor public spaces in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area such as the National Mall and (2) the management controls they established to address privacy concerns. GAO also identified experiences of selected CCTV users that provide insights to help ensure the proper CCTV use.
The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia's CCTV system was implemented, among other things, to facilitate crowd management during large demonstrations; however, officials indicated that the system could also be used to help combat terrorism. The system is used on an as-needed basis for such things as crowd control and when the national terrorism threat level is set to high alert (code orange). The Metropolitan Police Department obtained public comments on its implementation of CCTV. In contrast, the United States Park Police uses CCTV, among other purposes, primarily to combat terrorism and operates its CCTV system on a continuous basis. The United States Park Police has not obtained public input on its implementation of CCTV, but it is considering providing the public an opportunity to provide input. The Metropolitan Police developed regulations and the United States Park Police developed draft policies for operating their CCTV systems. Both include management controls that address the protection of privacy and the proper use of CCTV such as the need for supervision to protect against improper use and the establishment of procedures to control access to CCTV images. The experiences of CCTV users in the United Kingdom (UK) and selected U.S. cities revealed best practices for the implementation and use of CCTV. For example, UK and U.S. officials considered providing training and audits helpful to ensuring proper use of CCTV. Officials in the UK and others shared their best practices that include (1) operating CCTV systems in an open environment helps to alleviate privacy concerns; (2) having uniform standards helps to reassure the public that safeguards are in place when utilizing CCTV and provides CCTV operators guidance for proper use; and (3) establishing realistic, clear, and measurable goals helps make CCTV systems more effective and can also reassure the public about its use.
GAO-03-748, Video Surveillance: Information on Law Enforcement's Use of Closed-Circuit Television to Monitor Selected Federal Property in Washington, D.C.
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-748
entitled 'Video Surveillance: Information on Law Enforcement's Use of
Closed-Circuit Television to Monitor Selected Federal Property in
Washington, D.C.' which was released on June 27, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
June 2003:
Video Surveillance:
Information on Law Enforcement's Use of Closed-Circuit Television to
Monitor Selected Federal Property in Washington, D.C.
GAO-03-748:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-748, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Law enforcement use of closed-circuit television (CCTV) as a tool to
fight crime and terrorism has become more prevalent over time. Civil
liberties advocates have raised privacy concerns about its use.
This report describes (1) the Metropolitan Police Department‘s and the
United States Park Police‘s implementation of CCTV to monitor public
spaces in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area such as the National
Mall and (2) the management controls they established to address
privacy concerns. GAO also identified experiences of selected CCTV
users that provide insights to help ensure the proper CCTV use.
What GAO Found:
The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia‘s CCTV
system was implemented, among other things, to facilitate crowd
management during large demonstrations; however, officials indicated
that the system could also be used to help combat terrorism. The
system is used on an as-needed basis for such things as crowd control
and when the national terrorism threat level is set to high alert
(code orange). The Metropolitan Police Department obtained public
comments on its implementation of CCTV. In contrast, the United States
Park Police uses CCTV, among other purposes, primarily to combat
terrorism and operates its CCTV system on a continuous basis. The
United States Park Police has not obtained public input on its
implementation of CCTV, but it is considering providing the public an
opportunity to provide input.
The Metropolitan Police developed regulations and the United States
Park Police developed draft policies for operating their CCTV systems.
Both include management controls that address the protection of
privacy and the proper use of CCTV such as the need for supervision to
protect against improper use and the establishment of procedures to
control access to CCTV images.
The experiences of CCTV users in the United Kingdom (UK) and selected
U.S. cities revealed best practices for the implementation and use of
CCTV. For example, UK and U.S. officials considered providing training
and audits helpful to ensuring proper use of CCTV. Officials in the UK
and others shared their best practices that include (1) operating CCTV
systems in an open environment helps to alleviate privacy concerns;
(2) having uniform standards helps to reassure the public that
safeguards are in place when utilizing CCTV and provides CCTV
operators guidance for proper use; and (3) establishing realistic,
clear, and measurable goals helps make CCTV systems more effective and
can also reassure the public about its use.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-748.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Rich Stana at (202) 512-
8777 or stanar@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
MPDC and United States Park Police Implementation of CCTV:
MPDC and United States Park Police Officials Said that Regulations and
a Draft Policy Address Concerns:
Experiences of Other CCTV Users in the United States and UK Reveal Best
Practices for Other Interested Locations:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Implementation of CCTV Systems in Selected U.S. Cities:
Appendix III: Implementation of CCTV Systems in the United Kingdom:
Figures:
Figure 1: Key Aspects of a CCTV System:
Figure 2: CCTV Cameras Monitoring Public Spaces:
Figure 3: A CCTV Control Room:
Figure 4: Scope of a CCTV Camera Surveillance Area:
Figure 5: Depiction of a CCTV Sign:
Figure 6: Police Officer Monitoring a CCTV System:
Figure 7: CCTV Monitor:
Abbreviations:
ABA: American Bar Association:
ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union:
CCTV: closed-circuit television:
EPIC: Electronic Privacy Information Center:
IACP: International Association of Chiefs of Police:
MPDC: Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia:
SIA: Security Industry Association:
UK: United Kingdom:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 27, 2003:
The Honorable Thomas Davis Chairman Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Surveillance video cameras have become a growing presence in the public
arena over the past several decades in stores, civic buildings, and
even on public streets. As part of this trend, law enforcement has
increasingly used closed-circuit television (CCTV)--which involves a
linked system of cameras able to be viewed and operated from a control
room--as a tool for fighting crime. Police departments in the United
States commonly use CCTV to, among other things, deter, detect, and
investigate crime and control crowds. Since September 11, 2001, law
enforcement has also begun to use CCTV to combat terrorism. In
particular, both the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia (MPDC) and the National Park Service's United States Park
Police within the Department of the Interior have used CCTV systems to
monitor certain public spaces[Footnote 1] under their jurisdictions in
Washington, D.C. For example, the United States Park Police has
responsibility for policing the area around the White House, the
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, the Washington Monument, the
Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans War
Memorial.
CCTV use in public spaces and varying methods of implementation have
raised concerns among critics of CCTV use. Specifically, civil
liberties advocates have raised issues concerning CCTV's potential
impact on individual privacy as well as the potential for inappropriate
use of CCTV systems and the mishandling of CCTV images. In addition,
these advocates expressed concern about using the technology when its
effectiveness for law enforcement use has not been proven. Civil
liberties advocates propose that controls are needed to help ensure the
protection of individual privacy and the proper use of CCTV systems.
The American Bar Association[Footnote 2] (ABA) and other organizations
have developed guidelines for CCTV users that address some of the
issues raised by civil liberties advocates through the use of
management controls. These include developing written operating
protocols, establishing supervision and training requirements,
providing for public notification, and requiring periodic audits.
This report responds to a request from former Representative Constance
A. Morella in her capacity as Chair of the House Government Reform
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, asking us to examine several
issues surrounding the use of CCTV to monitor public spaces. As
discussed with your office, we are sending you this report because of
your oversight responsibility for the District of Columbia. This report
discusses:
* How MPDC and the United States Park Police have implemented their
CCTV systems.
* How MPDC's and the United States Park Police's management controls
respond to issues raised regarding individual privacy and the use of
CCTV.
* Whether the experiences of other CCTV users in the United States and
the United Kingdom (UK) offer useful insights for MPDC and the United
States Park Police regarding the issues that have been raised.
To determine how MPDC and the United States Park Police have
implemented their CCTV systems, we interviewed MPDC and United States
Park Police officials and reviewed relevant laws, regulations,
policies, and other documents. To determine how MPDC's and the United
States Park Police's management controls responded to issues raised
regarding the use of CCTV, we interviewed MPDC and United States Park
Police officials. We did not evaluate or test compliance with MPDC's or
the United States Park Police's management controls. We also
interviewed representatives from the ABA, the American Civil Liberties
Union[Footnote 3] (ACLU), the Electronic Privacy Information
Center[Footnote 4] (EPIC), the International Association of Chiefs of
Police[Footnote 5] (IACP), and the Security Industry
Association[Footnote 6] (SIA) to obtain their views on the use of CCTV.
