SCN August 2001

Surveillance Camera News
S.C.N. August 2001

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Assorted News Items , Links and Press Peleases for: AUGUST 2001
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Big Borders bookshop is watching you
How 'Big Brother' can make you barmy
Police arrest 19 to avert carnival violence
Putting focus on video surveillance
I-Spy and your neighbors in San Marcos
Security firms want video-surveillance law
Extra cameras take bill for policing Notting Hill carnival to record Ł4m
Coming soon to a street corner near you: evidence that Big Brother is getting bigger
County's Camera Catching Sex Acts
Speed cameras will threaten policing, says Met chief
Nursing facilities under the camera
Don't Smile, You're on Surveillance Camera
Privacy: The ugly truth
CIA Names Kerr New 'Gizmo' Chief
Tyco to Buy Sensormatic

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sunday Herald - 26 August 2001

Big Borders bookshop is watching you

High-tech surveillance ... the kind used to catch terrorists will be spying on shoppers
By Jenifer Johnston

IT'S supposed to be the sedate home of book lovers, coffee drinkers and the chattering
classes, but Borders, the high street bookseller, has been attacked by human rights
organisations for using high-tech surveillance equipment to spy on their customers.

The company is to become the first retailer in the world to introduce a controversial security
scheme, normally used to trap football hooligans, paedophiles and terrorists, to photograph
customers as they enter stores.

SmartFace -- known as FaceIt in the USA -- keeps a database of 'unique digital face-maps' that
will check customers' pictures against those of known shoplifters.

The advanced CCTV technology can locate individual faces within crowds, track a targeted
face and then match it against images of suspected criminals kept on its database.

The American-based retailer has 11 outlets in the UK, including stores in Glasgow and
Edinburgh. Only UK stores are participating in the SmartFace pilot.

Borders has already been criticised in the UK for its attitude to unions. Marketing itself as
laid-back and hip, it has been accused of operating a vigorous anti-union policy.

In America, the company used the union-busting legal firm, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler &
Krupman to fight bitter campaigns to destabilise unions. This included sacking activists and
threatening to close stores if workers joined unions.

The SmartFace technology is manufactured by Visionics, a major player in American
surveillance technology. It is used by the US Immigration and Naturalisation Service to check
for illegal immigrants trying to cross the Mexican border, by the Israeli Army on the Gaza
Strip, and at Iceland's Keflavik airport to seek out known terrorists. The US Army Research
Laboratory ranked the technology top of their list of face recognition systems.

SmartFace has already come up against strong opposition in the US. On Thursday a city
councillor in Jacksonville, Florida began a legal bid to stop local law-enforcement agencies
using the technology, claiming it breaches privacy laws.

The system is already used by South Wales Police to spot football hooligans who are banned
from attending matches. In the London Borough of Newham, which has 300 cameras linked to
a database, the council claims that SmartFace has helped to achieve a 34% drop in crime
since its installation in 1998. Tony Blair gave the scheme his stamp of approval when he
visited the borough last year.

Rosemarie McIlwhan, director of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, was appalled by the move
by Borders, saying: 'I can see why they don't want shoplifters in their store, but I would
question whether this is proportionate to what they are trying to do.

'We are talking about having a bank of pictures of everyone going into the shop -- I would
consider that a serious breach of privacy. There is no control over what they do with those
pictures, or how they are kept -- are they safe? Nor is there much control over whether
Borders could sell the information on, or whether people will actually know this is happening.'

Images that are not matched on the database are discarded after they have been run
through a complex matching process, using 80 facial features. Visionics claims its match rate
can be more than 99%.

As a private company Borders cannot be prosecuted if it breaches human rights legislation. If
it were to breach a citizen's human rights then the British government would have to answer
the case in Strasbourg for not protecting human rights sufficiently under UK law.

Roger Bingham, spokesman for the human rights group Liberty, reacted angrily to Borders'
security proposal, saying: 'Anyone who wants to know if their image is on a system such as
this is able under the Data Protection Act to request that information. We have to know if
the company is going to have a system ready to cope with that. I'm inclined, not being a
shoplifter, just not to shop there.'

Theft from book retailers is currently booming. Sydney Davies, trade and industry manager of
the Booksellers Association, said: 'Customer theft is certainly the biggest problem that book
retailers have in terms of crime. Most of the efforts used to combat theft concentrate on
tagging books, and having security guards and CCTV in store, so the SmartFace system is
certainly a new thing.'

Last year British retailers spent Ł626 million on crime prevention, and theft from stores
reached a staggering Ł746m, equating to a cost of Ł85 for each household in the country.
David Southwell of the British Retail Consortium said that new technology was one of many
ways these costs could be reduced. 'When new technology becomes available it can play a
very significant role in reducing shop theft,' he said, 'but there is no single magic bullet in
terms of shoplifting that is going to eradicate this very serious problem.

'The investment in shop technology to reduce theft is going to continue to rise. Retailers will
use new technology but will also stick with traditional methods such as store detectives to
reduce crime.'

A spokeswoman for Borders UK confirmed that the pilot scheme was going ahead in two
London stores. She denied that SmartFace was a step too far in monitoring potential
shoplifters.

'It is very difficult to distinguish one face from another with the human eye,' she said. 'If the
system infringes on anyone's human rights then Borders wouldn't be using it.'

A spokeswoman from Borders' company headquarters in Michigan said the organisation was
waiting for confirmation from the British distributors of SmartFace -- Dectel -- that their
technology is within the limits of the UK Data Protection Act and EU human rights legislation.
She said: 'Borders will now have to validate Dectel's assurances.'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How 'Big Brother' can make you barmy

By Robert Mendick

26 August 2001

While most of us think the contestants on Big Brother must be
slightly odd to enter the house in the first place, a leading
psychologist has warned they may be barmier still by the time
they leave.

Yesterday, Oliver James, the psychologist and broadcaster,
called on TV executives to pay for a long-term study into the
effects of reality shows on their participants.

Programmes such as Channel 4's Big Brother use
psychologists to assess who would be suitable for the show
and then offer aftercare when contestants have finished taking
part.

But Dr James told a special conference on reality programmes
at the Edinburgh Television Festival that "emotionally vulnerable
people" were continuing to take part.

"The results of a study could be used to screen out vulnerable
people," he said. "It's not just namby-pamby psychobabble to
say that the broadcasting industry should fund this study."

His worries seem to be backed up by comments from Narinder
Kaur, dubbed "Nasty Naz" by the tabloids for bitching about
her housemates. Ms Kaur said: "I came away from this
experience thinking, 'Oh my God, did I really say that?' I've
found it more humiliating coming out than being in there."

Vanessa Feltz, the television presenter, took part in Celebrity
Big Brother earlier this year and was seen frantically scribbling
on a table, prompting fears she had had a breakdown on
television. "I looked like Jack Nicholson in The Shining," she
claimed.

Shortly afterwards she was back to her old self, she said,
arguing that selective editing had distorted how she appeared:
"There is nothing less real than reality TV," she claimed.

A poll into the effects of such programmes shows young
people taking them very seriously, however. It found 24 per
cent of 15- to 24-year-olds called themselves "obsessed" by
shows such as Big Brother, often shaping their social lives
around watching the programmes.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Independent

Police arrest 19 to avert carnival violence

By Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent

25 August 2001

Nineteen people have been arrested using intelligence gathered by a police
squad dedicated to preventing trouble at this weekend's Notting Hill Carnival in London.

