Archives for

Portable Surveillance Towers Now Popping Up in Ohio

The Ohio Department of Public Safety has just purchased two portable video surveillance towers for use at large events such as the Ohio State Fair and concerts.  According to The Columbus Dispatch, the towers are equipped with five surveillance cameras, spotlights, loudspeakers and a radar system.  Flir Systems Inc., the manufacturer of the surveillance towers, say they offer a “completely customized surveillance platform suitable for high-level, temporary security ventures, providing a bird’s-eye view of the surrounding area.”

Surveillance systems such as these, with high-end audio and video camera systems, are popping up all over the country at state fairs, concerts, beach parties, community events, campaign rallies, and sports events, to name just a few. Our own employee spotted one here in Los Angeles at a business complex near the Santa Monica ocean recently.



Read More

LAPD Being Sued Over Use, Compilation of ALPR Surveillance Data

According to Fox News, the LAPD is currently being sued in a joint lawsuit by the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).  The lawsuit says that the LAPD has been using Automatic License Plate Readers, or ALPRs, to compile massive amounts of data on the travelling habits of the citizens of Los Angeles and that they are refusing to share this data.

EFF Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch feels the public should have access to this data, seeing as law-abiding citizens are being tracked, recorded and monitored.  “By matching your car to a particular time, date and location – and building a database of that information over time – law enforcement can learn where you work and live, what doctor you go to, which religious services you attend, and who your friends are.”

We say at least let defense attorneys have access to the same information that the police have so they can have a fair shot at litigation.


Read More

Lawmakers Demanding More Surveillance Across the Country

Following the tragic and deadly terrorist bombings in Boston, lawmakers across the country are demanding more surveillance in our major cities.  In an article posted by Keith Proctor on CNN Money, he talks about how citizens and lawmakers alike value their own personal safety over privacy, but, “…when  you see someone maimed by bomb shrapnel, privacy concerns sound coldly abstract.”

Homeland Security, on the other hand, have drastically been cutting down on state grants that would enable more surveillance equipment to go up.  Due to this, companies like Lockheed Martin are doing more with less by drastically improving surveillance technology, creating the “video analytic” system, which analyzes surveillance footage entirely by using artifical intelligence.



Read More

FBI Being Sued Over Secret Surveillance Program

RT.com is reporting that the FBI has been working on a secretive, state-of-the-art database with the power to track down anyone, anywhere, at any time.  The program, called “Next Generation Identification,” or, “NGI” program, was first announced more than a decade ago, but the FBI has been tight-lipped about it since.  Now, they claim the system is more than 60% complete.

However, the privacy watchdog group EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) is suing the FBI for failure to respond to official Freedom of Information Act requests regarding the program. According to EPIC, the NGI program pulls personal information from both public and private surveillance systems and compiles the information in an all-inclusive database, which they say is an invasion of privacy, seeing as information is being collected about people who are neither criminals nor suspects.


Read More

NYPD Suddenly Doesn’t Love Surveillance So Much

In New York City, the public is demanding that the NYPD be put under the same surveillance that the majority of citizens are subject to.  But Mayor Michael Bloomberg and police commissioner Raymond Kelly are leading an on-going campaign to prevent surveillance of the police, claiming that putting police officers under surveillance could actually endanger citizens.

Salon.com’s David Sirota claims that if anything, having police under surveillance will keep them honest and ensure that they are protecting individuals’ civil liberties, seeing as police brutality cases are becoming more and more common.

As this on-going fight rages on, check back with the NCAVF for updates on the newest in audio and video surveillance policy and high definition video technology.


Read More

Little Canada Man Video Confiscated by Police

Twincities.com just published an article about Andrew Henderson, a Little Canada, MN. resident who recorded two Ramsey County police deputies as they were assisting a bloody-faced man outside of his apartment. Henderson states that he was thirty feet away, not causing any harm when deputy Jacqueline Muellner snatched the camera out of his hands and closed the video portion of the recording (the audio was left on).

