WASHINGTON --
Civil libertarians complain that assaults on privacy are
multiplying faster than they can predict them.
Only a year ago, privacy advocates were warning that law
enforcement agencies by 2005 would be installing new
sophisticated "face-recognition" cameras in public
locations to identify criminal suspects and terrorists.
Guess what? They're already in place in Tampa, Fla. -- tested
without notice on the last Super Bowl crowd. Now, Virginia Beach
also plans to activate them.
The digital snapshots -- given mathematical likeness ratings
based on facial contours -- are instantly scanned for salient
facial features and matched with computer database photos of
known criminals. Some cities already have less-sophisticated
video surveillance cameras at major intersections.
Pouring millions into research on the emerging technology:
the Justice Department (finding missing children); the Pentagon
(identifying potential enemies, even in the dark); and the
National Security Agency (intelligence).
Also previously forecast for mid-decade: a proliferation of
speed-triggered hidden cameras at municipal intersections to
catch unsuspecting red light runners, photograph them and ticket
them by mail.
Guess what? Proliferation has come and gone. That advanced
photo technology is being used in 57 cities and urbanized
counties in 12 states and the District of Columbia. Several
other big cities will have them installed by winter. Other
states are considering legislation to permit them.
Proponents say the red light cameras -- first used 15 years
ago in New York -- save hundreds of lives and dramatically
reduce intersection accidents. Critics like House Majority
Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, an increasingly vocal privacy
advocate, claim it is an intrusive moneymaking scheme. He
contends many cities have shortened the yellow light duration by
a second or two to trap motorists.
Indeed, corner cameras are lucrative. The District of
Columbia has collected $9 million from its cameras and expects
$7 million more by the end of the year. In San Diego, where the
camera system has ended up in a court test, $22.8 million has
been collected over three years.
Boss looking over your shoulder?
Is your boss suspicious of your computer use? Thinks you may
be loafing, accessing porno Web sites or making fun of
management? Does your spouse wonder to whom you're e-mailing?
Welcome to the Brave New World of computers.
Codex Data Systems now markets a clever little doodad about
the size of a Double-A battery that clips onto your keyboard
cable and preserves your last 65,000 keystrokes. KeyKatch costs
about $100, takes fewer than 10 seconds to install, requires no
external power source, can be removed easily and can be read out
on another computer -- all while surreptitiously peeking over
your shoulder.
"It does not get accidentally discovered because it's
out of sight and provides no signal that can be detected,"
says James Ross, head of Privacy and Security 2001, a Manassas,
Va., technology newsletter. "The organization spying on you
needs only to bribe someone in the cleaning crew to replace the
one on your computer every night."
Coming next? An even smaller version of the device that can
transmit keystrokes digitally in real time on an FM radio wave
to some interested snooper at a "listening post" who
will be able to read your incriminating rhetoric as you type it.
Privacy issue everywhere
The privacy issue now permeates daily life -- little horror
stories of a genre once unknown to Americans, daily grist for
the media.
The FBI predicts more than a half-million stolen identities
this year.
It now is virtually impossible to guarantee protection of
your Social Security number -- a national identification device
that never was intended to be one.
A Connecticut rental car company recently used GPS -- the
Global Positioning System that employs satellites to pinpoint
location -- to track customers exceeding the speed limit, then
-- under the rubric of safety -- charged them heavily for each
"violation." (The ensuing outcry ended the practice,
at least temporarily.)
The motor vehicles department in Colorado -- until Gov. Bill
Owens delayed it -- planned on using the new
"face-recognition" technology to scan drivers' license
photos into a database that could be compared with a national
file of criminal mug shots. West Virginia is developing a
similar plan.
"The big technologies are being rolled out without any
policy debate, or any discussion about what procedures should
govern use of these things, or any consideration of what
personal rights are being captured," laments David Sobel,
general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
probably the most influential of the advocacy groups in
Washington, D.C. "There are no legal guidelines on the use
of these systems. In the meantime, technology is marching
on."
Big Brother Inc.
Sobel fears that rather than worrying about Big Brother, as
civil liberties lawyers fretting about government collection of
data did for the last half-century, we should be concerned with
Big Brother Inc., the voracious sweeping of personal data by
private companies.
"What about those supermarket shopping cards?" he
asks. "What is presented to people is that you get 20 cents
off on a particular item in return for allowing the store to
scan your card and keep track of your purchases. People think
that's a fair trade-off, but what if that information is sold
five years later to an insurance company and their health
insurance is denied because of the specifics of their diet? Most
people would say 'no, that's not fair.'
"The truth is, once any of these problems are captured
in a database, you don't really know what's going to happen. ...
There's going to be a company interested in making a decision
about you based on that kind of information."
The problem comes up almost daily on Capitol Hill. Sen.
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
brought it up recently at confirmation hearings for Robert S.
Mueller III to head the FBI.
Leahy said he realizes the FBI has a necessary function of
surveillance in keeping track of criminals, but added, "We
also have to protect one's sense of privacy. I think Americans
would be surprised at how little privacy they have."
Catching on
Well, maybe. But Americans seem to be catching on.
A recent Gallup Poll released by The American Banker
publication showed 62 percent of 1,001 heads of households
surveyed are concerned that their primary financial institution
may release their personal information without permission. Even
more surprising: 28 percent of men and 18 percent of women
believe a bank at some time has "violated their personal
privacy."
The high-tech "face-recognition" program is certain
to spawn more controversy. In Tampa, the system identified 19
wanted criminals attending Super Bowl XXXV, but cops said they
were too busy with the huge crowd to make arrests.
Now Tampa has installed the system in its lively 16-block
nightlife center, Ybor City, where the product of 36 subtly
placed cameras will be compared with a stored computer database
of 30,000 criminals' mug shots. Early "matches" turned
out inaccurate.
No matter. The police, and many citizens, insist the
technology will prove a boon against crime. But the topic has
produced some rare political bedfellows. The American Civil
Liberties Union calls face-recognition systems "high-tech
racial profiling," and the liberal group is backed by Armey,
the conservative House majority leader, who warns of future
"virtual lineups" of innocent Americans.
Proponents insist it all is perfectly legal, because the
streets and stadiums in question are, by definition, public.
Others disagree.
Princeton attorney Grayson Barber, writing in the current
issue of the New Jersey Law Journal, contends "in fact,
there is a constitutional right to be anonymous on a public
street."
Barber cites a 1983 Supreme Court decision, Kolender v.
Lawson, that government could not require people to provide
"credible and reliable" identification, "even if
they are loitering and wandering on the streets."