Armed police stopped a Renault Clio car in west London and arrested four young men, Scotland
Yard said yesterday. The officers seized a semiautomatic shotgun, five cartridges and a knife.

The arrests, which took place at 10.45pm on Thursday night in Acton, were made by the
Metropolitan Police's Operation Trident team, which investigates crime within black communities.
The officers were acting on intelligence provided by a police unit attached to the carnival, which
begins tomorrow in west London.

Scotland Yard has taken a pro-active approach to tackling crime at the street festival this year, by
assigning an intelligence unit to the event for the first time. So far, the unit has gathered information
that has led to the arrests of 19 people suspected of planning violence or other offences. Thursday's
arrests were of three 19-year-olds and a 21-year-old.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "It's the first time we have pro-actively gone out and arrested
people before Carnival. We have improved relations with the community and we have received
intelligence."

The cost of policing this year's carnival has risen to a record Ł4m. An extra 80 CCTV cameras
have been put in place and 10,000 police officers – 1,500 more than last year – will be on duty.
The deployment of the intelligence unit follows criticism from the Metropolitan Police Federation last
year that officers felt obliged not to make arrests for fear of provoking unrest among the crowds.

Two men were murdered on the final evening of last year's event, attended by about two million
people. A 23-year-old woman was gang-raped by four men on the first day.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Aug. 24, 2001, 7:59PM

Putting focus on video surveillance

By THOM MARSHALL
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle

RECENT CONTROVERSY about a proposal to install surveillance cameras along
a stretch of I-45 sort of leads us into a couple of somewhat related video issues.

One local man e-mailed recently that he believes if we equipped Houston Police
Department patrol cars and all our courtrooms with cameras it would improve
the quality of our criminal justice system in several ways.

First, regarding the debate over those highway cameras, our state officials have said they
are not designed for the purpose of catching drivers breaking laws. But a great many of us
don't put much stock in such assurances and believe the cameras -- or others like them --
soon would be used for enforcement purposes.

Big Brother may be watching

Some of us look upon cameras along the interstate as an invasion of privacy --
Big Brother poking his big nose where it doesn't belong.

But others of us believe that being in your car driving on a public road shared with other vehicles is quite different
from being in your home. We consider cameras watching a busy thoroughfare as useful tools that could see when
accidents occur or when motorists encounter breakdowns. And, yes, some of us believe those cameras also could
be useful tools in enforcing the traffic laws that all drivers are supposed to observe.

It is a heated debate.

Videotaping is having a huge impact on our lives. The unblinking cameras help provide security for all kinds of
businesses, from little convenience stores to huge office complexes. They have been used in school buses to
encourage proper passenger behavior. Private detectives use them to expose insurance scams and other forms of
misbehavior.

Many police agencies have been using them in patrol cars for some time. With a camera to record the action when an
officer confronts a citizen or vice versa, it can quickly help settle any complaints or disputes that might come up later.

Currently, there is but one tiny section of HPD driving cars equipped with the cameras. That is the DWI Task Force,
which has only 11 of HPD's total fleet of 1,581 marked patrol cars.

And one interesting thing about these 11 cameras is that they weren't paid for out of the HPD budget. The City of
Houston didn't spring for them. The $50,000 price was donated by a private citizen -- Jim "Mattress Mac"
MacIngvale.

In a news release last year, Police Chief C.O. Bradford said: "These video-camera systems will allow these officers
to spend more time on the streets and less time in the courtrooms, thus saving our city some money. Officers will now
have an eyewitness on their sides to record the actions exhibited by the drunk driver."

John Thomas, the fellow I mentioned who e-mailed, said cameras in patrol cars would help prevent police abuse. He
said he has heard those who oppose use of the cameras argue that they "would distract police officers and create
risk." However, he said, "If a person can't be trained to operate in front of a camera, how can that person be allowed
to carry a gun under potentially far more distracting circumstances."

Could result in fewer errors

And on the other side, Thomas figures that having videotape as evidence "would greatly increase the number of
defendants willing to plea bargain or plead guilty. Fewer cases would improve the quality of the work done and
reduce the number of cases handled by court-appointed attorneys and others."

As for outfitting courtrooms with video camera monitors, Citizen Thomas believes they "would reduce the number of
errors in transcripts as well as to prompt correct courtroom procedure from bailiffs, judges, and others."

So let's kick this subject around and see what we can learn.

If you are a police officer, let me know if you believe a camera would help or hinder your work. And if you have
been caught on one of those DWI tapes, how did it affect you or your case?

If you have spent time in a courtroom as defendant, lawyer, court reporter, or judge, please tell me whether you
would find a videotape of the proceedings useful or an unwelcomed complication.

We'll meet here again in a few days to review some of the comments.

Thom Marshall's e-mail address is thom.marshall@chron.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I-Spy and your neighbors in San Marcos

Dan Weisman
North County Times

I-Spy has gone digital, according to Mike Sepiol, a guy who ought to know. As owner of
American Surveillance & Security on San Marcos Boulevard, Sepiol is the go-to guy when it
comes to the nuts and bolts of private citizens checking out what's going on ... Sub-rosa, that is.

Sub-rosa is a fancy term I learned during my days as an insurance investigator. It means
undercover. Secret. Hush-hush, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, and all that.

I sat many a surveillance in the 1980s around the Louisiana bayous waiting for the supposedly
lame to jump and run around the block, or the accidentally blinded to go to the park to play
softball.

And I would have killed to possess some of the new age surveillance gadgets that are de rigueur
for today's amateur supersleuth ---- devices found at Sepiol's small shop in a nondescript San
Marcos strip mall.

That's the way Sepiol likes it, for he keeps a low profile as do most of his customers. Yeah, you
know his customers well. The average modern day surveillant isn't some shadowy government
operative or randy detective. It's your neighbor.

"A couple of years ago we thought most of our customers would be going for the nanny cams,"
Sepiol said, surrounded by the tools of his sales trade such as a minivision
camera-in-a-clock-radio that was used by a dentist to watch his waiting room or that Raggedy
Ann doll lamp for catching bad baby-sitters

Not to mention the vast array of wireless transmitters, stealth dog-barking alarms, covert pen
microphones and voice scramblers that ring the shop.

"But more than anything else, the cameras are going to people having trouble with their neighbors,"
Sepiol said. "Somebody is keying their car. Teen-age kids are egging their house."

Sure, Sepiol gets a few of the "Aliens are chasing me" and "People are breaking into my home to
steal my mayonnaise" crowd, but it's mainly your friends and neighbors going undercover.

Maybe that's not surprising given recent findings by Harvard researchers for the San Diego
Foundation that North County residents have a far higher degree of disconnect with neighbors than
residents in other parts of the country.

Your neighbors are going at it digitally, by the way. As the world of electronics has
miniaturized and digitized, the world of tiny hidden cameras and microphones has
followed suit.

"That's the big change in the industry over the last year; analog to digital," Sepiol said,
holding up a small "monocular" camera with digital storage capability. It has a motion
detector and takes 42 pictures, three or six seconds apart, day and night.

"Everybody is digital," Sepiol said. "Our hottest seller is an 8-hour digital audio recorder with
earpiece and external mike, complete with software that you can use to store on a PC as a wave
file for $204. We can't keep this in inventory."

Business is booming. So, what does that tell you about our world? Surveillance has
gone mainstream. Comforting to know, I'm sure.

Contact staff writer Dan Weisman at (760) 761-4414 or dweisman@nctimes.com.

