The widespread use of surveillance cameras, such as these atop a local retail building, have sparked discussions at the local and state levels about citizens’ right to privacy. STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER ERIC SUCAR Like it or not, the notion of digital and physical privacy is a vanishing concept — everyone can expect that they are being watched.
From the advent of social media to the ubiquitous use of cameras and GPS tracking as a means of mass public surveillance, the population has witnessed a growing lack of privacy.
In recent months, a security breach leaked millions of credit card numbers from Target’s servers, news came out about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) data-mining efforts, and Google released eyewear that can record video from the wearer’s perspective.
Just last month, the police were called when a woman in a Seattle high-rise apartment noticed the impersonal camera lens of a privately owned and operated aerial drone hovering outside her window. A similar device may be purchased by anyone for $300 at Barnes & Noble.
Some state lawmakers say the increased availability of surveillance technology has resulted in the need for government action to preserve citizens’ right to privacy. PHOTOS BY STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER ERIC SUCAR The rapid changes that stem from a gadget-centric age have sparked a discussion that has legislators, law enforcement officials and the general public seemingly at odds.
“You really don’t have the same expectation of privacy that you do in the interior of your car or home. You’re out in the public, things occur in the public, and you charge us with trying to ensure the public safety needs are met,” Marlboro Township Police Chief Bruce Hall said.
Earlier this year, a package of bills and resolutions was introduced in the New Jersey General Assembly in an effort to deal with new technology and the collation of citizens’ private data by public entities like state departments, municipalities, school districts and other public agencies.
The proposals, which were forwarded to two Assembly committees, range from regulating the improper release of photos or videos captured by security cameras to ensuring citizens’ right to privacy from government intrusion outside of due process.
“Technology will create more and more and more opportunities for government to follow people through their daily lives and watch them in all of their activities, and frankly, to snoop on people,” Assemblywoman Amy Handlin (R-Monmouth) said.
The bills seek judicial oversight for the use of automatic license-plate readers by local law enforcement, and would restrict access to the recorded data found in the computer systems in personal vehicles.
Surveillance cameras have become so common that many municipalities and local school districts have opted to install their own systems. However, in an effort to preserve the security and privacy of residents, bills have been introduced that would require a state Superior Court judge to approve the installation of any video camera by a public entity.
The Assembly may act on the legislation after its summer recess.
While protecting the privacy of residents at any cost may seem like a noble move, members of local law enforcement agencies say the wholesale restriction of surveillance could be detrimental to the public good.
For Hall, attempts by the Legislature to restrict surveillance practices by local law enforcement may be an example of lawmakers overstepping their bounds.
“I don’t know if [the Assembly] is informed on what exactly these practices are utilized for. Certainly, the Legislature has its role, and if it wants and finds that it needs to put restrictions on it — if it’s the will of the people, it’s the will of the people,” he said.
Citing a 2013 shooting at a Kenyan mall, where Somali terrorists laid siege and killed scores of shoppers, Hall said systems like the one installed in the parking lot of the Freehold Raceway Mall, Freehold Township, could be a major asset in combating a public safety concern.
“If you have somebody that’s on the hit list and is entering the area, you want to have intel as quickly as you possibly can,” he said. “Who responds first? It’s not the FBI, the NSA or the CIA — it’s your local law enforcement.”
Along with various internal video surveillance systems within municipal buildings and fuel depots that follow Department of Homeland Security standards, Hall said his police force currently has one patrol unit outfitted with an automatic license-plate reader.
While Handlin said she does not contest the notion that public camera surveillance is useful for public safety, she said the onus is on the government to prove the need for a potential installation. “I think the case [for surveillance] needs to be made,” Handlin said. “Rather than just saying that any public agency can track any citizen doing anything anytime, there needs to be a requirement that a public agency articulate exactly why they need to begin surveillance.”
Though privacy concerns have been a hot-button issue recently, the protection of sensitive data has been on the minds of state lawmakers for nearly a decade.
A study conducted by the New Jersey Privacy Study Commission in 2004 delved into the privacy issues raised by the collection, use and dissemination of information by public agencies. Created under the Open Public Records Act, the 13-member commission spent two years studying facets of the issue, including emerging technology and its effect on the way government operates. It was the most recent attempt by the state to look into the privacy concerns of citizens in regard to municipal surveillance.
“The manner in which government handles information that citizens regard as private will most certainly impact on the broader issue of whether citizens can trust their government at all,” the study stated.
The commission found that residents at that time were typically willing to provide their personal information, yet 72 percent had little trust in how the government was going to use that data.
Despite the distrust in the government’s use of personal information, Frank Askin, a professor at Rutgers School of Law- Newark, said it would take an extreme situation before the general population calls for serious reform.
“It would be very difficult [to reverse the current trend]. You really need to have a public outrage, and in this era, I just don’t know that you’re going to get the public that outraged over it,” Askin said. “I think that most of the public feels that if the government needs it, they need it.”
The Assembly proposals put forth by Handlin have piqued the interest of outside parties.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey supports legislation that protects the privacy rights of the public, according to its public policy director, Ari Rosmarin.
“The use of sophisticated surveillance systems by police and other public security officials without robust oversight and privacy protections is particularly troubling in a democratic society,” Rosmarin said.
“Blanketing our public spaces and streets with video surveillance is wrong, because it makes us less free and squanders precious government resources with little evidence of its effectiveness in deterring crime,” he added.
According to Askin, the state protects against “pen registers,” through which public entities collect lists of phone numbers a person calls without actually listening in to the call. While the surveillance method is legal under the U.S. Constitution, Askin said the state constitution deems pen registers unconstitutional. Askin said the state has a slightly stronger track record of privacy protection.
“In general, New Jersey has been more protective of the right of individual privacy … as long as [the state] continues to follow its own precedents,” Askin said. “It’s all a question about how much information you want the government to collect, what they do with that information and how long they keep it.”
At the local level, Hall said there are already federal and local protections on private information, and violations of those guidelines carry strict penalties.
“It’s an easy way for you to lose your job if somebody is found to be accessing information without the appropriate authority. That’s a terminable offense,” he said.
“The idea that any officers are going through the records to find Joe Q. Public just to see what they’re doing or where they’re going is not the case. There has to be a reason to be looking — not just to go on a ‘fishing trip.’ ”
As surveillance technology continues to become more readily available to governmental and private entities, Handlin said the issue will continue to persist until something is done about it.
“The problem is when this all runs amok and there are no checks and balances at any time,” Handlin said. “The alternative — to do nothing — is to say that citizens surrender their right to privacy completely.”