The audio footage recorded Henderson calmly stating that he was not doing anything illegal, and that it’s completely legal to record video in public space. In fact, he says it was illegal for the policewoman to take his camera from him.

Nevertheless, Henderson is being charged with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct. It should be an interesting case to follow, and may have implications on the larger conversation about video recording police in public spaces.


Read More

Ilinois Eavesdropping Law

In Illinois it is no longer a felony to record audio footage of on duty police officers. It had previously been illegal, until the supreme court voted to not revive the law.

The law prohibiting audio recording was initially challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (ACLU). They were fighting for a “police accountability program” that required audio and video recordings.

Laws vary from state to state when it comes to recording police officers – whether audio or video. It should, however, be uniform across the nation. The truth is that police officers are recorded daily, on surveillance cameras, on their cop car cams, on the digital audio recording devices. It is legal record people in public, why should it be illegal to record police officers?

The interesting case is Alvarez v. Connell et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-318.


Read More

Big Brother is (usually) Listening

Homeland security is installing high definition video cameras equipped with audio on busses and transit lines in a few major cities across the United States: San Francisco, Eugene, Hartford, Columbus, Baltimore, and Traverse City, MI.

We’re also seeing devices in subways and trains. I don’t know about you, but I thought my private conversations — even in public places — was protected by our constitution?

Advances in audio technology has made it a viable addition to traditional video surveillance. But is it legal?

U.S. Federal Law states that it is illegal to record audio of another person’s conversation in private if they have not consented to the recording. However, in recent years, courts have often dismissed Fourth Amendment privacy rights and accepted audio evidence collected “illegally.”

By outfitting buses with audio / video devices, Homeland is saying that anywhere you are, outside of your home, is public. And therefore, anything you say, to yourself or another, may be used in court against you.



Read More

Surveillance Cameras in Huntington Beach, California

The City of Huntington Beach, reports the Orange County Register, is looking into getting video surveillance cameras installed in the downtown area. As the number of crimes rise, and the number of police drop, some city officials are asking for video cameras.

Earlier this month officials asked city workers to look into the different costs and details of putting up cameras in downtown HB, with a goal to reduce crimes and to help police in ongoing investigations.

Huntington Beach, a tourist attraction that has a lot of alcohol related assaults, thefts, and of course – there’s public intoxication.

The only councilman opposed to putting video surveillance cameras in the downtown area is Matthew Harper, who issued the statement, “When the government is coming in and placing cameras all about a public area, that’s a Big Brother world that I’m not interested in being a part of.”

Police Sergent Jim Katapodi said that in his experience, camera’s deter crime, and those who aren’t performing criminal acts, have nothing to worry about. I’ve heard that comment a great deal lately, and I don’t like it.

Some worry about the effects cameras might have on Tourism, but looking at a city like London, for example, one might assume that their high level of public surveillance doesn’t affect travelers much. That is unless they are travelling for the wrong reasons.

Cities all around the US are dealing with this exact situation. Police budgets are dropping, their forces are shrinking, and video surveillance technology is a relatively cheap way to slow crime and reduce budgets. That said, there are a great amount of individuals who believe that government recording of the public is a breach of privacy, and needs to be outlawed. It will be interesting to learn what the courts decide in major cases moving forward. As of now, they seem to be letting public surveillance prevail.



Read More

Business Allows Police to Access Security Cameras

ABC News recently published an article about the increasing amount of crimes caught on private surveillance cameras, and police interest in connecting to these cameras. In Philadelphia and Washington DC (as well as other states), police are putting together maps of private surveillance cameras. This allows them to quickly search for video evidence at businesses close to where a crime took place.

This is a great opportunity for police departments in any state. If they are relying on private cameras, at least the police won’t have to pay upkeep costs for those devices. The only cost is the cost of retrieving footage from private security cameras, and the cost for investigating the evidence.

However, there are fourth amendment rights at risk here. The news has been full of cases involving audio and video evidence – it’s a topic of discussion that varies by state, because a/v recording laws can be so different. One side of the argument says our privacy is being violated, the other says it’s okay to record if there’s a chance to increase security. What are your thoughts?


Read More