8/25/01

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Security firms want video-surveillance law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Facing a
growing public backlash, the security industry called on Congress Wednesday
to regulate the use of surveillance systems that match faces of people on the
street with a database of known criminals.

The developer of a prominent face-scanning system, along with the head of the
industry trade group, said the federal government needed to step in to ensure that
such systems could not be used by police or private corporations to track or compile
profiles of innocent citizens.

"This discovery was intended to bring a benefit to society and the world, and my
feeling about it is I need help from the federal government to make sure there is no
room for misuse," said Dr. Joseph Atick, chief executive of Visionics Corp.

Since police in Tampa, Florida, first used Visionics' FaceIt system to scan the
crowd at last January's Super Bowl football game, facial-recognition systems have
come under fire from civil-liberties groups and lawmakers who say they invade
privacy and create the potential for a Big Brother-like state of constant surveillance.

Tampa has since linked FaceIt to 36 surveillance cameras in a popular nightlife
district, but the City Council nearly discontinued its use in a 4-3 vote last week.

Atick, backed by the Security Industry Association, said police departments and
others should be limited to only using the system to track convicted criminals,
search for fugitives and other specific purposes. Users should not be able to track
ordinary citizens, he said, and should be penalized if they do so.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a leading critic, predicted a
chilly reception when the House of Representatives holds hearings on the issue in the
fall.

"We'll see how members of Congress feel. My educated guess is they're not going to
be enamored of this," said Richard Diamond, spokesman for the Texas Republican.

Privacy advocates reacted with skepticism as well.

"I think the industry's getting very nervous," said Marc Rotenberg, executive
director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "I rather suspect the stuff
they're emphasizing, a lot of that is to protect business interests."

Valuable enforcement tool

At a Washington press conference, Atick and Security Industry Association director
Richard Chace sought to emphasize the benefits of facial-recognition technology.

"It is time to stop focusing solely on how this technology could be potentially
abused, and start talking about how this technology can be positively used in a
responsible and effective way," Chace said.

FaceIt creates a unique "faceprint" by analyzing facial structure. While the system
measures about 80 different points, it can make a positive identification based on as
little as 14, Atick said. It does not take into account skin color, hairstyles or other
physical attributes.

Newham, a neighborhood in London, has seen a 40 percent drop in crime since
installing the system two years ago as police have been able to more effectively
monitor trouble spots and track repeat offenders, Atick said.

FaceIt has also been used in Mexico to deter voter fraud and in China to enable
illiterate peasants to set up bank accounts, and can be used by private companies to
control access to facilities, he said.

"Facial recognition is significantly cheaper, is less intrusive than a massive police
presence, and does not inconvenience or interfere with the lives of the honest
majority," Atick said.

U.S. courts have established that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in public spaces like streets and parks, Chace said.

But Ari Schwartz, senior policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and
Technology, said courts have also placed limits on cameras that, for example, look
up women's skirts.

"Most Americans don't expect to be spied on everywhere they go," Schwartz said.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/08/09/privacy.surveillance.reut/index.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Extra cameras take bill for policing Notting Hill
carnival to record Ł4m

By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent

22 August 2001

Internal links

Coming soon to a street corner near you: evidence that Big Brother is getting bigger

Scotland Yard is to spend Ł4m on policing this weekend's Notting Hill Carnival in what
is believed to be the most expensive public order operation by a British police force.

The cost will be four times more than that spent on the May Day anti-capitalist demonstrations
earlier this year and Ł600,000 more than the cost of policing last year's carnival.

An extra 80 closed-circuit television cameras are in place, allowing the entire route to be covered,
and 10,000 officers, 1,500 more than last year, will be on duty during the three-day event.

Police have already arrested 15 people, including several suspected of carrying out robberies at
last year's carnival. There have also been warnings that several people may try to bring firearms
to the festival.

One police officer has been assigned to each float in the carnival and officers have also been issued
with metal detectors to check for weapons. Raised platforms will be erected at strategic points for
officers to observe the crowd. There is heightened concern about safety at the street festival in west
London after last year's event, at which two people were murdered, 19 were stabbed and 129 were
arrested. The event is expected to attract up to 1.5 million people.

As well as paying for the officers and extra surveillance equipment, the Metropolitan Police's bill
for covering the festival has rocketed because of the year-long planning exercise which was set up
in response to criticism levelled at police and the organisers last year. The police have suggested
that, in future, money from carnival sponsors could be used to cover some of the security costs.

The Mayor of London's office is currently drawing up proposals to have the carnival parade route
altered so that it ends in Hyde Park.

A total of 700 stewards have been recruited for the event and they started their training yesterday.
Carnival organisers have been criticised for leaving the training programme so late.

The police were accused last year of taking a "softly, softly" approach to less serious crime –
a charge Scotland Yard has strongly denied.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Trotter, who is overseeing the policing of the carnival, said
"there would be no turning ablind eye to criminality" at the festival, although he added the police
would not operate a zero-tolerance policy.

Asked if arrests would be made for smoking cannabis he said it was not as high a priority as hard drugs.

He said: "Our prime concern is about drug dealing ... but nevertheless [smoking cannabis] is an offence
and officers will have to make a decision on the appropriateness of an arrest at that time."

Mr Trotter said his biggest concern was crushing as the carnival floats and the crowds moved through
the narrow streets. "That's why we are pleased to see safety at the top of everyone's agenda," he said.

The legal loopholes

Britain is believed to have more closed-circuit television cameras per head than anywhere in the
world. But the growth in use of the cameras has not been accompanied by the necessary changes
in law to protect privacy, human rights campaigners claim.

The Data Protection Commissioner, Elizabeth France, introduced a code of practice for CCTV
operators last year but there are still no statutory regulations.

Under the Data Protection Act, people who pay a fee of Ł10 have the right to see footage of
themselves taken in public places.

The grey area in the law was exposed in 1995 of a commercial video entitled Caught in the Act,
which featured a couple having sex in a lift and scenes of reckless driving. Some of the footage
had clearly come from police cameras and had fallen into private hands. John Wadham, director
of the human rights group Liberty, said laws must ensure privacy is not infringed.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Coming soon to a street corner near you: evidence that
Big Brother is getting bigger

By Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent

22 August 2001

The Government plans to spend
Ł79m on mounting thousands of
new closed-circuit television
surveillance cameras in the
biggest single investment in CCTV
made in Britain.

The Home Office is providing the
money to establish or expand nearly 250 CCTV schemes in
city centres, housing estates, railway stations and car parks
across England and Wales.

Estimates suggest there are already more than a million CCTV
cameras in operation in Britain. On average, each person in
London is caught on camera at least 300 times a day.

John Denham, a Home Office minister, said: "CCTV has
repeatedly proved its effectiveness in the fight against crime
and the fear of crime. Knowing that there is an extra set of
eyes watching over their communities helps to reassure people
that they will be safe."

The investment is a significant development for a crime-fighting
initiative that was initially seen as highly controversial.
Criticisms that the cameras were intrusive and breached
human rights have evaporated as the public has come to
welcome the protection they believe CCTV provides against
crime.

According to Home Office figures, areas that have already
installed CCTV have seen a fall in crime and increasing
numbers of arrests. Firthmoor in Darlington had a 46 per cent
fall in reported crime after 11 cameras were installed at a large
housing estate, while a new control room and extra cameras in
Sunderland has helped in 225 arrests.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the housing and regeneration
minister, said: "These CCTV schemes will improve street
environments across England and Wales. They will help deter
not only serious offences, but also the nuisances – vandalism,
graffiti, litter and yobbish behaviour – that seriously undermine
people's quality of life."