To learn about the experiences of CCTV users in other U.S. cities, we
obtained documentation and interviewed officials and representatives in
four U.S. locations--Baltimore, Maryland; Tampa, Florida; Columbia,
South Carolina; and Virginia Beach, Virginia. These locations were
selected for one or more of the following reasons: they had used CCTV
for some time, had recently initiated the use of CCTV, were located
close to D.C., or were using other technology in conjunction with CCTV.
In addition, we visited the UK--a country that has used CCTV
extensively to address crime and terrorism. We toured the control rooms
and observed the operations of CCTV systems in some U.S. cities and in
all of the UK locations visited. See appendix I for a more detailed
discussion of our scope and methodology.
We performed our audit work from August 2002 to May 2003 in Washington,
D.C., and the selected locations mentioned earlier, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments
on a draft of this report from MPDC and the Department of the Interior,
and their comments have been incorporated as appropriate.
Results in Brief:
MPDC and the United States Park Police have their own CCTV systems
implemented independently of each other. The purpose of MPDC's CCTV
system is to facilitate crowd management and allocate police resources
during major public events and demonstrations with the intended purpose
of deterring crime such as destruction of property. The system is also
used to coordinate traffic control on an as-needed basis. Finally, the
system is used during exigent circumstances. In this regard, a senior
MPDC official said that CCTV has the dual purpose of helping to combat
terrorism. The D.C. City Council is considering whether CCTV might be
used to fight crime in neighborhoods. According to its regulations,
MPDC's system is to be operated on a limited basis during certain
events such as major demonstrations or exigent circumstances such as
when the Department of Homeland Security's national threat level is
increased to high alert (code orange). MPDC obtained public comments on
its implementation of CCTV. In contrast, the United States Park Police
states that CCTV is to be used to counter terrorism but recognizes that
it can be used to deter and detect crime as well. The United States
Park Police is operating its system on a continuous basis. The United
States Park Police has not obtained public input on the implementation
of its CCTV system; however, it is considering doing so. MPDC has
disclosed the locations of its cameras to the public, whereas the
United States Park Police has chosen not to do so because of concerns
about vandalism and concerns that individuals may attempt to defeat the
system. For civil liberty advocates concerned about CCTV use, the
unpredictability of how MPDC and the United States Park Police might
use their CCTV systems, where it might be used, and when it might be
used, contribute to their uneasiness about its use and a desire for
controls on its use.
MPDC has adopted regulations, and the United States Park Police is in
the process of developing a policy that includes management controls
for operating their CCTV systems. According to officials from both
police forces, they incorporated suggestions from guidelines published
by the ABA, IACP, or SIA when developing their regulations and
policies. MPDC's regulations and the United States Park Police's
proposed policy include management controls such as providing for
training and periodic audits to address concerns raised about improper
use of CCTV systems. In addition, MPDC has received feedback from the
public on its regulations. The ABA reviewed the draft regulations and
indicated that it complies with the ABA's standards. However, a
nonprofit scholarship and advocacy organization called the Constitution
Project also reviewed MPDC's regulations and concluded that the
regulations lacked clarity and specificity in some areas, such as
training of CCTV operators. The United States Park Police's policy is
in draft form and has not been reviewed outside of the Department of
the Interior.
The experiences of CCTV users in the UK and the selected U.S. cities
revealed best practices regarding the implementation and use of CCTV.
For example, UK and U.S. officials considered providing training and
conducting audits helpful to ensuring proper use of CCTV. Because of
their extensive use of CCTV, UK officials were able to provide more
experiences from which to learn and could offer useful insights for
CCTV use. Officials in the UK shared their views that (1) operating
CCTV systems in an open environment helps to alleviate privacy
concerns; (2) having uniform standards helps to reassure the public
that safeguards are in place when utilizing CCTV and provides CCTV
operators guidance for proper use; and (3) establishing clear,
realistic, and measurable goals helps make CCTV systems more effective
and can also reassure the public about its use. Clear and measurable
goals identify the problems to be addressed by CCTV and can include a
range of measures to determine whether goals have been achieved, such
as the change in crime levels or the change in public attitudes about
crime. Researchers and others recognize the importance of measuring
effectiveness to justify the potential impact on individuals' civil
liberties and the costs associated with its use. At the same time, most
CCTV users have not statistically measured the effectiveness of their
CCTV systems and could only provide anecdotal evidence to demonstrate
its effectiveness. CCTV users both in the UK and the selected U.S.
cities told us that the effectiveness of CCTV is difficult to measure.
We provided a draft of this report to and received comments from
officials representing MPDC and the Department of the Interior.
Officials from both departments generally agreed with the report and
our presentation of information regarding their CCTV use. The
Department of the Interior provided technical comments, which were
included as appropriate. MPDC had no technical corrections.
Background:
CCTV is a visual surveillance technology designed for monitoring a
variety of environments and activities. CCTV systems typically involve
a dedicated communications link between cameras and monitors. Digital
camera and storage technologies are rapidly replacing traditional
analog systems. A CCTV system involves a linked system of cameras able
to be viewed and operated from a control room.
Figure 1: Key Aspects of a CCTV System:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
CCTV systems have evolved considerably over time and tend to fall into
three different generations. The first generation consisted of wide-
angle, fixed cameras (referred to as shoe boxes) that were targeted to
crime hotspots. The second generation consisted of cameras that could
be moved using a joystick in the control center focused on specific
events or people, zooming in for closer scrutiny. The third generation
uses both types of cameras with the additional capabilities to include
software such as facial recognition or license plate
recognition.[Footnote 7] Relatively new features in CCTV technology
that enhance its power and scope include night vision cameras,
computer-assisted operations, and motion detectors. A camera that is
integrated with a motion detection system would, for example, enable
alerted law enforcement staff in a control room to remotely investigate
potential security incidents such as a terrorist placing a package in
an isolated location. Most CCTV systems are actively monitored by
security or law enforcement personnel in a centralized setting, or they
can be passively taped for future viewing if needed (such as in the
event of a robbery).
The private sector began using CCTV in the early 1960s, first in banks,
and later in commercial buildings. By the 1970s, CCTV was deployed in
hospitals, all-night convenience stores, and many other commercial
areas. The private sector also began to use CCTV in retail stores to
monitor for shoplifters and in hotels to help secure the safety of
their guests. CCTV technology advanced during the 1980s with the
introduction of video recorders, and even more in the 1990s with the
introduction of digital technology. CCTV is also used in public safety-
related applications across the United States, including traffic
control, special events, public transportation, and public schools.
CCTV use by law enforcement to fight crime and terrorism is an evolving
application of the technology. According to a number of reports, CCTV
can benefit law enforcement in many ways. A survey of law enforcement
agencies conducted by the IACP found that CCTV was useful in areas such
as investigative assistance and evidence gathering. The survey
identified other law enforcement benefits from CCTV use such as
reducing time in court for officers, protecting police officers against
claims of police misconduct, and using recorded images to train
officers. A report by RAND[Footnote 8] noted that proponents of video
and similar types of surveillance claim that it prevents crime by
deterrence, especially when overt surveillance activities remind
potential criminals of police presence and observation. The same report
also states that, if an area under surveillance becomes a crime scene,
the surveillance can both alert police to the need for an operational
response and/or provide evidence for subsequent criminal investigation
and prosecution. A study commissioned by the SIA also stated that CCTV
has the ability to enhance law enforcement capabilities by enabling
officers to be deployed in areas that require more traditional police
work (such as foot patrols where officers can interact with
individuals), enabling the CCTV cameras to be used for general
surveillance.
