Security cameras back in demand

Some civil liberties activists agree with that assessment. But they also see huge potential for abuse: a looming threat of privacy invasion and hints of a Big Brother-esque state where all public activity is recorded and analyzed.

After all, surveillance doesn't just happen in subway stations. In June 2004, the libertarian Reason magazine, using public databases, sent some 45,000 subscribers a personalized issue with a satellite image of their residence on the cover.

"We had some people cancel their subscriptions after that," says Reason editor Nick Gillespie. Ironically, the issue addressed the "upside of zero privacy" - such as ease of marketing - but that said, Mr. Gillespie doesn't shirk from criticizing a watchdog society.

While he acknowledges that footage helped the London investigations, he makes it clear: "I don't necessarily think that tells us surveillance of public areas is an unfettered good thing."

He adds, "There are TV shows in England that show outtakes from surveillance cameras. There's something weird about that. There's something creepy about that. We fundamentally have to ask ourselves, are we an open society or not?"

The European Parliament addressed such a question, in the 1998 report "An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control." Europe in general, and the United Kingdom in particular, makes heavy use of surveillance technology in public places, and the report warned against monitoring abuses that smack of totalitarian regimes.

In a section titled "Developments in Surveillance Technology," the report reads, "Much of this technology is used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders, minorities, trade union leaders and political opponents."

But if abuses occur in the US, they'll occur under the auspices of a transparent system where citizens can hold authorities accountable, argues Robert Atkinson, vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington.

Mr. Atkinson says that surveillance systems, like any tool - especially law-enforcement tools like guns - can be potentially abused. But he adds that in a cost-benefit analysis, they are a cheap, efficient way to keep tabs on public spaces, which is a police officer's duty anyway.

"Put it this way: If we had the money, we could put a cop in every station," he says. "How is that different from a video surveillance system?"

Some say it is. They argue that the cameras are too impersonal yet simultaneously too intrusive. But critics and proponents agree that the issue is not really a question of equipment. It's the policy associated with the technology.

There is "a very thorny issue on what your policies and procedures are going to be when it comes to monitoring," says Mr Riley of RAND. "If departments are smart, they're going to get out in front of this, because sooner or later they're behind it, and that's not a good place to be if you're making policy."

Page: 1 | 2