The most unusual scheme to receive funding yesterday was a
Ł975,000 plan to protect car parks and small shopping areas in
the New Forest area. The car parks are used by a million
tourists a year, but have been blighted by crime.

Nearly Ł1m was allocated to setting up 47 cameras in Bristol,
one of the few big city centres in Britain to remain largely
unprotected by CCTV.

Merseyside, where the CCTV image of the abduction of James
Bulger in 1993 emphasised the value of such cameras,
received more than Ł6m.

Bradford, the scene of recent rioting, was given Ł823,000 to
install 92 new cameras on city housing estates.

The area linking Manchester's city centre with the district
where most of the Commonwealth Games will take place next
year will have 31 new cameras installed at a cost of Ł687,000.

Large amounts of money have been allocated to provide extra
CCTV at train stations. The London Docklands Light Railway
will have 210 new cameras at a cost of Ł2.7m, and the Tyne
and Wear Metro will be given Ł750,000 towards a Ł7.2m
project to cover its 58 stations.

Graeme Gerrard, a spokesman for the Association of Chief
Police Officersand assistant chief constable of Cheshire, said:
"When cameras are properly targeted, they can deter
offenders, reduce the level of crime and increase the feeling of
safety for those using our public spaces. If crimes do occur,
CCTV can often provide invaluable evidence that leads to the
identification of offenders and ... can save the police valuable
time."

Kevin Morris, the president of the Police Superintendents'
Association of England and Wales, said CCTV cameras made
people feel safer when using the streets.

"We do also have to be aware of the concerns of people who
worry about civil liberties and make it quite clear that the rules
under which they are used are fair and honest and that the
regulations are there to ensure they are used properly," he
said.

John Wadham, the director of the human rights group Liberty,
warned that proliferation of security cameras had important
implications on people's privacy because their use was not
properly controlled by law. "We have to get the balance right on
the use of CCTV and other surveillance equipment in public
places between protecting people's safety and protecting their
privacy."

But much of the British public now associates the term "Big
Brother" with a television programme rather than a sinister
concept put forward by George Orwell in his novel 1984. The
increasing popularity of such programmes will have helped to
convince the Government that people are becoming more
comfortable with omnipresent cameras.

Mr Denham said: "The public seems to like CCTV, and with
good reason.

"If you are somebody who at the moment is worried about
using a car park or about going out at night, you feel more
secure where there is CCTV – your liberties have been
increased, not reduced."

Six telling moments captured on CCTV

The Hillsborough disaster, April 1989

The horrific scenes of Liverpool football supporters being
crushed against fencing at an FA Cup semi-final on 15 April
1989 were captured by television cameras that were in place to
cover the football. But the initial mystery of the disaster
became more understandable after the release of CCTV
footage taken from the rear of the terrace. The film showed how
thousands of fans were forced down a narrow passageway
under a stand after gates were opened to allow more
supporters into the ground. As about 2,000 more fans surged
into the tunnel and on to the terraces, 96 supporters were killed
in the crush.

The abduction of James Bulger, February 1993

The grainy shot of James, aged two, being taken out of the
Strand shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, on 12 February
1993, led to the arrest of his abductors, Jon Venables and
Robert Thompson. The pictures were broadcast on national
television and helped to identify the two boys who had taken
James to a stretch of railway line and beaten him to death. The
Home Secretary of the day, Michael Howard, was impressed
by the crime-fighting value of the new technology and set in
train a massive expansion in the number of CCTV schemes,
funded by millions of pounds in Home Office grants.

The final journey of Diana, Princess of Wales, August
1997

Diana, Princess of Wales, and her companion Dodi Fayed
were filmed on CCTV being hustled along a service corridor at
the Ritz Hotel in Paris before leaving by the back door, in order
to avoid a waiting crowd of paparazzi. Minutes later their car
crashed in an underpass as it was being pursued by
photographers on motorcycles. The princess and Mr Fayed
were killed along with their driver, Henri Paul. As news of the
crash spread around the world, the pictures of the couple
leaving the hotel helped to show the pressure they must have
felt at being the object of such persistent attention.

The London nailbomber, April 1999

Police officers viewed 26,000 hours of CCTV footage to produce
the enhanced image that finally led to the arrest of the bomber,
David Copeland. The pictures were published in national
newspapers and aroused the suspicion of one of Copeland's
work colleagues, Paul Mifsud. Mr Mifsud bought five different
newspapers and then asked Copeland's father if he believed his
son was the bomber. Stephen Copeland said he did not think
his son had a white baseball cap but the likeness was still
good enough for Mr Mifsud to phone police. Unfortunately his
call came 24 hours too late to prevent Copeland planting a
bomb at the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho, which killed three
people.

Jill Dando's last shopping trip, April 1999

Police tracing the final minutes of the television presenter's life
spent nearly 500 hours going through CCTV footage, and found
images of her on a shopping trip between 10.18am and 11am
on the morning of 26 April 1999. The few seconds that were
released showed her shopping for an ink cartridge for her
printer at Dixons in Hammersmith, west London. Issuing the
pictures as part of a murder witness appeal was all the more
disturbing because viewers were used to seeing Ms Dando on
their screens. Wearing a tan raincoat over a red jacket and
black trousers, she scanned the shelves before walking from
the shop. Less than an hour later she was shot dead on the
doorstep of her home in Fulham.

The Hungerford Bridge murder, June 1999

Timothy Baxter, a law student, was thrown to his death in the
Thames during an attack by a gang of delinquents on
Hungerford Bridge in June 1999. Shortly after the attack, a
CCTV camera captured two of the killers, Toni Blankson, 17,
and her boyfriend, Shaun Copeland, 15, kissing as they walked
away from the murder scene. Other members of the gang were
shown on film laughing and singing. Mr Baxter and his friend
Gabriel Cornish, a music student, were beaten unconscious
before being thrown into the water. Mr Cornish was rescued but
Mr Baxter's body was not recovered until the next day. The
CCTV footage helped to jail the six attackers for life in April last
year.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thursday August 23 09:05 PM EDT
(http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wyff/20010823/lo/890902_1.html)
County's Camera Catching Sex Acts

Anderson County investigators said that cameras purchased by the county
to catch people littering or illegally dumping garbage are catching more
than what they bargained for.

People who thought that they were alone were caught on tape.

Instead of catching people who were dumping garbage, the cameras have
caught many people in the heat of passion.

The surveillance camera is called the Groundhog Camera. It uses a hidden
recording deck and camera trigged by a motion sensor.

Investigators purchased the camera about six months ago.

So far, they have not prosecuted any cases of illegal dumping. But they
have seen people doing a lot of other things.

"We've had some cases where men and women were together -- they were in
their vehicle. We've had some cases where we had a guy who was walking
around in the woods with no clothes on," Anderson County public safety director
Gerald Shealy said.

The South Carolina American Civil Liberties Association said that the Groundhog
Camera is an invasion of privacy.

"These surveillance cameras violate the privacy rights of law abiding citizens.
Rarely do they catch criminals," state American Civil Liberties Association director
Laverne Neal said.

Attorney Bruce Byrholdt said that it concerns him too.

"What scares me in this is the intrusion by the government. Right now, it's on the
roads they claim looking for littering. But where's the next step?," Byrnholdt said.

But investigators disagree.

"You have to realize when you're going on somebody else's property or
you're sitting on a county road, that you would be subject to being watched,"
Shealy said.