In the context of law enforcement surveillance activities, a common
conception of privacy stems from criminal cases interpreting the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects people
from unreasonable searches and seizures. According to the Supreme
Court, if the person under surveillance has a reasonable expectation of
privacy, the Fourth Amendment applies, and a warrant is generally
required to conduct a lawful search. Conversely, if the person under
surveillance does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the
Fourth Amendment does not apply, and no warrant is required for police
surveillance.[Footnote 9] Applying these principles, the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld the use of surveillance cameras placed on a
public street without a warrant on grounds that "activity a person
knowingly exposes to the public is not a subject of Fourth Amendment
protection, and thus, is not constitutionally protected from
observation."[Footnote 10]
While there is generally no reasonable expectation of privacy under the
Fourth Amendment for activities visible to the public, the ACLU and
EPIC have argued that the use of surveillance systems to monitor public
spaces may nevertheless infringe upon freedom of expression under the
First Amendment. There does not appear to be any federal case law
interpreting whether police use of video surveillance devices may
infringe upon First Amendment rights. However, ACLU and EPIC believe
that CCTV might "chill" protesters from demonstrating in public spaces
such as on the National Mall and elsewhere in D.C. knowing that their
images might be captured on police recordings.[Footnote 11] There is
also concern that CCTV cameras equipped with enhanced features, such as
zoom capabilities, may give police the ability to read and record the
print on political fliers being distributed in public places and to
identify individuals engaged in political speech, which, in their view,
undercuts the ability of citizens to engage in anonymous free
speech.[Footnote 12]
ACLU and EPIC officials said that they would like to see controls in
place to help guard against improper use of CCTV systems and the
mishandling of CCTV images. In addition, ACLU officials said that
controls directing the use of CCTV should contain specific provisions
for protecting CCTV images that include whether CCTV images are being
recorded, under what conditions, and how long the recordings are
retained, as well as criteria for access to CCTV images by the
government or the public. An EPIC official also said that controls
should address access, storage, and disclosure of records.
In the UK, CCTV and video surveillance have been used extensively. As
of 2002, about 75 cities were using CCTV to monitor urban centers, and
approximately 95 percent of all local governments were considering its
use as a law enforcement tool. In 1990, according to the UK Home
Office,[Footnote 13] the UK had approximately three CCTV systems
operated by local governments comprised of about 100 cameras. By the
end of 2002, Home Office officials estimated that the UK had
approximately 500 CCTV systems operated by local governments comprised
of about 40,000 cameras. Nonlaw enforcement staff generally operate the
CCTV systems in the locations we visited in the UK. In most cases, the
systems were set up to address street-type crimes such as robbery, car
theft, harassment, and public drunkenness. The UK CCTV systems that we
observed had control rooms that were operational 24 hours per day, 7
days per week, and all maintained digitally recorded images. The UK
Home Office provided funding for 684 CCTV systems as of October 2002,
though not all were operational at the time. Home Office officials said
that the level of funding per location has ranged from about $50,000 to
$12 million to implement CCTV in town centers, parking garages, and
residential areas.
During the 107th Congress, a Senate bill was introduced that would have
established a commission to evaluate the use of investigative and
surveillance technologies, including surveillance cameras, to meet law
enforcement and national security needs in the manner that best
preserves individual privacy.[Footnote 14] Under the proposed
legislation, the commission was to investigate and report on standards
for using, selecting, and operating such technologies and to make
recommendations for legislation or administrative actions, as
appropriate. However, the bill was not enacted.
MPDC and United States Park Police Implementation of CCTV:
MPDC and the United States Park Police have implemented their CCTV
systems with varying purposes and guiding protocols. The purposes of
MPDC's and the United States Park Police's CCTV systems differ;
however, both entities have installed cameras in locations that are at
high risk for terrorist attacks. When the Department of Homeland
Security's national threat level was increased to high alert (code
orange), MPDC and the United States Park Police utilized CCTV on a
continuous basis. Both MPDC and the United States Park Police view
their CCTV systems from secure control rooms, and each entity's CCTV
cameras have enhanced features, such as zoom capabilities. MPDC, acting
under D.C. law, has issued regulations pursuant to D.C. statute that
provide operating protocols to govern its use of CCTV, whereas the
United States Park Police's use of CCTV is not specifically governed by
any federal law or regulation. However, the United States Park Police
is in the process of developing a policy applicable to its use of CCTV.
Figure 2: CCTV Cameras Monitoring Public Spaces:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
MPDC Operates CCTV on a Limited Basis:
MPDC's CCTV system is generally intended to help manage public
resources (such as police officers) during major public events and
demonstrations and to coordinate traffic control on an as-needed basis.
In addition to these purposes, the system may be utilized during
exigent circumstances (e.g., periods of heightened alert for terrorism)
as designated by the police chief. While the purpose of MPDC's CCTV
system is to manage public resources and to control traffic, it could
be used for monitoring crime as well. For example, although CCTV can be
used to deploy police resources in order to maintain crowd control, the
implied reasoning for deploying officers to maintain control would be
to deter or prevent criminal activity, such as looting and rioting.
MPDC has used CCTV cameras for events such as the Fourth of July
celebration in 2002 and antiwar demonstrations in 2003. According to a
senior MPDC official, the CCTV cameras are not operational on a 24-hour
basis; they are activated only during certain events and are turned off
when the event ends. For example, the Chief of Police said that
political demonstrations resulted in MPDC activating and deactivating
the cameras only to reactivate them again when the Department of
Homeland Security increased the national threat level to high alert
(code orange).
MPDC has increased its CCTV system operations over time and has the
capability to expand its operations by accessing other CCTV systems. A
senior MPDC official said that MPDC's CCTV system had been increased
from two cameras in April 2000, to 14 cameras with pan, tilt, and zoom
capabilities. The cameras are monitored from a control room called the
Joint Operations Command Center[Footnote 15] located within MPDC's
headquarters. According to the MPDC Chief of Police, the locations of
the cameras throughout D.C. were chosen because they were thought to be
locations that were at the highest risk for terrorism. MPDC can obtain
real-time video images from other D.C. agencies, including the District
of Columbia Public Schools. These agencies must first give MPDC access
to their camera images. In addition, MPDC can access real-time video
images from certain private entities in the D.C. metropolitan area,
although a D.C. official said that MPDC has not been doing so. MPDC's
CCTV cameras were purchased and maintained with city funds.
Figure 3: A CCTV Control Room:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
MPDC Has Regulations That Govern Its Use of CCTV:
MPDC drafted regulations and an implementing general order on the use
of CCTV in June 2002. These documents were made available to the ABA
for approval on their contents to help ensure that they reflected ABA
standards. MPDC incorporated ABA's comments when formulating proposed
rules to govern the use of its CCTV system, and the Mayor presented the
proposed rules to the D.C. City Council. At a hearing before the D.C.
City Council, witnesses testified that the use of CCTV should be
legislated by the D.C. Council before any further consideration of
MPDC's proposed rules. The council subsequently enacted a D.C.
statute,[Footnote 16] which required MPDC to issue CCTV regulations
subject to the approval of the D.C. City Council. MPDC's proposed
regulations were subsequently published in the D.C. Register for public
comment on September 6, 2002.[Footnote 17] The D.C. Council passed a
resolution approving the proposed regulations on November 7, 2002. The
final regulations set out the above-mentioned purposes of D.C.'s CCTV
system and provide operating protocols for its use.[Footnote 18]
However, the D.C. City Council plans to consider CCTV legislation
during the current council period that would, if enacted, impose
additional requirements on the use of CCTV (such as a requirement to
obtain a court order to use video surveillance technology with certain
telescopic zoom capabilities) and would require MPDC and other D.C.
government agencies to promulgate regulations consistent with the
legislation.[Footnote 19] In addition, the bill would authorize a pilot
project for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of video
surveillance as a crime prevention tool. In particular, the bill would
allow the installation of video surveillance technology in two D.C.
neighborhoods for a period not to exceed 1 year to assess whether it
was an effective crime prevention tool. D.C. residents, neighborhood
organizations, and advocacy groups provided testimony both for and
against MPDC's use of CCTV during public hearings held in December 2002
on the proposed bill.
United States Park Police Operating CCTV on a Continuous Basis:
The United States Park Police is installing CCTV cameras to combat
terrorism and to further law enforcement and public safety objectives.
According to the Chief of the United States Park Police, the United
States Park Police's CCTV system is to operate cameras located along
the Monumental Core. The United States Park Police used CCTV for a
single day on July 4, 2002, during the celebrations on the National
Mall, and then the system was turned off pending completion of system
implementation and the development of a policy. The United States Park
Police developed a one-page policy for its use of CCTV on this day, and
this policy became inactive at the end of the day. According to the
Chief, the United States Park Police initially planned to wait until
its policy was complete to resume the operation of its CCTV system;
however, they used the cameras during large-scale demonstrations on the
National Mall and when the Department of Homeland Security increased
the national threat level to high alert (code orange). Subsequently,
officials said that the United States Park Police's CCTV system has
been used continuously since March 2003, following a security-related
incident on the National Mall. The CCTV system was operated under a
draft policy each time it was activated. The United States Park Police
staff monitors the cameras from a secured, controlled access United
States Park Police facility. According to the Chief, as of May 2003,
the United States Park Police continues to add cameras to its system
and is operating under the auspices of a draft policy. The United
States Park Police does not plan to publicly disclose the exact
locations or the number of cameras used in their system due to their
concerns that individuals could use this information to defeat the
system or vandalize the cameras. According to United States Park Police
officials, the decision to post signs indicating that CCTV is in use is
currently under evaluation, and a decision had not been made at the
time of our review.