"The Fourth Amendment in the U.S. protects a person's privacy rights in their homes. The problem is
when you're on a public street, you do not have an expectation of privacy," Byrholdt said.

Shealy said that the cases appear to be between consenting adults and will not be
prosecuted. He said that investigators just want to keep Anderson County clean.
"Maybe they'll think twice before they go out and do things they shouldn't be
doing in the woods, including littering and illegal dumping," Shealy said.

He said that at least one case on the tape might be prostitution, but Anderson County Sheriff's
Department Capt. Dale McCard said that without video of money being exchanged, there is
no case. Shealy said that the tapes are reused and that the video of the acts previously caught
on tape has been erased.

He said that if they catch anything that could be prosecuted like prostitution or a drug deal,
they will turn it over to the Sheriff's Office.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Independent

Speed cameras will threaten policing, says Met chief

By Cahal Milmo

21 August 2001

Government plans for a rapid rise in roadside speed cameras were attacked yesterday by Britain's most senior
policeman, who said they threatened to undermine the independence of officers.

Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said the scheme to allow forces to retain money
raised by the cameras to install more devices was against the spirit of law enforcement.

Last week, ministers announced a national extension of the scheme, which could place up to 6,000 more
cameras on Britain's roads.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has encouraged forces to triple the number of cameras under the
scheme after trials showed a 47 per cent drop in people killed or injured in speed-related accidents.

But Sir John warned against pursuing speeding motorists as a revenue-raising measure, saying the cameras were
valid only as a means of reducing accidents at blackspots. "I am against blanket use of speed cameras," he said.
"They should be used in the right place, targeted to reduce accidents and deaths.

"Using the revenue from speeding tickets to raise money for the police is not what the law is there for; it is
contrary to the independence of the police."

The Commissioner said he was also opposed to plans outlined by the Transport minister John Spellar to relax
rules on the speed at which the cameras are triggered. The previous formula – 10 per cent of the speed limit plus
2mph; for example, 35mph in a 30mph zone – will be replaced by rules that allow police to lower the threshold
to the speed limit itself. Sir John pointed out that the average speed of London's traffic had been stuck at around
12mph for decades.

Scotland Yard believes a 1mph reduction in the threshold would lead to a 30 per cent increase in the number of
fines, the equivalent of 60,000 tickets.

The criticism from the force chief supports comments from other senior Metropolitan Police officers who had
already voiced concern that gratuitous use of cameras could alienate the public. They fear that enforcing the
predicted increase in Ł60 fines could tie up resources when they face other priorities in the capital, such as
violent crime and drugs.

There is evidence that resentment among some motorists against the cameras – known by such names as Gatso,
Spec and Vascar – may be beginning to spill over into more militant action. Gloucestershire police confirmed
yesterday that it was investigating the demolition of four cameras on a 15-mile stretch of the A40 by vandals who
either rammed or pulled down the devices.

Despite Scotland Yard's reservations, several rural constabularies have already voiced their support for the
government scheme, pointing to figures that showed trials had led to 109 fewer people being killed.

Four forces, Derbyshire, Lancashire, North Wales and Staffordshire, last week joined the eight forces where the
new scheme is already in operation, from Strathclyde to the Thames Valley.

The Government has denied the cameras are a "stealth tax", saying they should be restricted to accident
blackspots and new devices would be painted in bright colours to avoid claims of entrapment.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Published Monday, August 20, 2001

Nursing facilities under the camera

Online and videotape surveillance could reduce abuse,
elderly advocates say; union and industry officials disagree

By Thomas Peele
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

Imagine steering your computer's browser to an Internet site where you can
watch a nursing home worker give your grandparent a sponge bath.

Or going to visit that relative, spotting a strange bruise and taking home a
videotape that may show how it got there.

Part of the growing national debate about how to best care for America's nursing
home patients involves the use of surveillance cameras nicknamed
"Granny-cams."

Their use seems to be moving to the front of battles across the country between
nursing home advocates and the corporations that own facilities. Texas recently
passed legislation regulating the use of both covert and well-marked video
cameras in patient rooms.

That first-in-the-nation law takes effect in the Lone Star State on Sept. 1.

The Florida and Maryland legislatures soundly defeated similar measures earlier
this year, however, as nursing home owners and unions representing workers
rallied against the bills.

Still, in Louisiana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts,
Ohio, Kansas and Arkansas, legislation will soon stand for votes. No laws
prohibit use of the cameras, but those who favor their use want the gray area that
surrounds them filled in with the black and white of regulations.

Can California -- with its myriad nursing home problems -- be far behind?

"There just aren't any easy answers to video surveillance," said Kelley Queale,
director of communications for the California Association of Health Facilities, the
state's largest nursing home trade group. "There are no (state) laws one way or
another" on the issue, she said, but her organization would likely fight any
proposals.

"Video surveillance says 'we don't trust you' to even the best caregivers," she
said. "We have to worry about the personal privacy of the patients. A lot of
intimate care takes place at the bedside."

The issue seems one of the few areas where the union representing California
nursing home workers agrees with management.

"The solution is not to set up expensive surveillance equipment in nursing
homes," said Lisa Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the Service Employees
International Union. "The solution is to improve staffing."

But supporters of cameras nationally say a lot of abuse occurs that unscrupulous
caregivers might curtail if they knew -- or even suspected -- that someone might
be watching.

"The attorneys told us we were setting ourselves up for a liability, but it was the
best thing that we ever did," said Cindy O'Steen, who owns a small rest home in
Lake City, Fla., west of Jacksonville.

Family members can access on the Internet any of 10 cameras spread through
the home's common areas. Alzheimer's disease afflicts some residents so much
they can't even ask for a glass of water, she said.

"It's very reassuring for a family member to pull (the Web site) up and see (water)
offered to them," O'Steen said.

When she installed the cameras, some staffers left, afraid to work under
surveillance, she said. But others realized that the cameras provided them cover
from unsubstantiated complaints.

Whether the cameras stop abuse the way the presence of a police officer on a
street corner deters a robber or whether the cameras capture evidence was a
major portion of the debate in Texas, said Victoria Ford, an aide to state Sen.
Frank L. Madla, D-San Antonio, who sponsored the Granny-cam legislation.

Some Texans already used cameras when Madla sponsored his bill, Ford said.
"Six tapes had been turned in," she said, and state health officials began
investigations into alleged abuses captured on them. Those investigations are
ongoing, Ford said.

Madla encountered little opposition, she said. "It was an extremely cooperative
environment, honestly. The industry felt it had bigger fish to fry. It faces a
financial crisis, a regulatory crisis and insurance (cost) crisis," Ford said. "The
cameras were out there uncontrolled."

In other states, the fight was tougher.

"All the industry's issues are red herrings," said Barbara Hengstebeck of the
Tallahassee, Fla.-based Coalition to Protect America's Elders. It supported the
defeated Florida legislation and pushes for bills in other states.

"The nursing homes don't want anybody watching," she said. "They are scared to
death of the whole concept. They don't want anybody to see the suffering. The
nursing homes are going to fight this tooth and nail."

Violet King of the Illinois-based Nursing Home Monitors sponsors two cameras --
one in Missouri, the other in Alaska -- and hopes to force a national test case on
the issue. In October, the group will participate in a panel discussion on cameras
at the National Citizen Coalition for Nursing Home Reform annual meeting in
Washington.

"We are going to have it out, the pros and cons," King said. She said the
cameras "will attract better-quality workers."

She said she hopes that one of the test cameras will lead to a legal challenge so
the matter moves into the courts, where judges would decide the final word on
the use of cameras.

King supports a well-marked camera in a patient's room so everyone who enters
knows about it. The two test cameras feed a videocassette recorder inside a
lock-box that holds a motion-activated, 10-hour tape, she said.

"We're advocating open cameras. It works," King said.

"There are no privacy problems," she said. "Allowing a camera is saying 'We
have nothing to hide and we're doing the best we can.'"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sunday August 12, 12:01 am Eastern Time

BusinessWeek Online
DAILY BRIEFING -- Don't Smile, You're on Surveillance Camera

Daily Briefing: PRIVACY MATTERS

By Jane Black

In July, police set up 36 high-tech surveillance cameras to capture the faces of
pedestrians in Ybor City, a popular entertainment district in Tampa. The cameras
beam each face back to a police-run database. There, sophisticated facial-recognition
software analyzes each visage by comparing 80 facial points between the nose,
cheekbones, and eyes. It then tries to match the faces to a database of 30,000 missing
children and wanted felons.

The technology has drawn the ire of political heavyweights across the
spectrum -- from ultra-conservative Congressman Dick Armey (R-Texas) to
the American Civil Liberties Union. The firestorm of protest, which has
included demonstrators wearing Groucho Marx glasses parading before the
cameras, underscores an increasingly important issue in the wired world: How
much privacy can we expect in public places that are rapidly being
transformed by technology?

CASTLE OR FORTRESS? To date, the law affords little privacy protection
in public areas. According to the Fourth Amendment, a man's home is his
castle. Outside the home, however, citizens don't have a ``reasonable
expectation'' of privacy. That concept may have to be refined. As technology
evolves, privacy is eroding -- not just in the cyberworld but everywhere. We
need to expand our notion of privacy in light of new technologies such as
facial-recognition software. Otherwise, we'll soon find that no one can ``reasonably''
expect any privacy at all.

Privacy protection is at its zenith inside the home -- as long as no one can see
inside. Likewise, a person's car trunk, garden, or phone line. The courts have
long required law-enforcement officials to seek explicit judicial consent before
tapping the phones of private citizens. ``The courts see privacy as equivalent to
secrecy,'' says Daniel Solove, a professor of Fourth Amendment Law at
Seton Hall University. ``Once you expose something to someone else, you
lose all rights to privacy.''

Take the 1989 case, Riley v. Florida. The Pasco County Sheriff's office received an anonymous tip that marijuana was being
grown on private property. However, the investigating officer couldn't observe the contents of a greenhouse on the property,
which was enclosed on two sides and obscured from view on the other sides by trees and shrubs. To get a better look, the officer
twice circled over the property in a helicopter at the height of 400 feet and made naked-eye observations through openings in the
greenhouse roof. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that the Fourth Amendment didn't protect Riley's privacy because
anyone traveling in the public airways at the legal altitude of 400 feet would have been able to view the illegal plants.

TURNING UP THE HEAT. That was a close ruling. So was Kyollo v. United States, a 5-4 ruling from June, 2001. In it, the
court registered -- for the first time -- a concern about the growing use of sophisticated technology surveillance. Justice Antonin
Scalia wrote the majority opinion, which held that the government acted unreasonably when it aimed a thermal-imaging device at a
suspect's house and surmised, from the high levels of heat on the exterior walls, that he was using lamps to grow marijuana inside.
Justice Scalia declared that when government agents use surveillance technology that isn't ordinarily used by the general public to
explore details of the home, the surveillance is unreasonable without a search warrant.

Privacy advocates see the judgment as a victory. But the verdict fails to draw a decisive line between what is public and private.
For example, what happens when heat-imaging detectors cost $50 at Wal-Mart? Does it become permissible then? By the same
token, current case law fails to reflect the increased transparency of our lives today. People send private e-mails from airport
kiosks, make private cell-phone calls in public parks, and use instant-messenger systems for private conversations. Clearly, one
can't have the same expectation of privacy as in their bedroom, but what are the limits in these cases?

Using cameras to enforce traffic laws has helped reduce violations One sensible approach would be putting in place the same
privacy principles advocates call for in the online world: notice and choice. Well-placed signs informing people in Ybor City about
the facial-recognition cameras would be a step in the right direction. Another example: In Colorado, the Department of Motor
Vehicles want to run facial-recognition software across the state drivers' license database to prevent identity theft. The idea would
be more palatable if each citizen could choose if he wants a digital likeness on file.

``We don't need to be modern-day Luddites. We need to say what kinds surveillance technology are appropriate and under what
circumstances,'' says Mike Pheneger, secretary of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Moreover, surveillance should be more narrowly targeted. The Ybor City incident is scary because the cameras track every
passerby indiscriminately. By contrast, posting well-marked cameras at street intersections to catch red-light runners lets every
driver know that this activity is illegal and dangerous. A study by the Institute for Highway Safety showed that red-light running
violations dropped 42% after cameras were introduced in Oxnard, Calif. Similarly, violations declined about 40% in Fairfax, Va.,
after one year of camera enforcement. Red-light cameras are also acceptable because, in many ways, they do the job better than
the police: A cop chasing a red-light runner may be forced to run the light himself, putting other drivers and himself in danger.

POWER VS. PRIVACY. Some experts don't believe surveillance technology is an invasion of privacy at all. ``We need to stop
thinking it's a privacy issue. This is a concern about government power,'' says Eugene Volokh, a professor of Fourth Amendment
Law at the University of Southern California. Volokh argues that technology increases police power to enforce questionable laws.
Better to evaluate the laws themselves, he argues, than the technology that makes it possible to bust lawbreakers.

I disagree. Electronic surveillance is more prevalent than people realize and it's only going to proliferate. It may be perfectly legal.
But that doesn't make it right. At the heart of this debate is this question: What kind of society we want to live in? Justice Louis
Brandeis characterized privacy or the ``right to be let alone'' as ``the most comprehensive of the rights of man and the right most
valued by civilized men.'' In our search for answers, that strikes me as a good place to start.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Monday August 13, 12:21 pm Eastern Time

BusinessWeek Online
TECHNOLOGY -- Technology's Creeping Threats to
Privacy

TECHNOLOGY

By Heather Green

The U.S., for better and worse, is open to novel technology and quick to adopt it.
One downside of our fascination with the new is that we're often so busy adapting
to change, we don't really realize how much technology is whittling away at our
expectation of privacy. Sure, we're shocked when we learn technology can track
every move we make on the Internet. But that we can still be surprised by such a
revelation shows just how antiquated our notion of offline privacy really is.

We still feel fairly comfortable with the idea that our privacy when we're not
online is protected, because it seems impossible to monitor a person's actions
all the time. It's a false sense of security. Bit by bit, our privacy is being eaten
away as society becomes more digital -- through highway toll-collection
services like E-ZPass, subway cards, and law-enforcement security
programs.

Our increasingly networked world has big problems. As more information is
collected, it can be easily stored and aggregated. That leads to a ``creep
factor.'' When information is collected or technology is accepted for one use,
it can then easily be exploited in another way down the line. Information from
a highway toll-payment system could be interesting to car insurance
companies.

COLLECTING KEYSTROKES. A couple of recent incidents provide food for thought.
A federal judge in Newark, N.J., is considering defense motions to dismiss evidence
collected by the FBI using supersecret technology that records computer keystrokes.