Some of the United States Park Police's cameras have pan, tilt, and
zoom capabilities and others have motion detecting capabilities. The
Chief of the United States Park Police said that their choice of CCTV
equipment was based on what was determined to be the most appropriate
technology at the time. According to the Chief, the United States Park
Police does not have plans to network its cameras to other agencies
such as MPDC, though the cameras are equipped to do so. The Chief said
that, in addition to viewing its own CCTV monitors, the Park Police is
authorized to view MPDC's monitors in MPDC's Joint Operations Command
Center. The United States Park Police's CCTV system is being purchased
with appropriated funds at a cost of approximately $2.037 million.
United States Park Police Is Developing a Policy to Guide Its Use of
CCTV:
The United States Park Police's use of CCTV is not specifically
governed by any federal law or regulation. While there may be
limitations protecting individuals against abuse of CCTV by federal law
enforcement officers, such limitations do not arise from federal laws
or regulations specifically addressing how federal law enforcement
agencies are to use CCTV.[Footnote 20] However, the United States Park
Police is in the process of developing a CCTV policy. As of May 2003,
the United States Park Police is in the process of finalizing a draft
policy that is to guide the use of its CCTV system, and its policy has
not been reviewed outside the Department of the Interior. According to
an Interior official, the United States Park Police is not required to
obtain public comment on its proposed CCTV policy; however, it is
considering providing the public an opportunity to comment.
MPDC and United States Park Police Officials Said that Regulations and
a Draft Policy Address Concerns:
MPDC officials said that they had adopted regulations, and United
States Park Police officials said that they were drafting a policy to
address issues raised by civil liberties advocates. Both the
regulations and the draft policy have incorporated management controls
to address issues regarding individual privacy and the proper use of
CCTV. Regarding the issue of CCTV effectiveness, MPDC and the United
States Park Police both maintained that CCTV is an effective law
enforcement tool and that they plan to measure the effectiveness of
their CCTV systems. However, both entities are of the opinion that
measuring CCTV effectiveness may be difficult.
MPDC and United States Park Police CCTV Privacy Policies:
MPDC's regulations and the United States Park Police's draft policy
address the protection of individual privacy in the following ways:
MPDC's regulations state that the CCTV cameras are to be used to
observe locations that are in public view where there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy. A senior MPDC official said that MPDC's CCTV
cameras are equipped with software that blocks the viewing of private
areas, such as apartment windows and residential backyards. According
to the Chief of Police, the United States Park Police has taken a
similar position. This official said that they would focus their
cameras on public park areas and public activities where there is no
constitutionally protected expectation of privacy.
Figure 4: Scope of a CCTV Camera Surveillance Area:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
MPDC and the United States Park Police both maintain that their CCTV
systems are to be operated in public spaces without infringing on
individuals' First Amendment rights. MPDC's regulations state that
under no circumstances is the CCTV system to be used for the purpose of
infringing on First Amendment rights. The regulations state that CCTV
operators are not to focus on hand bills or fliers that are being
distributed or carried pursuant to First Amendment rights. According to
the Chief of the United States Park Police, the department is also
committed to ensuring that individuals are able to freely exercise
their First Amendment rights. The United States Park Police's draft
policy states that CCTV operators are not to target or focus on the
faces of individuals engaging in First Amendment protected activities
unless there is an indication of a criminal activity or threat to
public safety. In addition, according to the Chief, the United States
Park Police's draft CCTV policy strikes a balance between providing
safety for citizens and protecting the privacy of demonstrators at
various rallies and protests on the National Mall.
MPDC and the United States Park Police CCTV Management Controls Address
Proper Use of CCTV Systems:
MPDC and United States Park Police officials have in place or are
putting in place, respectively, management controls for operating their
CCTV systems and handling CCTV images. Specifically, MPDC's regulations
and the United States Park Police's draft policy address the need for
appropriate supervision to protect against inappropriate use of their
systems and establish procedures for appropriate access to and handling
of CCTV images. According to MPDC's regulations, only the Chief of
Police is to authorize use of the CCTV system. This authorization must
be in writing except in situations involving exigent circumstances or
demonstration purposes. In addition, an official in the rank of
Lieutenant or above is to be present at all times during system
activation and usage and is to supervise and monitor the CCTV
activities. Only certified operators are to be allowed to operate the
system. MPDC's regulations state that every system activation is to be
documented and that the activation information is to include the
disposition of any observed incidents, a copy of any written
authorizations pertaining to each activation, the names of any
individuals activating the system, and documentation of when activation
began and ended. The United States Park Police's draft policy states
that the supervisory official assigned to, or responsible for, the
control room is to monitor the activities of assigned personnel to
ensure full compliance with the policy statement. All CCTV system
operators are to be trained and supervised while operating the system.
To ensure compliance with its regulations, MPDC's regulations state
that audits are to be conducted by its Office of Professional
Responsibility on at least a quarterly basis. According to a senior
MPDC official, a compliance audit had been completed recently and found
that the system was in full compliance with MPDC's regulations.
Similarly, the Chief of the United States Park Police said that random
audits are to be performed to ensure that the CCTV system is used
properly.
Furthermore, MPDC's regulations state that unauthorized use or misuse
of the CCTV system by operators is subject to criminal prosecution and/
or administrative sanctions, including termination. A policy drafted by
the United States Park Police states that their CCTV cameras are to be
operated and supervised by the United States Park Police in a
professional manner and only to further legitimate law enforcement and
public safety objectives. In addition, the United States Park Police
draft policy states that no person is to be targeted or monitored
merely because of race, religion, gender, or political affiliation.
Further, the Chief of the United States Park Police said that the
United States Park Police does not plan to make use of the zoom
capability unless suspicious activity is detected.
MPDC and the United States Park Police have addressed data collection
and management issues by restricting access to their CCTV systems and
outlining the security procedures for maintaining recorded images. MPDC
houses its CCTV system in a secure control room, which is protected
against unauthorized access by the use of bar-coded identification
cards and a palm-print recognition system. Only federal agencies with a
valid interest in viewing the cameras, such as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the United States Park Police, are to gain access to
the CCTV control room. According to the Chief of Police, agencies that
have access to the Joint Operations Command Center are required to sign
a memorandum of understanding stating that they will comply with MPDC
regulations. According to MPDC's regulations, the Chief of Police is to
issue written authorization prior to recording any CCTV images, except
in exigent circumstances or when recording is being done pursuant to a
court order. The regulations also require that every recording is to be
documented in the same manner as every system activation and that all
recorded CCTV footage is to be secured. The regulations further state
that recordings will be retained for 10 business days and then
destroyed, unless they are to be retained as evidence in a criminal
case, a civil suit against MPDC, or for training purposes, as
authorized in writing by the Chief of Police. Recordings retained for
criminal or civil proceedings must be secured as evidence; recordings
retained for training purposes may only be retained for as long as they
are actively used.
United States Park Police draft policy states that CCTV images are to
be transmitted through secured channels, and monitoring of the CCTV
cameras is to be done from a controlled facility. Access to the
controlled facility, as well as access to live or recorded CCTV images
is to be limited to authorized personnel, for law enforcement and
public safety purposes, or for civil litigation and disciplinary
purposes. In order for another law enforcement agency to gain access to
the recorded CCTV images, the Chief of the United States Park Police
opined that there would need to be a clear nexus with a crime.
Additionally, according to the draft policy, recordings are to be
retained for no more than 6 months and then destroyed unless needed as
evidence for a documented criminal incident. The draft policy also
states that in the event that a video recording needs to be retained
for more than 6 months, the reason, length of time, and chain of
custody is to be documented.
MPDC and the United States Park Police Perceive Measuring the
Effectiveness of CCTV to be Difficult, but Plan to Develop Measures:
A D.C. official said that the effectiveness of MPDC's CCTV system is
difficult to measure because of its limited use of the cameras.
Further, the Chief of Police said that crime statistics could not be
used to evaluate the effectiveness of the cameras since MPDC currently
does not use the cameras specifically to detect crime. The regulations
state that the general purpose of the cameras is to help manage public
resources during major public events and demonstrations and to
coordinate traffic control. This purpose reflects a mission of
deterring crime and minimizing traffic problems. Measuring deterrence
can be difficult without a comparison between similar areas with and
without CCTV. Measuring CCTV effectiveness may be further complicated
by the use of other law enforcement interventions such as improved
lighting and notices about CCTV. Thus, demonstrating a direct cause and
effect relationship between decreased crime and CCTV may not be easy to
do.
MPDC's CCTV regulations require MPDC to prepare an annual report that
includes, among other things, an evaluation of whether the cameras have
achieved their purposes as outlined in the regulations. According to a
senior MPDC official, an annual report has not been prepared to date
because the system has not been operational for one year. Although
crime control is not the stated purpose of MPDC's CCTV system, an MPDC
official said that MPDC's CCTV cameras have caught crimes. The official
provided an anecdotal example of the system's effectiveness--the CCTV
cameras were activated for a high-profile sporting event and
subsequently caught some car thieves.
United States Park Police officials also said that it has been
difficult to find measures of effectiveness for such things as crime
prevention related to CCTV use. To measure effectiveness of their CCTV
system, the Chief of the United States Park Police said that once their
system is activated, they plan to track arrests made resulting from
camera use.
Overall, both MPDC and the United States Park Police view CCTV as a
valuable complement to their other policing efforts. MPDC and United
States Park Police officials said that they have received positive
feedback from the community, including, in some cases, requests for
more CCTV cameras and in others, gratitude from residents for going the
extra mile to make them feel safe.
Public Feedback on MPDC's Regulations:
MPDC made its regulations available for public comment and held
hearings regarding the operation of its CCTV system. At hearings, MPDC
received positive and constructive feedback regarding its CCTV
regulations. MPDC also received positive feedback from the ABA
regarding its regulations. ABA reviewed MPDC's draft regulations in
comparison with its published standards and concluded that MPDC's
regulations comply with ABA's standards on video surveillance.
Other feedback was less positive. The Constitution Project, a nonprofit
scholarship and advocacy organization, provided draft comments on
MPDC's regulations and noted several areas that lacked clarity and
specificity. For example, the Constitution Project stated that
comprehensive training and instruction for CCTV operators is essential
to enable them to better navigate the line between appropriate
investigation and infringement of civil liberties, noting that there
are no provisions in MPDC's regulations that detail what credentials
and training are required to obtain certification to operate the CCTV
system.
The Constitution Project also commented, among other things, that
posted signs indicating the presence of CCTV cameras should contain
contact information of an independent entity that concerned residents
can contact should they believe that the cameras' presence is invasive,
unnecessary, or utilized improperly. Further, the Constitution Project
stated that the audit provisions in MPDC's regulations raise the larger
question of whether the entity conducting the audit is sufficiently
independent to perform a credible audit function.
Experiences of Other CCTV Users in the United States and UK Reveal Best
Practices for Other Interested Locations:
Officials in the selected U.S. cities and in the UK shared with us
practices that they considered beneficial to help ensure proper and
effective use of CCTV systems. Because of their extensive use of CCTV
to deter, detect, and investigate crime, the experiences from UK
officials offered a greater number of best practices than the selected
U.S. cities, though models from other countries are not always
applicable to the United States. Like MPDC and the United States Park
Police, the UK and the selected cities have grappled with how to
measure the effectiveness of their CCTV systems.
Public Notice Helps to Address Privacy Concerns:
UK officials said that gaining acceptance of their CCTV systems was
based on having honest, open, and fair communication between the
community and the authorities. CCTV users who managed the CCTV systems
in the UK said that obtaining buy-in from stakeholders such as the
public, in addition to operating the system in an open environment, was
an important factor in mitigating concerns about the use of CCTV. For
example, according to a UK official, one borough invited the public
(and in some instances, former and suspected criminals) to tour its
control room to show them the reality of how the system is used to
identify criminals.
Figure 5: Depiction of a CCTV Sign:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Like MPDC and the United States Park Police, many of the selected U.S.
cities encountered concerns and skepticism by the ACLU and others
regarding their use of CCTV to monitor public spaces. In some cases,
the public has also voiced concerns about how CCTV may be used and
whether it might infringe upon their individual privacy. In response to
the privacy concerns, CCTV users in the selected U.S. cities have
generally provided citizens with notification of the intent to use CCTV
and provided avenues for the public to comment and provide feedback.
Each city posted signage that indicated that CCTV was in use. Also,
CCTV users in some of the selected cities allowed the public to comment
on aspects of the CCTV system through community meetings and public
hearings. Officials in one city said that the public was also informed
through a media campaign that detailed the specifics of the CCTV
system. The Chief of Police in one city said that he had personally
held conversations with residents to assure them that the CCTV cameras
would not compromise their privacy.
Having Standards Helps to Alleviate Objections to the Use of CCTV:
The UK government saw a need to establish controls over the use of CCTV
systems in order to maintain public confidence. UK officials generally
recognized the importance of having regulations in place to govern CCTV
systems, stating that having standards makes citizens feel more
comfortable and safe regarding how the system is being operated. CCTV
standards were established through the Data Protection Act of
1998.[Footnote 21] Among other things, the standards addressed
individual privacy issues in relation to CCTV use. According to a UK
official, there was no statutory basis for systematic legal control of
CCTV surveillance over public areas in the UK until March 2000, when
the Data Protection Act of 1998 was implemented.
The Data Protection Act is the principal legislation that impacts the
operation of public space CCTV systems in the UK. Under the Data
Protection Act, the UK Information Commissioner[Footnote 22] issued a
CCTV Code of Practice to provide specific standards to CCTV operators
on how to comply with the act's data handling principles. According to
the UK Information Commissioner, the Code of Practice has the dual
purpose of assisting CCTV operators to understand their legal
obligations while also reassuring the public of the safeguards that
should be in place when utilizing CCTV. The Code of Practice also
indicates standards that are not strict legal requirements, but
represent good practice. UK Home Office officials said that CCTV users
follow the Code of Practice and comply with the Data Protection Act of
1998 because they recognize that the act and the code both help to
alleviate objections to the use of CCTV.
For the selected U.S. cities, there were no state laws or regulations
specifically governing how state or local law enforcement officers were
to use CCTV systems to monitor public spaces. While there may be
limitations on law enforcement's use of CCTV in these states, such
limitations do not stem from comprehensive state CCTV laws or
regulations.[Footnote 23] However, police departments in these cities
generally had policies, which varied in detail and in content, to
govern the use of their CCTV systems. Organizations, including the ABA,
IACP, and SIA, have developed standards and guidelines that address
privacy issues and controls on CCTV use. ABA saw a need to develop
standards in order to help ensure that law enforcement agencies are
aware of all the relevant considerations with regard to CCTV use and to
prompt these agencies to create their own internal guidelines for the
use of CCTV technology. According to the IACP and SIA they collaborated
to produce guidelines because, despite the prevalence of CCTV use on
national and local levels, there were no consistent policies or
procedures guiding the use of CCTV systems. The IACP and SIA recommend
that law enforcement agencies and public safety officials adopt some or
all of their guidelines to assist in their use of CCTV.
Figure 6: Police Officer Monitoring a CCTV System:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Clear Goals and Purpose Help Ensure Appropriate Use and Alleviate
Concerns Raised:
To help ensure that CCTV systems are used effectively, some CCTV users
in the UK indicated that it is important to have a plan prior to the
implementation of the CCTV system that should include clear, realistic,
and measurable goals for the CCTV system, as well as how CCTV might
address the goals. For example, clear goals would include, among other
things, identifying the highest-priority problems to be addressed by
the system, problem locations, and what is to be observed. UK officials
also said that matching the CCTV technology to the purpose and goals of
the system is a key factor in the effective use of CCTV. For example,
if the purpose of the CCTV system is to deter crime, CCTV users may not
need cameras that pan, tilt, and zoom. Rather, the CCTV users may
determine that viewing and/or recording activity from fixed cameras
used to observe broad areas is sufficient to meet their needs. However,
if the purpose of the CCTV system is to detect crime and intervene, a
CCTV user may consider continuously monitoring the CCTV cameras in
order to be able to quickly respond to certain incidents. Clear and
measurable goals identify the problems to be addressed by CCTV and can
include a range of measures to determine whether goals have been
achieved, such as the change in crime levels or the change in public
attitudes about crime.