The defendant is hardly your typical privacy zealot. Nicodemo Scarfo Jr., the son of a
jailed Mob boss, is accused of loansharking and illegal gambling. The FBI received a
search warrant to plant technology on Scarfo's computer to capture a password it needed
to decrypt a file collected in a previous search of Scarfo's business offices. Scarfo's lawyer
and privacy advocates contend that without an understanding of the technology, it's hard
to determine whether the FBI overstepped limits on wiretapping or violated Fourth
Amendment rights.

The disturbing part here is that the FBI doesn't want to give away any information
about the technology it planted on Scarfo's computer. In its response to the defense
motions, the FBI invoked national-security issues, saying the technology, called a key
logger system, is so highly classified that fewer than 30 people in the 27,000-person
bureau actually know how it works. On Aug. 7, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Politan
gave the FBI until Aug. 31 to provide a description of key logger's operation. The parties
in the case are under court order not to talk about the motions.

DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. Now, given the crimes Scarfo is accused of, some people would say the ends justify the means.
That's the wrong approach. If the government devised technology that is essentially a wiretap -- even though it doesn't fit the
traditional definition of a wiretap -- then acceptance of this kind of surveillance sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door to
more egregious privacy violations in the future.

Why should the new technology be allowed to circumvent wiretap limits? In its response to the defense's motions, the government
said the key logger isn't a wiretap because it didn't intercept any transmission of information from Scarfo's computer via a modem
to someone on a network. However, if the key logger captured information as it was being sent to the modem, it could be
considered a wiretap.

Why the concern? Warrants to use wiretaps are much more difficult to obtain and require more stringent filters on information
collected. If the FBI decides not to give further details even to the judge, it will be hard to know just how invasive the technology is
and when it is being used in the future. It would be difficult to track new innovations of this kind and impossible to know when
they're being used in cases that are a less egregious than alleged loansharking and illegal gambling.

FACES IN THE CROWD. A development further South could also lead to creeping privacy invasion. On Aug. 2, the Tampa
(Fla.) city council voted against a motion to end its contract with Visionics, a company that provides face-recognition software.
Tampa first used similar technology in January during the Super Bowl, when it deployed cameras and sophisticated software to
scan faces in the crowds and compare them with a database of digital mug shots of criminals. The city later installed the cameras in
its nightlife district.

Such technologies are being adopted in the name of public safety. The Tampa police are using the face-recognition technology to
track criminals and runaways. If a match isn't found from within Tampa's database, the image is erased. But the use could easily be
expanded.

Already, some motor vehicle departments and credit-card companies digitize photos, which could easily be linked to
face-recognition systems. The DMVs in Colorado and Washington, D.C., are installing or considering using face-scanning systems
to prevent identity theft. If deployment of the technology becomes more widespread, it could simply be used to track innocent
citizens who aren't under suspicion.

Instead of being erased, the photos taken of crowds could be stored, without citizens even being aware they were being watched.
What's to stop commercial companies from acquiring these public records and selling them to private detectives or divorce
lawyers?

TIME FOR DEBATE. We don't know what limits to put on these technologies. We haven't begun to grasp how much
technological developments over the past 10 years have subtly changed what we consider an acceptable trade-off between safety
and privacy. But if we look back just a decade, the changes are clear.

Ten years ago, Scarfo would have kept his alleged gambling and loanshark accounts in a ledger in a file cabinet. The police would
have obtained a search warrant and found only that information. Most likely, Scarfo or someone else would have been in the
offices to witness the search and seizure. Now, the court is faced with trying to figure out the legality of technology the FBI refuses
to describe and decide on the future implications of allowing the use of such secret snooping innovations.

When Tampa first used the face-recognition technology during the Super Bowl, the attendees weren't notified they were under
constant, centralized surveillance. It's something you would never have even imagined. But you could easily argue that the
technology isn't that far removed from the stoplight cameras now prevalent everywhere.

It's time for a debate about what the limits of this kind of surveillance should be. We need to focus on what is and isn't acceptable
when it comes to face-recognition cameras. We also need to reassess our understanding of search-and-seizure laws in a digital
society. So much of this technology starts out as a limited public-safety implementation. Without limits established now, it's
impossible to believe creep won't happen.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wednesday August 8, 5:21 pm Eastern Time

Security firms call for video-surveillance law

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON, Aug 8 (Reuters) - Facing a growing public backlash, the security
industry called on Congress Wednesday to regulate the use of surveillance
systems that match faces of people on the street with a database of known criminals.

The developer of a prominent face-scanning system, along with the head of
the industry trade group, said the federal government needed to step in to
ensure that such systems could not be used by police or private corporations
to track or compile profiles of innocent citizens.

``This discovery was intended to bring a benefit to society and the world, and
my feeling about it is I need help from the federal government to make sure
there is no room for misuse,'' said Dr. Joseph Atick, chief executive of
Visionics Corp. (NasdaqNM:VSNX - news).

Since police in Tampa, Florida, first used Visionics' FaceIt system to scan the
crowd at last January's Super Bowl football game, facial-recognition systems
have come under fire from civil-liberties groups and lawmakers who say they
invade privacy and create the potential for a Big Brother-like state of constant
surveillance.

Tampa has since linked FaceIt to 36 surveillance cameras in a popular nightlife
district, but the City Council nearly discontinued its use in a 4-3 vote last week.

Atick, backed by the Security Industry Association, said police departments and
others should be limited to only using the system to track convicted criminals,
search for fugitives and other specific purposes. Users should not be able to
track ordinary citizens, he said, and should be penalized if they do so.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a leading critic, predicted
a chilly reception when the House of Representatives holds hearings on the
issue in the fall.

``We'll see how members of Congress feel. My educated guess is they're not
going to be enamored of this,'' said Richard Diamond, spokesman for the
Texas Republican.

Privacy advocates reacted with skepticism as well.

``I think the industry's getting very nervous,'' said Marc Rotenberg, executive
director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. ``I rather suspect the stuff
they're emphasizing, a lot of that is to protect business interests.''

VALUABLE ENFORCEMENT TOOL

At a Washington press conference, Atick and Security Industry Association director
Richard Chace sought to emphasize the benefits of facial-recognition technology.

``It is time to stop focusing solely on how this technology could be potentially abused,
and start talking about how this technology can be positively used in a responsible and
effective way,'' Chace said.

FaceIt creates a unique ``faceprint'' by analyzing facial structure. While the system
measures about 80 different points, it can make a positive identification based on
as little as 14, Atick said. It does not take into account skin color, hairstyles or other
physical attributes.

``Facial recognition is significantly cheaper, is less intrusive than
a massive police presence, and does not inconvenience or interfere
with the lives of the honest majority,'' Atick said.

U.S. courts have established that citizens do not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in public spaces like streets and parks,
Chace said.

But Ari Schwartz, senior policy analyst at the Center for Democracy
and Technology, said courts have also placed limits on cameras that,
for example, look up women's skirts.

``Most Americans don't expect to be spied on everywhere they go,''
Schwartz said.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Privacy: The ugly truth

By E. Scott Wright, Special to ZDNet

Issues involving our personal privacy affect our day-to-day lives much more than you might
think, says columnist Scott Wright.

COMMENTARY--The Bush Administration recently took a large step
forward and appointed a Privacy Czar. U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney
General Dan Collins will have specific responsibility to oversee issues
surrounding the use of computer technology in criminal investigations and
regulations protecting personal privacy. Issues involving our personal
privacy are growing rapidly and affect our day-to-day lives more than you
might think. It's about time the federal government stepped up to the plate
on these issues.

What is privacy? When most of us think about privacy, if we do at all, we think about closed doors
and drawn window shades or hiding our actions from others. We must change the way we think about
privacy. Perhaps we need a better word. If anything, privacy is more about the right to remain
anonymous. It's the right to know we are not being watched as we walk down the street or attend a
public meeting. It's the right to know that facts about our personal lives are revealed only as we
decide to release them and that the facts are correct. Privacy is about massive databases, identity
theft, and the access to information.

Think about privacy like this: is there information in a database somewhere that you wouldn't want
everyone to look through? Not because you have something to hide, but because it's simply private
information. Take for example your financial information, your medical records, or your buying
patterns. What about someone looking over the books you have read at the library or the books you
buy at a store or online. What about the videos you rent? If that information is in a database, it can be
accessed. What prevents just anyone from accessing that information? When you register your
software, fill out a credit report, or log on to a Web site, you are providing information to someone
else. How will they use that information? That is privacy.

How do you feel about closed circuit cameras in public areas that record where you go and whom
you meet? Do you mind if this information is recorded on tape and then stored in a database for
years? What about a tool that can read every e-mail that is sent across the Internet (encrypted or
not)? That is privacy. What will this information be used for? Perhaps it will be used to place a
suspect at the scene of a crime (e.g., an ATM camera and the Oklahoma City bombing). Perhaps it
will be used to gather information on terrorist groups (e.g. Carnivore, now DSC 1000, and the World
Trade Center bombing). There are instances where information about the public can be used to
benefit society. But information about the public can also be used to destroy personal freedom and
privacy. That is why we need strong laws in place to protect us from the misuse of privacy
information.

When the Iron Curtain fell, we learned of massive installations of surveillance cameras that were
established by the secret police in Prague. The police were viewing public meetings and street traffic
to control their citizens. Many cities in the U. S. now videotape public streets as a crime deterrent.
How will those tapes be used in the future? Are you in one of those tapes? Do you care? If you think
something like that could never happen here, guess what would have happened if this technology were
available during the Vietnam War or World War II? How do you think it might have been used
against Japanese descendants in the United States?

The more data that is accumulated about you, the less privacy, and ultimately, the less personal
freedom you have, and information is being gathered on you much faster than you think. Privacy is not
an issue of something to hide; it's an issue of personal information. We should have the right to our
privacy and to release information about our lives as we see fit. Our laws should protect that right.

Technology is not neutral. Technology makes it possible to gather personal information about each of
us in a way that was never possible before. Until we focus on privacy issues and put pressure on our
elected officials, we will never pass the laws to protect our privacy. The appointment of Dan Collins is
a step in the right direction. We could use a few more.

E. Scott Wright, CISSP, CCP is director of Information Security Services and HIPAA National
Practice executive for Netplex, a leading provider of business strategy, technology, user
experience, IT security solutions and contingency planning services. Scott can be reached at
ScottW@netplexsystems.com.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Monday August 06 01:25 PM EDT

CIA Names Kerr New 'Gizmo' Chief

By Robyn Weisman, www.NewsFactor.com

While the rest of the high-tech world agonized over Code Red and its consequences, the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) (CIA (news - web sites)) took time out to name its latest
overseer for the development and deployment of cutting-edge devices and technologies.

Late Friday, CIA director George Tenet tapped physicist Donald Kerr to
be the agency's deputy director of science and technology. Kerr replaces
Joanne Isham, who takes over as head of the National Imagery and
Mapping Agency. Isham has run the science and tech office since January
2000.

"As an agency, we are fortunate indeed to have a world-class talent like
Don Kerr to add new chapters to CIA's long history of technical research,
creativity, and outreach to government, the academic community, and
industry," Tenet said in a prepared statement.

Transferred from FBI (news - web sites)

Kerr is transferring over from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), where he was an assistant
director in charge of the agency's laboratory division since October 1997. As assistant director, Kerr
supervised the development of new surveillance and communications technologies, managed technical
support services to investigations, and oversaw analysis of forensic evidence.

Previously, Kerr headed the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the birthplace of
nuclear weaponry, from 1979 to 1985.

Said Tenet: "As director of Los Alamos in the early 1980s -- and as a scientist there in the 1960s and
1970s -- Don shaped path-breaking research on nuclear weapons, ionospheric physics, and
alternative energy sources."

Analysts expressed some degree of surprise that a former FBI man would have been selected to head
a CIA post.

"Inter-agency relations seem to be chronically strained," Ryan Russell, an incident analyst for
SecurityFocus.com, told NewsFactor Network. "This extends into the various government
infrastructure protection and information security efforts as well."

"We often hear about frustration over lack of information between agencies, and not just [between]
the FBI and CIA," Russell added.

But sources claim that relations between the FBI and CIA have apparently improved over the last few
years, due to the good rapport between Tenet and former FBI head Louis Freeh. There have been
reports that the two intelligence agencies have worked jointly on several security projects.

21st Century Toys

The newest gizmos being developed by the CIA are probably not as picturesque as those from the
James Bond era; however, the cutting-edge devices upon which many have speculated are apropos to
the Internet age.

SecurityFocus.com's Russell, taking a break from the Code Red II threat, speculated on some of the
items the CIA is rumored to be developing.

Russell told NewsFactor that in addition to the garden-variety stamp-sized digital cameras, handheld
photocopiers and remote tracking devices using GPS (Global Positioning Systems), Kerr will likely
oversee the evolution of hardware and software-based keyboard sniffing devices. Both types have the
ability to grab all the keystrokes from a given computer, so that intelligence officers can decrypt
messages.

'Tempest' Tech

Russell also mentioned reports of "tempest" devices that can monitor computers based on their radio
waves, as well as tempest-shielding devices that prevent adversaries from doing the same to
investigators' computers.

As interesting as the new devices are, Russell questioned how they would impact on privacy
concerns.

"Personally, I'm in favor of the government driving fundamental research, but I'm a little leery about
whether civil rights will be respected when it is put into use," he said.

Russell added that he looks forward to seeing the new toys and hopes they won't be too heavily
classified.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Friday August 3 7:27 AM ET

Tyco to Buy Sensormatic

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Conglomerate Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE:TYC - news) on Friday said it
would acquire anti-theft equipment maker Sensormatic Electronics Corp. (NYSE:SRM - news) in
a stock swap valued at about $2.2 billion, expanding Tyco's portfolio of electronic security equipment.

Tyco will also assume $116 million of Sensormatic debt.

Under an agreement between the companies, Sensormatic shareholders will receive Tyco common
shares valued at $24 for each Sensormatic share. That represents about a 61 percent premium on
Sensormatic's closing stock price of $14.94 on Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange.

Sensormatic makes a broad line of electronic security products, including surveillance cameras
and control systems. The Boca Raton, Florida, company, which had revenues of $1.1 billion for its
fiscal year ended June 30, also makes electronic article surveillance tagging for the retail industry.

``Sensormatic is the global market leader in electronic article surveillance (EAS) systems for the retail
industry,'' said Tyco Chairman and Chief Executive Dennis Kozlowski.

``The combination of our existing fire and security monitoring and service operations with SRM's
leading manufacturing capabilities in EAS, video and access control allows us to provide a more
complete security system solution to our customers worldwide.''

Kozlowski has been notoriously acquisitive since taking the helm at Tyco, expanding the company's
health-care, fiber-optic and electronics businesses.

Tyco said the deal would boost its earnings and free cash flow immediately.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++