CCTV users in the selected cities whose CCTV systems were fully
operational have been able to make the systems more effective and
respond to some privacy concerns by appropriately matching the
technology being used with the intended purpose. In one instance, a
representative said that the ACLU's concerns were mitigated because
they installed cameras without enhanced features, such as zoom
capabilities. They said that limited monitoring of the CCTV images,
along with the fact that the cameras do not pan, tilt, or zoom limits
the potential for the invasion of individual privacy. In contrast, CCTV
users in selected cities that installed cameras that did pan, tilt, or
zoom lessened their chances of abuse by reducing the time spent
visually monitoring the cameras. For example, in two cities, CCTV users
only monitored the cameras during designated times or at designated
events, such as Sunday nights preceding Monday holidays in a busy
entertainment district. Officials in one of the two cities said that
the cameras were visually monitored everyday during the tourist season
and only monitored on weekends during the off-season.
Training and Audits May Help to Ensure Proper Use of CCTV:
UK officials said that they preferred a well-trained and professional
staff to operate their CCTV system. According to one UK official, CCTV
systems involve human interaction, requiring a manager and requiring
training on how to use the system. The official also said that the most
successful CCTV systems have good managers, good training, and sound
procedures.
UK officials have identified performing audits of CCTV systems as a way
to hold CCTV users accountable for their actions and deter misuse while
operating CCTV systems. In one UK location, the activities of each CCTV
operator can be traced and audited via computer. In addition, a CCTV
user in the UK planned to employ the use of outside inspection teams to
perform random audits. The inspection teams are to have full authority
to observe how the CCTV system is being operated, although the CCTV
system observed had not yet performed any audits at the time of our
visit.
In the selected U.S. cities, CCTV operators were trained to use CCTV by
the vendor providing the CCTV technology, or in some cases, by senior
management. For example, one city official said that the city's CCTV
vendor would provide a minimum of approximately 2 to 3 days of training
on the use of the CCTV system in two parts: (1) command and control of
the system and (2) retrieving CCTV images from the system.
CCTV users in selected U.S. cities also found audits to be helpful. To
help ensure that CCTV systems are not misused, an official in one city
said that the city formed a steering and audit committee comprised of
citizens to ensure that CCTV operations were in compliance with written
procedures in order to avoid misuse of the CCTV system. Another city
official said that committee members were allowed to visit the CCTV
control room whenever they wanted to review the recorded CCTV images.
An official in another city said that, while not an audit per se, they
would review tapes for inappropriate use of the cameras. For example,
he said that review of the tapes would allow them to determine if the
officers monitoring the cameras were focusing voyeuristically on women.
Figure 7: CCTV Monitor:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Procedures for Handling Data Helps to Ensure Data Are Used
Appropriately:
CCTV users in the United States and the UK have indicated that an
important consideration in handling CCTV images is providing controls
to guard against abuse or misuse that enable CCTV users to operate CCTV
systems openly enough to gain public acceptability, but not so open as
to invade individual privacy by releasing personal information to
unauthorized individuals. To address concerns related to the
maintenance and storage of data and individual access to data, policies
developed by the selected CCTV users covered various topics related to
these issues. In all of the selected U.S. cities and in the UK, CCTV
images were retained for a specific period of time, after which they
were destroyed or reused, unless they were retained for a bonafide law
enforcement investigation. A UK official said that citizens could
obtain access to images of themselves; however, they have to supply the
exact date, time, and location where they were recorded and the CCTV
system blocks any other individuals in view.
In the UK, the Data Protection Act limits the way personal data are
processed in order to protect the privacy of individuals. The act
requires organizations that process personal data to comply with the
eight statutory principles of good data handling. These principles
provide that personal data must be: (1) fairly and lawfully processed
in accordance with applicable statutory conditions; (2) obtained and
processed only for specified, lawful purposes; (3) adequate, relevant,
and not excessive in relation to the purpose for which they are
processed; (4) accurate; (5) not kept longer than necessary; (6)
processed in accordance with the data subject's rights; (7) secure; and
(8) not transferred to countries outside the European Economic Area
without adequate protection for personal data. The UK Information
Commissioner, which is an independent supervisory authority, enforces
and oversees the act's provisions.
Measuring Effectiveness of CCTV Perceived to be Difficult, but
Desirable:
Researchers and others stress the importance of measuring effectiveness
of CCTV systems in order to justify costs and the potential impact on
individuals' civil liberties. There is general consensus among CCTV
users, privacy advocates, researchers, and CCTV industry groups that
there are few evaluations of the effectiveness of CCTV in reducing
crime, and few jurisdictions are keeping data to demonstrate that their
CCTV systems are effective.
A study undertaken on behalf of the Home Office, found mixed results
for the crime prevention effectiveness of CCTV. However, in October
2002, a Home Office official said that the Home Office had provided
funding for an evaluation of effectiveness for 17 CCTV systems as part
of a CCTV initiative begun in 1999 for the implementation of 684 local
government-operated CCTV systems in the UK. The evaluations are to be
completed in November 2004. Home Office officials cautioned that using
crime statistics as a measure of effectiveness may not be a good
measure. They said that arrest rates might increase because the CCTV
cameras view more criminal activity and police are reacting to more
reports originating from CCTV control centers. They also said that
increased crime rates are not necessarily bad because it may mean more
crimes are being reported that had previously gone undetected.
Furthermore, one CCTV user in the UK said that the effectiveness of
various CCTV systems could vary due to differences in CCTV supervisory
personnel, training, and procedures.
Officials in the UK provided anecdotal evidence of how CCTV cameras
have been effective. For instance, officials in one UK location said
that CCTV cameras have observed drug deals and fraudulent passports
being passed. An official also gave an example of a little boy who was
abducted from a shopping center. When the images on the CCTV tape were
shown, officials could discern that the relative heights of the
abductors indicated that two other children took the little boy.
Another example involved bombings of several London pubs. Officials
said that CCTV tapes were used to trace various pieces of evidence to
identify the bomber. While the quality of the pub's CCTV cameras was
not good, the police were still able to use the images to locate the
perpetrator by reviewing CCTV footage from various entities thereby
tracking him on various videotapes until they were able to identify him
and trace his whereabouts. For example, police used a store's CCTV
cameras to view the perpetrator buying equipment for the bombs. The
official said that the police were convinced they would not have found
the perpetrator without the CCTV cameras, since the bomber did not have
a criminal record and there was no reason to suspect him.
Most CCTV users in the selected U.S. cities whose systems were fully
operational at the time of our visit did not statistically measure the
effectiveness of their CCTV systems. They perceived it to be difficult
to measure, although officials in the selected cities said that CCTV
had been very effective in, among other things, detecting and
investigating crime, monitoring areas for public safety, and enhancing
security. Officials provided anecdotes to demonstrate their system's
effectiveness. For example, an official in one city said that the CCTV
cameras filmed a drug transaction that resulted in an arrest.
Concluding Observations:
MPDC and the United States Park Police have implemented CCTV systems as
part of their overall strategies to address crime and terrorism. While
specific uses and guiding protocols vary, both MPDC and the United
States Park Police have installed cameras in areas that are high risk
for terrorist attacks, view their systems from secure control rooms,
and use cameras that have enhanced features, such as zoom capabilities.
Measuring CCTV effectiveness is difficult because of the lack of
comparisons of similar areas with and without CCTV to show a direct
cause and effect relationship, and because it is often used in tandem
with other law enforcement tools. Nevertheless, both MPDC and the
United States Park Police plan to identify performance measures and
evaluate effectiveness.
Civil liberties advocates have raised concerns about the protection of
privacy and the proper use of CCTV systems. MPDC has adopted
regulations and the United States Park Police is drafting a policy
aimed at incorporating management controls to address such issues.
These include developing written operating protocols, establishing
supervision and training requirements, providing for public
notification, and requiring system audits. It is too early to fully
assess the sufficiency and effectiveness of these controls.
The use of CCTV as a law enforcement tool is growing in the United
States and abroad. The experiences of CCTV users in the United States
and the UK can help guide other jurisdictions that are considering the
use of this law enforcement tool with regard to openness and community
involvement; uniform standards and management controls; and the
establishment of realistic, clear, and measurable performance goals.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In letters dated June 6, 2003, we requested comments on a draft of this
report from MPDC and the Department of the Interior. Officials from
both police departments generally agreed with the report and our
presentation of information regarding their CCTV use.
On June 23, 2003, the Department of the Interior provided written
technical comments, which were included as appropriate. In its
comments, Department of the Interior officials indicated that the
United States Park Police's draft CCTV policy is in the final stages of
review and is expected to be finalized within 2 weeks of the date of
its written comments. MPDC had no technical corrections.
We are providing copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, and the Senate and House
Committees on the Judiciary. We are also providing copies of this
report to the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice for
Washington, D.C.; the Chief, Metropolitan Police Department of
Washington, D.C.; Secretary of the Department of the Interior; the
Director of the National Park Service; and the Chief, United States
Park Police. Copies of this report will be made available to other
interested parties. This report will also be available on GAO's Web
site at http:/www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-
mail at stanar@gao.gov or Linda Watson, Assistant Director, at (202)
512-8685 or by e-mail at watsonl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this
report were Leo Barbour, Christine Davis, Glenn Dubin, Michele Fejfar,
Jamila Jones, Nettie Richards, Amy Rosewarne, and Carrie Wilks.
Sincerely yours,
Richard M. Stana
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
Signed by Richard M. Stana:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine how the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia (MPDC) and the U.S. Department of the Interior's United States
Park Police have implemented their closed-circuit television (CCTV)
systems, we interviewed officials from both agencies. We obtained and
reviewed congressional hearing records related to the use of CCTV in
Washington, D.C. We attended a D.C. City Council public hearing and
obtained testimonies of officials and civilians who addressed the city
council. At the United States Park Police, we obtained documents
related to the use of CCTV as well as congressional testimony regarding
their use of CCTV. We interviewed representatives from the American Bar
Association (ABA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), and the Security Industry
Association (SIA) to obtain their views on the use of CCTV and obtained
documentation from them regarding issues of concern to their
organizations. In addition, we toured MPDC's Joint Operations Command
Center.
To determine how MPDC and the United States Park Police have
implemented management controls to respond to the issues surrounding
their use of CCTV, we interviewed MPDC and United States Park Police
officials and obtained and reviewed relevant laws, regulations,
policies, and other documents. We also obtained and reviewed
testimonies of officials and civilians at D.C. City Council public
hearings and reviewed draft comments by the Constitution Project that
critiqued MPDC's regulations. We did not evaluate or test compliance
with MPDC's or the United States Park Police's management controls.
To learn about the experiences of other CCTV users in the United States
and the United Kingdom (UK) we reviewed various studies and reports on
CCTV use by law enforcement. We reviewed studies and reports by or for
SIA, the California Research Bureau, RAND, and the UK Home Office,
among others. We judgmentally selected four U.S. cities to visit and
obtained information on their use of CCTV. The four cities selected
were: Baltimore, Maryland, because of its proximity to D.C.;[Footnote
24] Columbia, South Carolina, because officials in this city were in
the early stages of implementing their CCTV system; and Tampa, Florida,
and Virginia Beach, Virginia, because their CCTV systems were equipped
with facial recognition software, and we wanted to include locations
that were using CCTV with advanced features. At each location, we
interviewed officials regarding privacy concerns, if any, that had
resulted from their use of CCTV, conducted research for any relevant
state laws or regulations, obtained and reviewed policies and other
documentation related to the operation of their systems, and inquired
about whether they had measured the effectiveness of their CCTV
systems. In two cities, we toured the control rooms from which the
cameras were operated and monitored. We visited the UK to learn from
its experiences with CCTV use in a law enforcement capacity. We met
with UK Home Office officials and CCTV users in the UK to determine
what their experiences have been and whether they measured the
effectiveness of their systems. In the UK, we interviewed government
officials in the Home Office and CCTV users in Newham and Westminster-
-boroughs of London--and the city of Sheffield. We also observed CCTV
operations in these locations. In addition, we interviewed a
representative of a private UK CCTV User Group that provides assistance
to CCTV users. To obtain a broader perspective on privacy issues, we
also interviewed a representative of Privacy International[Footnote 25]
in London.
We performed our audit work from July 2002 to May 2003 in Washington,
D.C., and other cited locations in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Implementation of CCTV Systems in Selected U.S. Cities:
The following provides a summary of how each of the four cities we
selected to visit has implemented their respective CCTV systems. The
four cities were at different stages of development in implementing
their systems and, generally were using CCTV to achieve different
purposes.
Baltimore, Maryland:
In Baltimore, a representative said that the city's CCTV system was
implemented in 1994 to deter crime. This system consisted of 64 CCTV
cameras installed in the downtown area. The CCTV system was implemented
to address property crimes and the community's negative perception of
safety. Both Baltimore City law enforcement personnel and staff from
organizations and businesses that participate in the Downtown
Partnership of Baltimore operate the system. The cameras did not have
remote zoom capability and were generally not monitored. Recorded CCTV
images are reviewed for investigative purposes if crimes occur.
Columbia, South Carolina:
The Columbia Police Department implemented a pilot CCTV program in 2002
prior to implementing a final CCTV system. The city's final CCTV system
was not fully implemented at the time of our review. The pilot CCTV
system involved 3 fixed cameras located in residential areas and public
parks. The Chief of Police in this city said that the city did not hold
any formal hearings before the pilot CCTV system was implemented,
although the use of CCTV was subject to a majority vote by the city
council members. Although a city official said that the city purchased
an additional 12 CCTV cameras for the final system, 3 pilot cameras
were installed and operational at the time of our visit. Through the
pilot program, a city official determined that in addition to
monitoring the cameras from police headquarters, an added benefit would
be to enable officers to monitor cameras from their police cars while
on patrol. City officials decided to expand the CCTV viewing capability
by linking the CCTV system to laptop computers which enabled officers
to monitor CCTV images from their police squad cars.
Tampa, Florida:
In Tampa, the police department first deployed CCTV in December 1997 in
a busy entertainment district. An official said that the cameras were
installed to address specific issues in the completion of the public
safety mission, including management of large crowds and the adequate
deployment of police personnel. The system was comprised of 36 CCTV
cameras, all with the ability to pan, tilt, and zoom. The system was
also equipped with facial recognition software. The cameras were
monitored during certain nights of the week and during special events
by police personnel.
Virginia Beach, Virginia:
Officials in Virginia Beach said that the police department began
operating the cameras in 1993 after an incident at a local event
provided the impetus. A city official said the CCTV cameras were used
to deter, detect, and investigate crime; monitor and enhance the
security of certain areas; and apprehend and prosecute suspected
criminals and counter terrorism. The system records images 24 hours per
day, 7 days per week and is monitored every day during the tourist
season. During the nonvacation season, police officers only monitored
the cameras on weekends. According to officials, the police department
installed 10 CCTV cameras in a busy oceanfront/business district. Each
CCTV camera had the ability to pan, tilt, and zoom. The system was also
equipped with facial recognition software.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Implementation of CCTV Systems in the United Kingdom:
The United Kingdom (UK) locations that we visited operated CCTV systems
that were similar in purpose and application. There were subtle
variations in the purposes of each system; however, all CCTV systems we
observed were implemented to control some aspect of crime.
Newham, London:
In Newham, use of CCTV resulted from a public call to do something
about the increasing crime rate. An official said that since the late
1960s and early 1970s, the borough had experienced an increase in
street-type crime, which stemmed from structural unemployment and the
existence of a known but relatively small criminal element. Most crime
involved robbery, car theft, harassment, public drunkenness, drug
trafficking, and hooliganism. Officials said that the public felt
unsafe doing everyday things like walking down certain streets or
shopping in certain areas. Therefore, officials said that it was easy
to sell CCTV to the borough council, because the borough had one of the
highest burglary and auto theft rates in the UK, and the public
perceived CCTV to be an effective response to the crime. In 1997,
Newham began using CCTV to address these crime problems.
Officials said that about 10 uniformed civilians per shift operate the
system, which has over 400 CCTV cameras. They explained that one
operator could be responsible for viewing up to about 60 monitors,
given that some of them have screens that can show several camera
images simultaneously. The operators key in on certain areas known to
be crime prone, but also scan other areas to detect potential crimes or
crimes in progress. The operators' actions are monitored by cameras to
help ensure compliance with rules governing CCTV use. Officials said
that officers operate the system 24 hours a day, and the control center
also has a tape library and facilities for police to review the tapes
for evidence.
Westminster, London:
In Westminster, the borough council and the police department--jointly
with business and community trustees--manage its CCTV system, which
became operational in July 2002. An official noted that the purpose of
the system is to improve the management of public space to enhance
public safety. For example, the officials said that in addition to
controlling crime and disorder, they strive to keep the streets clean
and ensure free flow of traffic. The officials also said their purposes
differ between day and night in that daytime operations often focus
more on the environment on the street such as transportation issues,
whereas at night they focus more on crime and disorder.
At the time of our visit, officials said that 17 cameras were in
operation, but that they expected more. An employee of the borough
council managed the center, and the system operators were civilians
(contract staff). Officials noted that the center was a business area
partnership and that the space they were using was provided rent free
to the council for CCTV operations, adding that capital funding for the
center came from the Home Office and local businesses helped to support
the operations. The center had three operator control positions to
monitor CCTV cameras and 18 monitors on the wall for viewing and from
which operators could pull images down to their individual monitors to
pan, tilt, and zoom to get a better view.
Officials noted that they perceive their CCTV system as being a "graded
response system" whereby on the basis of what they observe, they can
notify the relevant agency to take action. For example, if an assault
is observed they notify the police, if trash is left on the street they
notify the trash collectors, or if a car were behaving erratically they
would call the traffic department. Officials told us that this type of
approach is the success of CCTV because it helps to focus on what the
problem is and what the solution is. They also said that usually it is
not just CCTV that is the solution, but the intelligence from CCTV that
can be used to solve the problem.
City of Sheffield:
The city of Sheffield has been utilizing CCTV, operated by the city
council, since about 1997. Officials said that the UK Home Office
funded the capital costs with grants, while the city council funds
system operations and maintenance. Although this city's CCTV system is
similar in application to the others we visited, the distinction is
that this city has a more "joined up" concept, whereby all area
stakeholders that have CCTV systems (city, train, mall) can forward
camera images to other stakeholders' systems to provide a more
integrated view of the area. Officials explained that, if needed (bomb
scare or terrorist act), the central control center can take control of
any camera in the integrated system, or the command/control function
can be shifted to one of the other two centers. The police can also be
fed the images real-time from the central control center instead of
viewing images later to assemble evidence. Operators can more easily
follow criminals or criminal activity from one camera/system to the
next. This is important, as these officials noted that the area has two
of the UK's top 20 terrorist targets (a six-lane bridge that is a vital
economic link to the north, and one of the UK's largest shopping
malls). If called on a crime, however, this city's cameras can be
focused to those areas. At the time of our review, officials said that
the actual linkage between the three control centers (city, train,
mall) was to occur in the near future.
Officials in Sheffield consider the linkage to other CCTV control
centers as essential to the future success of CCTV. For example,
officials said that linking of CCTV could be used to determine how many
police and ambulance units should be deployed or make command/control
decisions after a terrorist attack, such as finding the best route for
emergency response vehicles, and re-routing citizen evacuation traffic.
FOOTNOTES
[1] For this report, public spaces are defined as public parks, public
streets, and commercial/business districts.
[2] ABA is a nationwide organization that, among other things, provides
law school accreditation, programs to assist lawyers and judges in
their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public.
ABA published guidance for law enforcement's use of CCTV and other
technologies in its "Standards for Criminal Justice: Electronic
Surveillance, Part B: Technologically-Assisted Physical Surveillance."
[3] ACLU is a nationwide, nonpartisan organization whose stated mission
is to defend the principles of liberty and equality embodied in the
Bill of Rights.
[4] EPIC is a public interest research center located in Washington,
D.C. It was established in 1994 to, among other things, focus public
attention on emerging civil liberties issues.
[5] IACP is a nonprofit membership organization of police executives
whose leadership consists of the operating chief executives of
international, federal, state, and local agencies of all sizes.
[6] SIA is an international trade association whose mission is to,
among other things, effectively and responsibly promote the use of
electronic security equipment in commercial, institutional,
commercial, governmental, and residential markets.
[7] Facial recognition technology identifies people by the sections of
the face that are less susceptible to alteration-the upper outlines of
the eye sockets, the areas around the cheek-bones, the sides of the
mouth. Systems using this technology capture facial images from video
cameras and generate templates for comparing a live facial scan to a
stored template. License plate recognition software recognizes vehicle
shape and 'looks' for a license plate. If the license plate number is
located in a centralized database, the CCTV system triggers an alarm
for appropriate personnel to take action. At the time of our review,
MPDC and the United States Park Police did not use either of these
technologies.
[8] RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and
decision-making through research and analysis.
[9] See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360-61 (1967) (Harlan, J.,
concurring).
[10] United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1281 (10th Cir. 2000),
remanded for further consideration of the sentence imposed, 531 U.S.
1033 (2000). On remand, the 10th Circuit upheld the prior decision
except with respect to the sentencing issue. United States v. Jackson,
240 F.3d 1245, 1247 n.2 (10TH Cir. 2001).
[11] Although this case did not involve police use of video
surveillance technology, the Supreme Court in Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S.
1, 10 (1972) held that protesters' First Amendment rights could not be
chilled by "the mere existence, without more, of a governmental
investigative and data-gathering activity." The plaintiffs in Laird
were political activists, who alleged that the Department of the Army's
surveillance activities deterred them from exercising their First
Amendment rights. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked
standing to sue because their alleged injury was too speculative,
arising not from any specific action taken against them, but merely
from their knowledge that the Army was engaged in surveillance
activities.
[12] A ban on anonymous free speech was struck down in McIntyre v. Ohio
Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). In that case, the Supreme
Court declared unconstitutional an Ohio election law requiring the
names and addresses of authors to be printed on political leaflets.
Citing a longstanding tradition of anonymous free speech, the Court
held that there was no overriding state interest to require the authors
to identify themselves.
[13] The Home Office is the governmental department responsible for
internal affairs in England and Wales.
[14] S. 2846, 107th Cong. (2002).
[15] The Joint Operations Command Center is a secure facility operated
by MPDC, but may include staff from other federal, regional, state, and
local law enforcement agencies during joint operations. The Joint
Operations Command Center is a part of MPDC's Synchronized Operations
Command Complex.
[16] D.C. Code 5-133.19.
[17] 49 D.C. Reg. 8465 (Sept. 6, 2002).
[18] 49 D.C. Reg. 11443 (Dec. 20, 2002) (to be codified at D.C. Mun.
Regs. tit. 24, ch. 25).
[19] D.C. Bill 15-0033, "Limited Authorization of Video Surveillance
and Privacy Protection Act of 2003."
[20] As an example, individuals may be able to sue federal law
enforcement officers for conduct that violates a constitutional right,
such as using CCTV without a warrant to peer into private residences.
Such lawsuits are commonly called Bivens actions. See Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
[21] The Data Protection Act 1998, ch. 29 (Eng.) is available at http:/
/www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm. The CCTV
standards issued under the Data Protection Act, called the CCTV Code of
Practice, can be accessed at http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/dpr/
dpdoc.nsf/0/db76232b37b5bb648025691900413c9d?OpenDocument
[22] The UK Information Commissioner is an independent supervisory
authority reporting directly to the U.K. Parliament. The Commissioner
enforces and oversees the Data Protection Act of 1998. The Commissioner
has a range of duties including the promotion of good information
handling and the encouragement of codes of practice for data
controllers, that is, anyone who decides how and why personal data,
(information about identifiable, living individuals) are processed.
[23] For example, state "Peeping Tom" statutes provide criminal
sanctions for unauthorized spying or peeping into private places. These
statutes might apply to CCTV surveillance that lacks a valid law
enforcement purpose, is voyeuristic in nature, and occurs in a private
place as defined by the statute. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. 810.14; Md. Code
Ann., Crim. Law 3-902(b)(c); S.C. Code Ann. 16-17-470; Va. Code Ann.
18.2-130.
[24] We interviewed officials regarding the CCTV system implemented by
the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, a nonprofit corporation founded
to, among other things, shape public policy and implement programs to
strengthen the economic vitality of downtown Baltimore. The Baltimore
City Police Department is a member of the Downtown Partnership of
Baltimore.
[25] Privacy International is a human rights group that serves as a
watchdog on surveillance by governments and corporations.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: